2025-cv-12667 +组团 近期案件➥ 订阅
原告律所：Flener Ip And Business Law
品牌：Shotgun Roulette 轮盘开瓶器
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 |
| 15 |
11/12/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: The motion for a temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction, a temporary asset restraint, expedited discovery, and alternative service [11] is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted in that the Court will enter a temporary injunction and permit Plaintiff to serve Defendants by alternative means. The motion is denied without prejudice in three respects. First, the Court will not enter an asset restraint at this stage. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants use copyrighted photographs of Plaintiff's product to confuse consumers into buying Defendants' products thinking that they are Plaintiff's. As Plaintiff acknowledges, it is only entitled to Defendants' profits that are "attributable" to the infringement. See Bell v. Taylor, 827 F.3d 699, 710 (7th Cir. 2016) (a plaintiff has the burden to show "a causal nexus between the infringement and the gross revenues"). But Plaintiff does not explain how the profits from the sale of products that do not themselves infringe on any of the copyrights at issue are attributable to the use of the copyrighted photographs. The Seventh Circuit has expressed skepticism regarding whether a plaintiff can ever show a causal nexus between copyright infringement and the sale of non-infringing goods. See Eagle Servs. Corp. v. H2O Indus. Servs., Inc., 532 F.3d 620, 623 (7th Cir. 2008) ("It is doubtful that profits from the sale of noninfringing goods or services. can be attributed to a copyright infringement with enough confidence to support a judgment."); see also Hong Kong Leyuzhen Tech. Co. Ltd. v. Schedule A, No. 25-cv-05945, Dkt. 21 (N.D. Ill.) (denying asset restraint because the sale of clothing was tangential to the unauthorized use of photos of the clothing that formed the basis of the copyright claim); Zhao v. BABIQIU, No. 23 C 4507, 2025 WL 36213, at *79 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2025) (plaintiff did not show that profits from defendants' fire extinguisher sales were directly attributable to the use of her video in the product listings). Plaintiff may renew its motion for an asset restraint explaining why such a restraint is appropriate in this case in light of the aforementioned case authority. Second, the Court will not permit expedited discovery because that request is limited to the discovery of financial accounts in order to freeze them, and the Court is denying the request for an asset restraint. Third, Plaintiff's request for a $10,000 bond is denied. Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order against 18 defendants. See R. 9-2 (amended Schedule A). The Court presumptively requires a bond of $1,000 per defendant in multi-defendant infringement cases. The asserted "strong and unequivocal nature of Plaintiff's evidence of infringement" does not make an $18,000 bond inappropriate. Plaintiff is to submit a revised proposed temporary restraining order consistent with this order. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 14 |
11/05/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: The Court requires that any motion for a temporary restraining order and/or asset freeze is accompanied by a declaration from an attorney of record that provides the following information. First, to demonstrate the immediate harm necessary to grant the drastic remedy of an ex parte temporary restraining order, the declaration must confirm that each named defendant has sold or offered to sell the allegedly infringing product(s) within the last two months and describe the evidence supporting this confirmation. Generally, evidence that a defendant has sold or offered to sell the infringing products within the last two months may include: (1) screenshots of the listings collected within the last two months; (2) screenshots older than two months with an attestation that the listings reflected in the screenshots have been checked within the last two months and were active; or (3) evidence of a purchase by a customer in Illinois within the last two months. Second, as relevant to personal jurisdiction, without which any temporary restraining order or asset freeze would be invalid, the declaration must confirm that each named defendant sold at least one allegedly infringing product to a customer in Illinois and describe the evidence supporting this confirmation. Here, "sold" means that the defendant accepted an order and payment for an allegedly infringing product to be shipped to Illinois. Third, to assure that Court that the rights of defendants who have not yet been served are being appropriately protected, the declaration must identify the case number(s) and assigned judge(s) for any pending case(s) brought by the plaintiff(s) against any of the named defendants, noting whether the intellectual property at issue was the same or different than in this case. If it is the same, the declaration should describe the disposition of the other case. The Court will address any motion for a temporary restraining order only after receipt of the described declaration, which can be filed contemporaneously with the motion. Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff also makes a motion for expedited discovery or for an order permitting electronic service of process, Plaintiff should submit a proposed order for that relief that is separate from the proposed order for the TRO and asset restraint. The proposed order for the TRO and asset restraint should name the relevant defendants directly in the order, without reference to Schedule A. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 13 |
11/04/2025
|
SEALED MOTION by Plaintiff GT LLC for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, Expedited Discovery, and Alternative Service 翻译 |
| 12 |
10/31/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Renewed motion for leave to file documents under seal [7] is granted. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 11 |
10/30/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff GT LLC Unredacted Amended Complaint 翻译 |
| 10 |
10/30/2025
|
AMENDED complaint by GT LLC against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A 翻译 |
| 9 |
10/30/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff GT LLC for leave to file Documents Under Seal 翻译 |
| 8 |
10/17/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Motion for leave to file documents under seal 4 is granted. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 7 |
10/17/2025
|
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 |
| 6 |
10/17/2025
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Keri L. Holleb Hotaling. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). 翻译 |
| 5 |
10/16/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff GT LLC Unredacted Complaint 翻译 |
| 4 |
10/16/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff GT LLC for leave to file documents under seal 翻译 |
| 3 |
10/16/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff GT LLC by Ying Chen 翻译 |
| 2 |
10/16/2025
|
CIVIL Cover Sheet 翻译 |
| 1 |
10/16/2025
|
COMPLAINT filed by GT LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24209905. 翻译 |