最近更新：2025-01-19
2024-cv-10822
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 01/17/2025 | MOTION by Defendant KHC SHOP to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order and Oppose Preliminary Injunction |
| 01/17/2025 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant KHC SHOP by Casey Ann Hewitt |
| 01/16/2025 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 1/16/2025, answer due 2/6/2025. 附件： 1:Exhibit A 2:Declaration of Lucas A. Peterson |
| 01/16/2025 | DECLARATION of Trevor C. Talhami regarding memorandum in support of motion[27] |
| 01/16/2025 | MEMORANDUM by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. in support of motion for preliminary injunction 26 |
| 01/16/2025 | MOTION by Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. for preliminary injunction 附件： 1:Exhibit A |
| 01/14/2025 | SURETY BOND in the amount of $10,000 posted by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (Document not scanned) |
| 01/10/2025 | SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| 01/08/2025 | Registry Deposit Information Form by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. |
| 01/08/2025 | SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 1/8/2025. |
| 01/08/2025 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal [Dkt. 3], ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order [Dkt. 13], and motion for electronic service of process [Dkt. 18] are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions [(e.g., Dkt. 16, 17)] establish that, were Defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of Plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that Defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. Accordingly, subject to unsealing at an appropriate time, Plaintiff may for now file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal and appearing at docket entries [2] and [17]. The Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall also be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motions cited above, the Court holds, dubitante, that Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). (This holding is subject to reconsideration in future "Schedule A" cases.) Specifically, and as noted above, were Defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, it is likely assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating Plaintiff's interests in identifying Defendants, stopping Defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining the equitable accounting that, at this point, Plaintiff states that it may pursue. These facts justify, among other relief, the imposition of a prejudgment asset restraint against Defendants in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per separate account. In addition, the Court finds, at least for now on this limited and one-sided record and without prejudice to revisiting the issue, that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have sold products using infringing and counterfeit versions of Plaintiff's trademarks to residents of Illinois. The evidence presented to the Court also shows that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois), that the harm to Plaintiff is irreparable, and that an injunction is in the public interest. An injunction serves the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by counterfeit/infringing goods, and there is no countervailing harm to Defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to Defendants. As several judges have previously noted, there may be reason to question both the propriety of joining all Defendants in this one action and whether Plaintiff will pursue an accounting (which Plaintiff asserts as justification for an asset freeze), but at this preliminary stage, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify Defendants and to implement the asset freeze. If any Defendant appears and objects, the Court will reconsider the asset freeze and joinder. Enter sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Mailed notice. |
| 12/27/2024 | 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 12/27/2024: Mailed notice. |
| 10/31/2024 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 19 附件： 1:(Exhibit 2) 2:Exhibit 1 |
| 10/31/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 18 |
| 10/31/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) |
| 10/31/2024 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. Exhibit 3 Parts 1-2 regarding declaration 16 附件： 1:(Exhibit 3-2) 2:Exhibit 3-1 |
| 10/31/2024 | DECLARATION of Teena Bohi regarding memorandum in support of motion 14 附件： 1:(Exhibit 2) 2:Exhibit 1 |
| 10/31/2024 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 14 附件： 1:(Exhibit 4) 2:Exhibit 2 3:Exhibit 1 4:Exhibit 3 |
| 10/31/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order 13 |
| 10/31/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery |
| 10/22/2024 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials. |
| 10/22/2024 | MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. |
| 10/21/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. by Lucas Allen Peterson |
| 10/21/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. by Trevor Christian Talhami |
| 10/21/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. by Amy Crout Ziegler |
| 10/21/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. by Justin R. Gaudio |
| 10/21/2024 | Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. |
| 10/21/2024 | 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. |
| 10/21/2024 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. |
| 10/21/2024 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Beth W. Jantz. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| 10/21/2024 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 10/21/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. for leave to file under seal |
| 10/21/2024 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. Schedule A regarding complaint[1] |
| 10/21/2024 | COMPLAINT filed by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22631814. 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:Exhibit 2 3:Exhibit 3 4:Exhibit 4 |
