最近更新：2024-12-25
2023-cv-05944
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 05/16/2024 | FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani on 5/16/2024. Mailed notice |
| 05/16/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: No remaining defendant has responded to plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment. Accordingly, the motion 39 is granted. Based on the evidence previously submitted by plaintiff and the admission of liability by virtue of the default, plaintiff has established that a permanent injunction should be entered. The infringement of plaintiff's marks irreparably harms plaintiff and confuses the public. This infringement was willful and statutory damages are awarded. After considering the nature of the products, the price point, the absence of any concrete evidence of lost profits or high-volume infringement by defendants (plaintiff has failed to seek an accounting of profits), the value of plaintiff's brand, and the need to deter infringement that is easily committed and difficult to stop, the Court concludes that $50,000 is an appropriate award of statutory damages. Plaintiff has also certified and established 43 that it provided electronic notice to defendants of the objection deadline, but no objection to the motion for entry of default judgment has been filed on behalf of any defendant. Because no default judgment hearing has been requested, the default judgment hearing tentatively set for 5/21/2024 is stricken. Enter separate Final Default Judgment Order. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice |
| 04/30/2024 | CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB regarding terminate hearings, set/reset hearings, 42 附件： 1:(Exhibit A) |
| 04/30/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Before the Court is plaintiff's motion 39 for entry of default and default judgment against all remaining defendants. All remaining defendants have failed either to plead or to otherwise appear to defend against this action. Accordingly, an order of default is entered under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any objections to the motion for entry of default judgment must be filed on or before 5/7/2024. If no objections are filed by that date, the Court will consider the motion unopposed. The Court will also rule on the papers unless a hearing is requested by 5/7/2024. A hearing, to be conducted via teleconferencing, may be requested by filing a Request for Hearing as a separate entry on the docket. Plaintiff must serve this minute order upon all remaining defendants within one business day of its entry on the docket and must promptly file proof of that service. A tentative default hearing is set for 5/21/2024 at 9:15 a.m. Status hearing set for 5/9/2024 is stricken. Mailed notice |
| 04/26/2024 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 40 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 04/26/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment, 39 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 04/26/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB for entry of default as to all Defendants, MOTION by Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB for default judgment as to all Defendants 附件： 1:(Exhibit A) |
| 04/16/2024 | CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB regarding set/reset hearings, 37 附件： 1:(Exhibit A) |
| 04/26/2024 | NEW PARTIES: Chameleon Outdoor Sports Glasses Store, Explorer Optical Shop Store, Global Outdoor Equipment Store Store, High You Up Store, Outdoor Sports Eyes Flagship Store Store, Sunvit Glasses Store, WileyX Sunglasses Store, XG Outdoor Store, bestshop2023 store, bestsunglasses2020 store, fashion_love520 store, pingyida store, pingyida001 store, pydbusiness store, sanweiyu9588 store, sevenhouse store, sky868 store, sunglasses_belts store, sunglasses_x store and sunglasses05 store added to case caption. |
| 04/16/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: This case has been reassigned to the calendar of Judge Sunil R. Harjani. Upon review of the docket, the deadline to file a joint initial status report of April 26, 2024 34 is stricken. Any motion for entry of default and default judgment shall be filed on or before 4/26/2024. Plaintiff must serve this minute order upon all remaining defendants within one business day of its entry on the docket and must promptly file proof of that service. A telephone status is set for 5/9/2024 at 9:15 a.m. Members of the public and media will be able to call in to listen to this hearing but will be placed on mute. The call-in number is (855) 244-8681 and the access code is 172 628 1276##. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Mailed notice |
| 04/02/2024 | EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: GENERAL ORDER 24-0008: IT APPEARING THAT, the civil cases on the attached list have been selected for reassignment to form the initial calendar of the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani; therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the attached list of 290 cases be reassigned to the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties affected by this Order must review the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani's webpage on the Court's website for the purpose of reviewing instructions regarding scheduling and case management procedures; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any civil case that has been reassigned pursuant to this Order will not be randomly reassigned to create the initial calendar of a new district judge for twelve months from the date of this Order; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to add the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani to the Court's civil case assignment system during the next business day, so that he shall receive a full share of such cases; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to add the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani to the Court's criminal case assignment system ninety (90) days so that Judge Harjani shall thereafter receive a full share of such cases. Case reassigned to the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani for all further proceedings. Honorable Steven C. Seeger no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 4/02/2024. |
| 02/29/2024 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB as to certain defendant |
| 02/05/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The deadline to file an initial status report is extended to April 26, 2024. Mailed notice |
| 01/18/2024 | STATUS Report pursuant to 25 by Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB |
| 01/18/2024 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 1/18/2024, answer due 2/8/2024. 附件： 1:Declaration of Thomas J. Juettner 2:(Exhibit A) |
| 12/28/2023 | 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 Executive Committee on 12/28/2023: Mailed notice. |
| 12/22/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The motion to withdraw as attorney (Dckt. No. 29) is granted. Attorney Jake Michael Christensen is terminated as counsel of record. Mailed notice. |
| 12/21/2023 | MOTION by Attorney Jake M. Christensen to withdraw as attorney for Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB. No party information provided |
| 12/20/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The deadline to file an initial status report is extended to February 5, 2024. Mailed notice. |
| 12/19/2023 | SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| 12/19/2023 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB by Berel Yonathan Lakovitsky |
| 12/14/2023 | ORDER Signed by the Honorable Steven C. Seeger on 12/14/2023.Mailed notice |
| 12/12/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Dckt. No. [12]) is hereby denied. Plaintiff's motion to withdraw the request for a TRO (Dckt. No. [23]) is hereby granted. The Court authorizes discovery so that Plaintiff can learn Defendant's identity. Plaintiff must file a status report by January 18, 2024. Mailed notice |
| 11/22/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal (Dckt. No. 3) is hereby denied. Plaintiff asks this Court for leave to file under seal the list of Defendants identified in the so-called Schedule A to the complaint (which lists the online seller names and their URLs). Plaintiff also asks this Court to seal related material supporting the request for a temporary restraining order. There is a strong presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. "Secrecy in judicial proceedings. is disfavored." Mueller v. Raemisch, 740 F.3d 1128, 1135 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Mitze v. Saul, 968 F.3d 689, 692 (7th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (noting that "a strong presumption exists in favor of publishing dispositional orders"); Duff v. Cent. Sleep Diagnostics, LLC, 801 F.3d 833, 844 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that "secrecy in judicial proceedings is generally disfavored"). "Documents that affect the disposition of federal litigation are presumptively open to public view, even if the litigants strongly prefer secrecy, unless a statute, rule, or privilege justifies confidentiality." In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010). Documents that "influence or underpin the judicial decision are open to public inspection unless they meet the definition of trade secrets or other categories of bona fide long-term confidentiality." Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Lab'ys, 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000) ("Even disputes about claims of national security are litigated in the open."). A party who wants to depart from that longstanding tradition, and litigate in secret, must carry a heavy burden. Plaintiff does not come close to doing so here. Plaintiff's explanation for the request for secrecy is rather terse. "Sealing this portion of the file is necessary to prevent the Defendants from learning of these proceedings prior to the execution of the temporary restraining order. If Defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence and the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions, which would frustrate the purpose of the underlying law and would interfere with this Court's power to grant relief." See Mtn. to Seal (Dckt. No. 3) That's the same cut-and-paste boilerplate offered in countless Schedule A cases, often word for word. Plaintiff gives no concrete reason to think that Defendants would destroy documents in this particular case. As a practical matter, Defendants typically don't produce documents in Schedule A cases anyway, because almost all of them fail to participate in the suit and eventually get tagged with a default judgment. The simple reality is that defendants in Schedule A cases tend to be foreign sellers who do not produce documents at all, so sealing a case to protect documents is likely to be a moot point. Also, the possibility of document destruction is not much of a basis for sealing documents in the short term, because Plaintiff apparently plans to move to unseal the documents after serving the TRO. The possibility of transferring assets offshore isn't much of a reason to proceed in secret in a Schedule A case, either. Filing an ex parte motion for a TRO, under seal, does make sense in certain types of cases. For example, the SEC often seeks a TRO to lock down assets that do not rightfully belong to the defendants (e.g., by suing a fraudster who holds investors' money). In those cases, the SEC often files a motion for a TRO under seal, and rightly so. Making the request under seal makes sense in those cases, because the alleged fraudster could dissipate the investors' assets if the fraudster learns about the lawsuit. Locking down the assets, without giving the fraudster a heads-up, helps to protect investors and preserve the possibility of obtaining meaningful equitable relief at the end of the case. A motion to seal often makes sense when the plaintiff seeks an asset freeze to secure the potential recovery of future equitable relief. Secrecy is sometimes necessary to preserve the possibility of obtaining equitable relief at the end of the case. But in Schedule A cases, the plaintiffs' bar typically seeks remedies at law, such as statutory damages, not equitable monetary relief. The request for a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity, affects the calculus when it comes to an asset freeze. The Supreme Court has made clear that courts lack the power to issue an asset freeze at the beginning of a case, unless that party is seeking equitable monetary relief. See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999). In Grupo Mexicano, the Supreme Court held that a district court has "no authority to issue a preliminary injunction preventing [a defendant] from disposing of their assets pending adjudication of [plaintiff's] contract claim for money damages." Id. at 333. The Supreme Court adhered to the long-standing rule that "a judgment establishing the debt was necessary before a court of equity would interfere with the debtor's use of his property." Id. at 321. "[A]s a general matter [] prejudgment asset restraints are not proper simply to establish a fund from which a later award of money damages can be satisfied." See Banister v. Firestone, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. 2018). An equitable restraint at the outset of the case might be doable if a plaintiff requested and received equitable monetary relief at the end of the day, like an accounting of profits. See Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2013 WL 12314399 (N.D. Ill. 2013). But as a practical matter, in Schedule A cases, that recovery almost never happens. Schedule A plaintiffs typically don't request and receive equitable relief. Instead, Schedule A plaintiffs rush into court, request and receive an asset freeze, obtain a default judgment, and then ask district courts to unfreeze the money and award statutory damages, not equitable relief. In that scenario, it is not clear to this Court that it would be appropriate to use any frozen funds for any recovery of statutory damages, because statutory damages are a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity. Truth be told, the Schedule A plaintiffs' bar asks district courts in this district to lock down assets through an asset freeze on day one of a case, and do so under seal. And then, at the end of the case, Schedule A plaintiffs receive a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity, which means that there was no justification for an asset freeze in the first place. Putting it all together, this Court might entertain a request to file under seal if Plaintiff were seeking an asset freeze that this Court could grant, meaning an asset freeze for the limited purpose of allowing equitable relief down the road. But in the case at hand, Plaintiff has not made a showing that it will seek equitable monetary relief at the end of the case, so there is no basis for an asset freeze now. And if there is no basis for an asset freeze now, then there is no reason to proceed under seal now. If you can't freeze it, you can't seal it. Mailed notice |
| 10/16/2023 | MOTION by Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB for Withdrawal of Request for Temporary Injunction |
| 10/12/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process (Dckt. No. 17 is hereby granted. Mailed notice |
| 08/30/2023 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials. |
| 08/30/2023 | MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. |
| 08/25/2023 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 18 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:(Exhibit 2) |
| 08/25/2023 | MEMORANDUM by Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 17 |
| 08/25/2023 | MOTION by Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) |
| 08/25/2023 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB Exhibit 2 regarding declaration 15 |
| 08/25/2023 | DECLARATION of Jason Groppe regarding memorandum in support of motion 13 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 08/25/2023 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 13 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:Exhibit 2 3:Exhibit 3 4:(Exhibit 4) |
| 08/25/2023 | MEMORANDUM by Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB in support of motion for temporary restraining order 12 |
| 08/25/2023 | MOTION by Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB for temporary restraining order Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery |
| 08/23/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by December 22, 2023. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. |
| 08/23/2023 | 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. |
| 08/23/2023 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. Case assignment: Random assignment. |
| 08/23/2023 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB by Thomas Joseph Juettner |
| 08/23/2023 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB by Jake Michael Christensen |
| 08/23/2023 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB by Amy Crout Ziegler |
| 08/23/2023 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB by Justin R. Gaudio |
| 08/23/2023 | Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB |
| 08/23/2023 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB |
| 08/23/2023 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 08/23/2023 | MOTION by Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB for leave to file under seal |
| 08/23/2023 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB Schedule A regarding complaint[1] |
| 08/23/2023 | COMPLAINT filed by Future Eyewear Group Sweden AB ; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-20962064. 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:Exhibit 2 3:Exhibit 3 4:Exhibit 4 |
案件最新进展，来源于美国联邦法院，下载文件请联系 18523047090 微信同号
被告名单文件：部分原告会选择隐匿发案，或者对提交的文件进行密封处理，因此包括被告信息在内的相关文件不会在前期公开（一般PI阶段左右才会公开）。
诉状：诉状通常包括原被告的基本信息、侵权行为、侵权类型，以及诉讼请求，如确认侵权、下架侵权产品、请求赔偿等，这个文件起诉就可以下载
案件每天自动更新，未及时更新的可点击 案件名称旁边 更新 按钮
