2025-cv-08625 +组团 近期案件➥ 订阅 被告名单
原告律所：Flener IP Law, LLC
品牌：BOB ROSS
小提示：专注TRO和解/应诉，需要起诉文件/被告名单/其他帮助可联系我们，微信右上角“···”可全文翻译/分享找队友/订阅可自动推送此案最新进展
微信扫码联系我们
| # | Date | Description |
| 28 |
02/18/2026
|
ENTERED JUDGMENT. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 27 |
02/19/2026
|
MAILED Trademark report with certified copy of minute order dated 2/18/2026 to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA 翻译 |
| 26 |
02/18/2026
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: On 1/6/26, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's second amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction, but granted Plaintiff leave to amend by 1/29/26. See [22]. At that time, the Court warned Plaintiff that if it declined to amend, the case would be dismissed. Id. Yet, to date, Plaintiff has not amended its complaint or otherwise communicated with the Court. As a result, consistent with the Court's prior order [22], this case is dismissed. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 25 |
01/06/2026
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff's supplemental status report [20] confirms that the assertion of personal jurisdiction rests solely upon Plaintiff's test buys. And that is not sufficient. See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) (the plaintiff "cannot be the sole link between a defendant and the forum."); Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 802 (7th Cir. 2014), as corrected (May 12, 2014) ("The relation between the defendant and the forum 'must arise out of contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum State.'"). As a result, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's second amended complaint without prejudice. If Plaintiff can amend to allege facts supporting personal jurisdiction, it may do so by 1/29/26. If Plaintiff declines to amend, the Court will dismiss this case. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 24 |
12/31/2025
|
ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/31/2025: Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 23 |
11/20/2025
|
SUPPLEMENT to order on motion for leave to file, terminate deadlines and hearings, [19] Pursuant to the Court's Order 翻译 |
| 22 |
11/14/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on 8/15/25, see [15], [16], which names just one defendant and thus avoids joinder issues. Before Plaintiff may proceed, however, it must file a supplemental report confirming whether it has previously named any of the 250 defendants identified in this case in a prior case asserting infringement of the same trademark. See Julie Stiebritz v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 1:25-cv-03459, at [19] (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2025) (dismissing the case because plaintiff previously named defendants in a prior case and dismissed them to avoid an unfavorable joinder ruling, which constitutes forum shopping). In its supplemental report, Plaintiff shall also explain the basis for personal jurisdiction. The second amended complaint alleges that, "Defendant directly reaches out to do business with Illinois residents by operating at least one interactive e-commerce store that sells counterfeit products infringing Plaintiff's federally registered trademarks directly to Illinois consumers, and has in fact sold at least one such product to a consumer in Illinois." [16] at 2. But this allegation does not by itself support the exercise of personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) ("the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum"); Expeditee LLC v. Entities Listed on Exhibit 1, No. 21 C 6440, 2022 WL 1556381, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2022) ("Plaintiff claims that, as part of its preliminary investigation, it purchased infringing products from the Moving Defendants that the Moving Defendants shipped to Chicago. Such sales on their own are insufficient for the purposes of personal jurisdiction, for Plaintiff has not identified evidence of any transactions involving an allegedly counterfeit product between the Moving Defendants and Illinois customers, other than the 'test buys.'"). Plaintiff shall file the supplemental report by 11/20/25. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to seal [14]. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 21 |
11/10/2025
|
STATUS Report by BR, Inc. 翻译 |
| 20 |
11/03/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff shall file a status report by 11/10/25 proposing next steps to advance this case. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 19 |
08/15/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff BR, Inc. Unredacted Second Amended Complaint 翻译 |
| 18 |
08/15/2025
|
Second AMENDED complaint by BR, Inc. against John Doe 翻译 |
| 17 |
08/15/2025
|
NEW PARTIES: John Doe added to case caption. Terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A 翻译 |
| 16 |
08/15/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff BR, Inc. for leave to file Renewed Motion For Leave Documents Under Seal 翻译 |
| 15 |
08/06/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff's initial complaint sued 250 separate defendants for trademark infringement, among other claims, see [1], [5]. Once the case was assigned to this Court, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which targets 15 separate defendants, see [11], [12]. Still, joinder of multiple defendants in a single trademark infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). Plaintiff's complaint lumps all defendants together and alleges that the "Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as similar design elements of the infringing product offered for sale and, on information and belief, these similarities suggest that the Defendant Internet Stores share common manufacturing sources, thus establishing the Defendants' counterfeiting and infringing operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and that the "Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as common design elements, the same or similar counterfeit products that they offer for sale, similar counterfeit product descriptions, the same or substantially similar shopping cart platforms, accepted payment methods, check-out methods, lack of contact information, and identically or similarly priced counterfeit products and volume sale discounts. In addition, based on evidence, Defendants' products appear to originate from the same manufacturer, further indicating that their illegal operations arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. As such, the Defendant Internet Stores establish a logical relationship between them and suggest that Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same transaction or occurrence." [12] 4, 13, 19. The allegations remain conclusory, and the Court thus need not accept them. Moreover, setting up online shops in the same manner does not necessarily indicate relatedness. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 188-89 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the propriety of joining all defendants in this lawsuit and dismisses Plaintiff's amended complaint. To the extent Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, further amend its complaint to allege facts to support the joinder of the 15 named defendants, it may do so by 8/27/25. If Plaintiff fails to comply, the Court will dismiss this case. If Plaintiff elects to amend its complaint, it should also consider its allegations relating to personal jurisdiction as to each Defendant; the mere maintenance of a website accessible in Illinois remains insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Am. Bridal & Prom Indus. Ass'n, Inc. v. The Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 192 F. Supp. 3d 924, 93435 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (simply alleging the existence of purported counterfeiting via an interactive website is not enough, by itself, to confer personal jurisdiction); Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) ("Having an interactive website. should not open a defendant up to personal jurisdiction in every spot on the planet where that interactive website is accessible."); Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 20-CV-5338, 2021 WL 825668, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (screenshot evidence showing that an order could be placed by an Illinoisan, "amounts to nothing more than maintaining an interactive website that is accessible in Illinois," and "that alone cannot confer personal jurisdiction."). The Court grants Plaintiff's motions to seal [4], [10] but reminds counsel that all motions must be noticed for presentment. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 14 |
08/05/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff BR, Inc. Unredacted Amended Complaint 翻译 |
| 13 |
08/05/2025
|
Redacted AMENDED complaint by BR, Inc. against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A Redacted 翻译 |
| 12 |
08/05/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff BR, Inc. for leave to file Amended Motion to File Documents Under Seal 翻译 |
| 11 |
08/04/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff BR, Inc. by Zareefa Burki Flener 翻译 |
| 10 |
08/04/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff BR, Inc. by Ying Chen 翻译 |
| 9 |
07/31/2025
|
MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials 翻译 |
| 8 |
07/31/2025
|
MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA 翻译 |
| 7 |
07/25/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff BR, Inc. Unredacted Complaint 翻译 |
| 6 |
07/25/2025
|
CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. 翻译 |
| 5 |
07/25/2025
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). 翻译 |
| 4 |
07/25/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff BR, Inc. for leave to file documents under seal 翻译 |
| 3 |
07/25/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff BR, Inc. by James Edward Judge 翻译 |
| 2 |
07/25/2025
|
CIVIL Cover Sheet 翻译 |
| 1 |
07/25/2025
|
COMPLAINT filed by BR, Inc.; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23797396. 翻译 |