HB Feeder, LLCv. The Partnerships Identified On Schedule A
最近更新时间：2025-06-26
案件信息
案件号：ilnd-1:2025-cv-01355
状态：open
提交时间：2025-06-10 00:00:00
诉讼类型：商标+版权
律所：SULLIVAN & CARTER, LLP
原告：HB Feeder, LLCv. The Partnerships Identified On Schedule A
| # | 日期 | 案件进程 |
| 61 | 2025-06-10 | MAILED original ten-thousand-dollar ($10,000) surety bond 32, posted by Alison K. Carter Sullivan & Carter LLP., 111 W. Jackson Blvd. Ste. 1700 Chicago, IL 60604, via certified mail # 9589 0710 5270 0579 7834 00. |
| 60 | 2025-06-04 | DEFAULT Judgment Order. Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 6/4/2025. Mailed notice. |
| 59 | 2025-06-04 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Motion hearing held on Plaintiff's renewed motion for default judgment 57 on 6/4/2025. Despite proper service, none of the Defendants identified in the accompanying order have appeared in response to the complaint, to object to the motion for default, or otherwise. Accordingly, and for the reasons explained in the accompanying order, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion 57 for entry of default and default judgment as to the Defendants identified in the accompanying Amended Schedule A. Enter Default Judgment Order. All matters in dispute now having been resolved, the case is closed. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. |
| 58 | 2025-05-30 | MOTION by Plaintiff HB Feeder, LLC for entry of default as to all remaining Defendants |
| 57 | 2025-04-23 | PRELIMINARY Injunction Order. Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 4/23/2025. Mailed notice. |
| 56 | 2025-04-23 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Motion hearing held on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction [35]. Defendants failed to appear and failed to otherwise object in response to the TRO or Plaintiff's motion. Accordingly, and based upon the same findings made in this Court's TRO [28], this Court finds that a preliminary injunction is appropriate and warranted, as well as unopposed and grants Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction [35]. Enter Preliminary Injunction Order. The Court directs the Clerk to unseal any previously sealed documents in this matter. Plaintiff's counsel shall add Defendants to the Court's docket within three business days. Plaintiff may find instructions at https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_cmecf/pdfs/v60/Add_Terminate_Instructions.pdf. Plaintiff shall file a status report by 5/30/25 proposing next steps to advance the case. Mailed notice. |
| 55 | 2025-04-16 | MEMORANDUM by HB Feeder, LLC in support of motion for preliminary injunction 35 |
| 54 | 2025-04-16 | SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A |
| 53 | 2025-04-16 | MOTION by Plaintiff HB Feeder, LLC for preliminary injunction |
| 52 | 2025-04-16 | (Declaration of Ann Marie Sulivan) |
| 51 | 2025-04-16 | NOTICE of Motion by Gouthami Vanam Tufts for presentment of motion for preliminary injunction 35 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 4/23/2025 at 11:00 AM. |
| 50 | 2025-04-16 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by HB Feeder, LLC as to The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A on 4/16/2025, answer due 5/7/2025. |
| 49 | 2025-04-16 | Exhibit 1 |
| 48 | 2025-04-16 | Exhibit 2 |
| 47 | 2025-04-16 | Exhibit 3 |
| 46 | 2025-04-16 | (Exhibit 4) |
| 45 | 2025-04-16 | Declaration of Service |
| 44 | 2025-04-07 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants Plaintiff's ex parte motion 29 to extend the temporary restraining order entered 3/25/25 28. The Court finds that good cause exists to extend the temporary restraining order, and the order is hereby extended an additional fourteen days, to 4/22/25. The 4/9/25 Notice of Motion date is stricken. Mailed notice. |
| 43 | 2025-04-02 | Supplement Memorandum in support of motion |
| 42 | 2025-04-02 | MOTION by Plaintiff HB Feeder, LLC for extension of time for Temporary Restraining Order |
| 41 | 2025-04-02 | (Declaration of Alison K. Carter) |
| 40 | 2025-04-02 | NOTICE of Motion by Gouthami Vanam Tufts for presentment of extension of time 29 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 4/9/2025 at 11:00 AM. |
| 39 | 2025-03-25 | SEALED Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 3/25/2025. Mailed notice. |
| 38 | 2025-03-25 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint, seeking to sue seven separate defendants for copyright infringement, see 17, 18. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single copyright 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). In this regard, Plaintiff alleges that joinder remains proper because "Plaintiff's right to relief stems from the same series of transactions or occurrences, and questions of law and/or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action" and because, on information and belief, "the Seller Aliases included in the Schedule A are operated by the same individual and/or entity." 17 at 5, 6. Although these allegations are conclusory, Plaintiff alleges additional facts and provides evidentiary support to bolster these conclusions. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' Internet Stores "share numerous unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between Defendants, and suggesting that Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and that "even though Defendants operate under multiple fictitious names, there are numerous similarities among the Defendant Internet Stores, including, but by no means limited to: (1) virtually identical layouts, even though different aliases were used to register the respective online marketplace accounts; (2) similarities of the Infringing HBF Products, and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the illegal products were manufactured by and come from a common source and that, upon information and belief, Defendants are interrelated; and, (3) other notable common features such as use of similar business names, same e-commerce platform to sell the same infringing product, infringing on the exact same intellectual property through the exact same product IDs, i.e., product listing, use of the same shipping address to ship infringing products, use of identical shipping materials and means, use of the same product brochure, identically or similarly priced items, and the use of the same text and images." Id. 11, 25. And the screenshot evidence attached to Plaintiff's submissions shows both that Defendants are using the same stock photographs on their websites, see 19 at 9-12, and that they are using at least one of Plaintiff's copyrighted photographs. As a result, Plaintiff may proceed on its second amended complaint 17 against the seven identified Defendants, see 18, and the Court grants Plaintiff's motions for electronic service of process 24 and for a temporary restraining order 21. Enter Order. Absent further order, this temporary restraining order will expire 4/8/25. The 3/26/25 Notice of Motion date is stricken. Mailed notice. |
| 37 | 2025-03-20 | (Exhibit 2) |
| 36 | 2025-03-20 | NOTICE of Motion by Gouthami Vanam Tufts for presentment of motion for temporary restraining order 21, motion for miscellaneous relief 24 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 3/26/2025 at 11:00 AM. |
| 35 | 2025-03-20 | (Exhibit 1-2) |
| 34 | 2025-03-20 | Declaration of Ann Marie Sulivan |
| 33 | 2025-03-20 | MEMORANDUM by HB Feeder, LLC in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 24 for electronic service of process |
| 32 | 2025-03-20 | MOTION by Plaintiff HB Feeder, LLC for electronic service of process |
| 31 | 2025-03-20 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff HB Feeder, LLC Exhibit 3 |
| 30 | 2025-03-20 | Exhibit 1 |
| 29 | 2025-03-20 | Declaration of Polly McNichols |
| 28 | 2025-03-20 | MEMORANDUM by HB Feeder, LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order 21 |
| 27 | 2025-03-20 | MOTION by Plaintiff HB Feeder, LLC for temporary restraining order |
| 26 | 2025-03-20 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by HB Feeder, LLC |
| 25 | 2025-03-20 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff HB Feeder, LLC Exhibit 3 |
| 24 | 2025-03-20 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff HB Feeder, LLC Exhibit 2-Schedule A |
| 23 | 2025-03-20 | (Exhibit 1) |
| 22 | 2025-03-20 | Second AMENDED complaint by HB Feeder, LLC against The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A |
| 21 | 2025-03-05 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has submitted an amended complaint 12 and attached copyright registrations covering certain photographs of bird feeders (not the bird feeders themselves), see [12-1]. But the registrations themselves do not include the covered photographs; Plaintiff included photographs in a separate chart, not attached to the registrations, [12-1] at 2. Before the Court will allow Plaintiff to proceed on its amended complaint, which seeks to hold defendants liable for using copyrighted pictures to sell products here that are not themselves protected, Plaintiff must provide the Court with the copyrighted photographs included within each registration so that the Court can assess the sufficiency of Plaintiff's allegations and the propriety of joinder. For now, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's amended complaint 12 without prejudice. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to seal 15 but reminds counsel that all motions must be noticed for presentment, or they will be stricken. Plaintiff shall file any further amended complaint by 3/31/25. Mailed notice. |
| 20 | 2025-03-03 | Exhibit 1 |
| 19 | 2025-03-03 | AMENDED complaint by HB Feeder, LLC against The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A |
| 18 | 2025-03-03 | MOTION by Plaintiff HB Feeder, LLC for leave to file Certain Documents Under Seal |
| 17 | 2025-02-18 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has initiated a copyright and trademark infringement case against 127 defendants and seeks to proceed, at least initially, via pseudonym. See 1, 2. Plaintiff also filed its complaint and supporting materials, as well as the "Schedule A" listing the named defendants under seal, 2, without seeking leave to do so. "No-name litigation is disfavored in general, and particularly in this Circuit." XYZ Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 21-CV-06471, 2022 WL 180151, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022). The Seventh Circuit has "repeatedly voiced its disfavor of parties proceeding anonymously, as anonymous litigation runs contrary to the rights of the public to have open judicial proceedings and to know who is using court facilities and procedures funded by public taxes. To proceed anonymously, a party must demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances' that outweigh both the public policy in favor of identified parties and the prejudice to the opposing party that would result from anonymity." Id. (citing Doe v. Vill. of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 37677 (7th Cir. 2016); Doe v. Smith, 429 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2005); Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997)). Here, Plaintiff simply filed its complaint using a pseudonym, without leave, and without any effort to justify the tactic. Yet, many cases just like this are filed every day in this District without anonymous plaintiffs, and the Court has no reason to think that the requested sealing order (which would prevent defendants from learning that they have been sued) remains insufficient by itself to alleviate any concerns Plaintiff may have about disclosing its identity. Because Plaintiff has failed to identify itself on any of the pending pleadings, the Court dismisses the complaint 1, 2 without prejudice. If Plaintiff elects to amend, it should ensure that its pleadings provide a factual and legal basis to join all defendants in a single suit (conclusory allegations will not suffice) and also support the exercise of personal jurisdiction as to each defendant; in this regard, the mere maintenance of a website, even a fully interactive website accessible in Illinois, remains insufficient. E.g., 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."). Mailed notice. |
| 16 | 2025-02-13 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff XYZ Corporation by Gouthami Vanam Tufts |
| 15 | 2025-02-11 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff XYZ Corporation by John Joseph Mariane, IV |
| 14 | 2025-02-10 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials |
| 13 | 2025-02-10 | MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
| 12 | 2025-02-10 | MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC |
| 11 | 2025-02-07 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff XYZ Corporation Complaint (Unredacted) |
| 10 | 2025-02-07 | COMPLAINT (Redacted) filed by XYZ Corporation; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23060343. |
| 9 | 2025-02-07 | Exhibit 1 |
| 8 | 2025-02-07 | Exhibit 2 |
| 7 | 2025-02-07 | (Exhibit 3 - Schedule A) |
| 6 | 2025-02-07 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 5 | 2025-02-07 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff XYZ Corporation by Alison K Carter |
| 4 | 2025-02-07 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). |
| 3 | 2025-02-07 | 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. |
| 2 | 2025-02-07 | MINUTE entry before the Executive Committee: Case reassigned to the Honorable John Robert Blakey for all further proceedings pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 294(b). Mailed notice. |
| 1 | 2025-02-07 | (Request for Reassignment) |
