|
[+]
1
|
2025-06-05 |
COMPLAINT filed by Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. ; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23582737. |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
Exhibit 2 |
|
|
Exhibit 3 |
|
|
Exhibit 4 |
|
|
Exhibit 5 |
|
2
|
2025-06-05 |
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. Schedule A regarding complaint[1] |
|
3
|
2025-06-05 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. for Leave to File Certain Documents Under Seal |
|
4
|
2025-06-05 |
CIVIL Cover Sheet |
|
5
|
2025-06-05 |
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. |
|
6
|
2025-06-05 |
Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. |
|
7
|
2025-06-05 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. by Martin Francis Trainor |
|
8
|
2025-06-05 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. by Sydney Paige Fenton |
|
[+]
9
|
2025-06-05 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. by Alexander Whang |
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Daniel P. McLaughlin. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
|
|
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
|
2025-06-09 |
MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. |
|
11
|
2025-06-09 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: On the Court's initiative, all pending motions are held in abeyance, and the case is stayed pending further order. This stay, which the Court is entering in other so-called "Schedule A" cases on its docket where requests for temporary restraining orders remain pending, is intended to permit the Court the opportunity to reassess its previous approach in Schedule A litigation involving Lanham Act, Copyright Act, and Patent Act claims typically brought on an ex parte basis against various online merchants. This reassessment will consider, among other things, whether: (1) ex parte proceedings are appropriate in these types of cases; (2) the routine sealing of parts or all of the docket is appropriate; (3) the routine granting of temporary restraining orders on an ex parte basis is a sound exercise of judicial discretion; (4) the routine granting of prejudgment asset restraints is a sound exercise of judicial discretion; and (5) the mass joinder of defendants is appropriate under the circumstances typically present in Schedule A cases. Plaintiff remains free, of course, to dismiss this action voluntarily if they wish to pursue their claims in another District, but no supplemental briefing on the pending motions may be filed absent advance leave of Court. Mailed notice. |
|
12
|
2025-08-14 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Subject to reconsideration, Plaintiff's motion to seal (Dkt. 3) is granted; the documents provisionally filed under seal may remain under seal for the time being. An in-person status hearing is set for 8/26/2025 at 2:00 p.m.; lead counsel must appear in person. In advance of the hearing, counsel should review the Court's opinion in Eicher Motors Limited v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, F. Supp. 3d, 2025 WL 2299593 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025). The 8/26 hearing will be stricken if Plaintiff elects to dismiss this action voluntarily. Mailed notice. |
|
13
|
2025-08-26 |
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. |
|
14
|
2025-08-26 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff has filed a "Notice of Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)" [13]. Because the Notice of Dismissal was filed before the opposing parties served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the case is dismissed without prejudice consistent with the terms of the Notice and by operation of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 587 (7th Cir. 2011) (Rule 41(a)(1)(A) notice of dismissal "is self-executing and effective without further action from the court"). Each party is to bear its own fees and costs. The hearing set for 8/26/2025 is stricken. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. |
|
15
|
2025-08-27 |
MAILED trademark report with order dated 8/26/2025 to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
