最近更新：2025-01-17
2025-cv-00085
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 01/14/2025 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: In this trademark infringement suit, Plaintiff seeks to sue 250 separate defendants, see [1], [8]. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single trademark 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, the complaint, which lumps all Defendants together, alleges, in a conclusory manner, that "Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the counterfeit 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] 4. But the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the alleged facts; it is equally possible that each online retailer set up shop in the same or similar manner. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 188-89 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Plaintiff also alleges that "numerous similarities among the Defendants' Internet Stores" exist; for example, "some of the Defendants' websites have identical layouts, even though different aliases were used to register their respective online marketplace accounts. In addition, the counterfeit products for sale in the Defendants' Internet Stores bear similarities and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the counterfeit products were manufactured by a common source and that Defendants are interrelated. The Defendants' Internet Stores also include other notable common features, including use of the same online marketplace account registration patterns, unique shopping cart platforms, similar payment and check-out methods, meta data, illegitimate SEO tactics, HTML user-defined variables, domain redirection, 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. 23. Again, the allegations are conclusory, and Plaintiff has offered nothing to show that the Defendants' products and websites are so alike that their conduct constitutes a single occurrence. The Court accordingly finds that Plaintiff may not proceed on the current complaint [1] and dismisses it without prejudice. If Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to support the joinder of the identified Defendants in this single action, it may do so by 1/31/25. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to seal [7] and Plaintiff may file any amended complaint under seal. The 1/15/25 Notice of Motion date is stricken. Mailed notice. |
| 01/07/2025 | MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. |
| 01/06/2025 | NOTICE of Motion by Michael A. Hierl for presentment of motion to seal document 7 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 1/15/2025 at 11:00 AM. |
| 01/06/2025 | 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. |
| 01/06/2025 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| 01/06/2025 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Blujay Studios, Inc. |
| 01/06/2025 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Blujay Studios, Inc. Sealed Schedule A |
| 01/06/2025 | MOTION by Plaintiff Blujay Studios, Inc. to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal |
| 01/06/2025 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Blujay Studios, Inc. by John Wilson |
| 01/06/2025 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Blujay Studios, Inc. by Robert Payton Mcmurray |
| 01/06/2025 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Blujay Studios, Inc. by William Benjamin Kalbac |
| 01/06/2025 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Blujay Studios, Inc. by Michael A. Hierl |
| 01/06/2025 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 01/06/2025 | COMPLAINT filed by Blujay Studios, Inc.; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22911823. 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
