最近更新：2025-01-17
2024-cv-12180
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 12/20/2024 | 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 12/20/2024: Mailed notice. |
| 12/27/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff having declined to amend, the Court hereby dismisses this case. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. |
| 12/22/2024 | MAILED Copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC. 附件： 1:(List of Copyrights) |
| 12/10/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has filed a complaint which seeks to sue 43 separate defendants for copyright infringement in connection with three separate works, see [1], [1-1], [2]. 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 the Defendant Internet Stores "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. [1] 8, 10. Plaintiff also alleges that the "Infringing Products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores bear similarities and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the Infringing Products were manufactured by and come from a common source and that, upon information and belief, Defendants are interrelated. The Defendant Internet Stores also include other notable common features, including use of the same Defendant Internet Store registration patterns, unique shopping cart platforms, accepted payment methods, check-out methods, meta data, illegitimate SEO tactics, HTML user-defined variables, lack of contact information, identically or similarly priced items and volume sales discounts, similar hosting services, similar name servers, and the use of the same text and images. Id. 22. These allegations remain conclusory, and they are belied by the screenshot evidence submitted by Plaintiff, which shows that, although some of the sellers do appear to use identical layouts, reviews, descriptions, images, etc., many do not. For example, although a couple of the sellers offering one particular infringing product use the same photos, see, e.g., [8] at 7-13, and some of the sellers offering other infringing products use common, but different photos and display common reviews, see, e.g., [8] at 24-49, the submissions provide no basis to connect the two groups of sellers. Additionally, it appears that several of the seller's products may not even infringe Plaintiff's copyright, see, e.g., [8] at 84, 87; [8-1] at 56-70. These submissions thus undermine Plaintiff's allegations concerning joinder, and they also undermine any claimed likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint [1] and denies Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [6]. If Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to cure the defects discussed above, it may file an amended complaint by 12/24/24. The Court grants Plaintiff's motions to seal [5], [10] and denies as moot Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages [9]. The 12/11/24 Notice of Motion date is stricken as to all motions. If Plaintiff elects to amend its complaint, it should also bolster 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."). Mailed notice |
| 12/09/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Atelier Eumori by Stephen Jay Judge |
| 12/05/2024 | NOTICE of Motion by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr for presentment of motion for temporary restraining order[6], motion for leave to file excess pages[9], motion to seal document[10], motion to seal document[5] before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 12/11/2024 at 11:00 AM. |
| 12/05/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Atelier Eumori to seal document sealed document[8] |
| 12/05/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Atelier Eumori for leave to file excess pages |
| 12/05/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Atelier Eumori Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Plaintiff |
| 12/05/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Atelier Eumori in support of motion for temporary restraining order[6] 附件： 1:Declaration Declaration of David Gulbransen 2:Exhibit Exhibit 1 3:Declaration Declaration of Plaintiff |
| 12/05/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Atelier Eumori for temporary restraining order |
| 11/26/2024 | 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. |
| 11/26/2024 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). |
| 11/26/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Atelier Eumori to seal document sealed document[2] |
| 11/26/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Atelier Eumori by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr |
| 11/26/2024 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 11/26/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Atelier Eumori Schedule A to Complaint |
| 11/26/2024 | COMPLAINT filed by Atelier Eumori; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22773285. 附件： 1:Exhibit Exhibit 1 |
