TRO101 logo TRO101

2025-cv-12455

Lin v. Hong Kong Xunling Limited D/B/A HTSRTE

法院：伊利诺伊州北法院
发案日期：2025-10-10
原告：Wumei Lin
代理律所：Bayramoglu
诉讼类型：版权
# Date Description
[+] 1 2025-10-10 COMPLAINT filed by XYZ Corporation; JURY DEMAND. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24189012.
[+] 2 2025-10-10 EXHIBIT by Plaintiff XYZ Corporation EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT regarding complaint 1
3 2025-10-10 CIVIL Cover Sheet
[+] 4 2025-10-10 MOTION by Plaintiff XYZ Corporation to seal PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND PROCEED UNDER PSYDUNEM
5 2025-10-13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff XYZ Corporation by Joshua Howard Sheskin
6 2025-10-13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff XYZ Corporation by Joseph Wendell Droter
7 2025-10-13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff XYZ Corporation by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn
8 2025-10-13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff XYZ Corporation by Nazly Aileen Bayramoglu
[+] 9 2025-10-13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff XYZ Corporation by Nihat Deniz Bayramoglu
10 2025-10-14 MAILED Copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC
11 2025-10-15 MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: This case has been assigned to Judge LaShonda A. Hunt. On 10/10/25, Plaintiff, proceeding anonymously, commenced this case by filing a redacted complaint 1 along with an unredacted complaint 2, Schedule A [2-1], copyright information [2-2], and evidence of alleged infringement [2-3] under seal. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to file under seal and proceed under pseudonym [sic] 4. First, upon review of the copyright infringement complaint and other filings, the Court questions whether Plaintiff has established sufficient grounds for joinder of all 24 defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. See Viking Arm AS v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,No. 24 C 1566, 2024 WL 2953105 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Indeed, Plaintiff filed a form complaint with generic allegations about coordinated counterfeiting activity between 24 defendants without any details whatsoever, which arguably violates the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Accordingly, by 10/22/25, Plaintiff must file either a memorandum explaining why joinder is proper or an amended complaint specifically naming and identifying each defendant being sued and setting forth with more than conclusory statements the alleged infringing activity. Failure to do so will result in the current complaint being dismissed without prejudice and this case being closed. Second, Plaintiff has not established good cause under Local Rule 26.2 or Seventh Circuit precedent to justify sealing the names of defendants or documents pertaining to alleged infringing activity. "Secrecy makes little sense if the goal of the litigation is to protect rightholders' IP interests by obtaining an injunction against defendants' sales of infringing or counterfeit goods." See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 25 C 2937, 2025 WL 2299593 at *7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025) (Kness, J.). More importantly, this presumption of sealing runs counter to the well-established authority of this Circuit holding that "[m]any a litigant would prefer that the subject matter of a case. be kept from the curious (including its business rivals and customers), but the tradition that litigation is open to the public is of very long standing." See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has further failed to establish exceptional circumstances which would support its request to proceed under a pseudonym. As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "We have repeatedly voiced our disfavor of parties proceeding anonymously, as anonymous litigation runs contrary to the rights of the public to have open judicial proceedings and to know who is using court facilities and procedures funded by public taxes. To proceed anonymously, a party must demonstrate exceptional circumstances that outweigh both the public policy in favor of identified parties and the prejudice to the opposing party that would result from anonymity." Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 376-77 (7th Cir. 2016); see also Doe v. Loyola Univ. Chicago, 100 F.4th 910, 913 (7th Cir. 2024). The fact that alleged infringers track Counsel's firm to "avoid enforcement and liability," as Plaintiff argues, is far from an exception circumstance. Accordingly, all of Plaintiff's future filings must disclose Plaintiff's identity. The Clerk is directed to (1) update the docket and case caption to reflect that Plaintiff's name is "Wumei Lin," and (2) unseal the documents filed at 2, [2-1], [2-2], and [2-3]. Mailed notice (gel,)
12 2025-10-15 MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: This case has been assigned to Judge LaShonda A. Hunt. On 10/10/25, Plaintiff, proceeding anonymously, commenced this case by filing a redacted complaint 1 along with an unredacted complaint 2, Schedule A [2-1], copyright information [2-2], and evidence of alleged infringement [2-3] under seal. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to file under seal and proceed under pseudonym [sic] 4. First, upon review of the copyright infringement complaint and other filings, the Court questions whether Plaintiff has established sufficient grounds for joinder of all 24 defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. See Viking Arm AS v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,No. 24 C 1566, 2024 WL 2953105 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Indeed, Plaintiff filed a form complaint with generic allegations about coordinated counterfeiting activity between 24 defendants without any details whatsoever, which arguably violates the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Accordingly, by 10/22/25, Plaintiff must file either a memorandum explaining why joinder is proper or an amended complaint specifically naming and identifying each defendant being sued and setting forth with more than conclusory statements the alleged infringing activity. Failure to do so will result in the current complaint being dismissed without prejudice and this case being closed. Second, Plaintiff has not established good cause under Local Rule 26.2 or Seventh Circuit precedent to justify sealing the names of defendants or documents pertaining to alleged infringing activity. "Secrecy makes little sense if the goal of the litigation is to protect rightholders' IP interests by obtaining an injunction against defendants' sales of infringing or counterfeit goods." See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 25 C 2937, 2025 WL 2299593 at *7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025) (Kness, J.). More importantly, this presumption of sealing runs counter to the well-established authority of this Circuit holding that "[m]any a litigant would prefer that the subject matter of a case. be kept from the curious (including its business rivals and customers), but the tradition that litigation is open to the public is of very long standing." See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has further failed to establish exceptional circumstances which would support its request to proceed under a pseudonym. As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "We have repeatedly voiced our disfavor of parties proceeding anonymously, as anonymous litigation runs contrary to the rights of the public to have open judicial proceedings and to know who is using court facilities and procedures funded by public taxes. To proceed anonymously, a party must demonstrate exceptional circumstances that outweigh both the public policy in favor of identified parties and the prejudice to the opposing party that would result from anonymity." Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 376-77 (7th Cir. 2016); see also Doe v. Loyola Univ. Chicago, 100 F.4th 910, 913 (7th Cir. 2024). The fact that alleged infringers track Counsel's firm to "avoid enforcement and liability," as Plaintiff argues, is far from an exception circumstance. Accordingly, all of Plaintiff's future filings must disclose Plaintiff's identity. The Clerk is directed to (1) update the docket and case caption to reflect that Plaintiff's name is "Wumei Lin," and (2) unseal the documents filed at 2, [2-1], [2-2], and [2-3]. Mailed notice (gel,)
[+] 13 2025-10-15 AMENDED complaint by XYZ Corporation against The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A Hereto
14 2025-10-16 MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: In light of Plaintiff's filing of the amended complaint 13, the Clerk is directed to update the docket and case caption to reflect that Defendant is "Hong Kong Xunling Limited D/B/A HTSRTE." By 11/6/25, Plaintiff is ordered to file a status report proposing next steps in this case, if no other appropriate relief has not been sought by that date. Mailed notice (gel,)
15 2025-11-06 STATUS Report IN COMPLIANCE WITH DOCKET NO. 14 by Wumei Lin
[+] 16 2025-11-06 MOTION by Plaintiff Wumei Lin to expedite DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO FRCP 45
17 2025-11-06 NOTICE of Motion by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn for presentment of motion to expedite[16] before Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt on 11/25/2025 at 10:00 AM.
18 2025-11-07 MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery [16] is granted. The Court finds that expedited discovery is warranted to obtain Defendant's contact information. Enter Order Authorizing Expedited Discovery. The motion hearing set for 11/25/25 [17] is stricken. If no other relief has been sought, Plaintiff is ordered to file a status report by 12/1/25 updating the Court on the progress of expedited discovery and proposed next steps in the case. Mailed notice
19 2025-11-07 ORDER Authorizing Expedited Discovery signed by the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt on 11/7/2025. Mailed notice
20 2025-12-01 STATUS Report IN COMPLIANCE WITH DOCKET NO. 18 by Wumei Lin
[+] 21 2025-12-01 MOTION by Plaintiff Wumei Lin for service by publication PURSUANT TO FRCP 4(f)(3)
22 2025-12-01 NOTICE of Motion by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn for presentment of motion for service by publication, [21] before Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt on 12/17/2025 at 10:00 AM.
23 2025-12-03 MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service [21] is granted. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it is an effective way to communicate with online marketplace defendants. Enter Order Authorizing Electronic Service of Process. Motion hearing set for 12/17/25 [22] is stricken. A status report regarding next steps is due by 1/6/26, if other appropriate relief has not been sought by that date. Mailed notice (gel,)
24 2025-12-03 ORDER AUTHORIZING ELECTRONIC SERVICE Signed by the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt on 12/3/2025. Mailed notice (gel,)
[+] 25 2025-12-08 SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) HONG KONG XUNLING LIMITED D/B/A HTSRTE by Plaintiff Wumei Lin
26 2025-12-09 SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) HONG KONG XUNLING LIMITED D/B/A HTSRTE by Plaintiff Wumei Lin
27 2025-12-10 SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant Hong Kong Xunling Limited
[+] 28 2025-12-11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Wumei Lin as to Hong Kong Xunling Limited on 12/11/2025, answer due 1/2/2026.
29 2025-12-31 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 12/31/2025: Mailed notice.
30 2026-01-05 STATUS Report IN COMPLIANCE WITH DOCKET NO. 23 by Wumei Lin
[+] 31 2026-01-05 MOTION by Plaintiff Wumei Lin for entry of default AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT
32 2026-01-05 NOTICE of Motion by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn for presentment of motion for entry of default, [31] before Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt on 1/14/2026 at 10:00 AM.
33 2026-01-07 MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Plaintiff's motion for default and default judgment [31] is granted in part as to the request for entry of default. Plaintiff has shown that Defendant Hong Kong Xunling Limited D/B/A HTSRTE was served on 12/11/25, and failed to plead or otherwise defend this action by 1/5/26 [28]. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), default is entered against Defendant. Plaintiff's motion is entered and continued as to the request for entry of a default judgment. Any objections to the motion for entry of default judgment are due by 1/14/26. If no objections are filed by that date, the Court will consider the motion unopposed. Plaintiff must serve a copy of this order on Defendant within one business day of entry and promptly file proof of such service. The motion hearing set for 1/14/26 [32] is stricken. Mailed notice (gel,)
[+] 34 2026-01-08 CERTIFICATE of Service by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn on behalf of Wumei Lin regarding order on motion for entry of default, terminate deadlines, [33]
35 2026-01-21 MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment. Accordingly, the motion [31] 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 copyright irreparably harms Plaintiff and confuses the public. Considering the value of Plaintiff's brand as well as the need to deter infringement that is easily committed and difficult to stop, the Court agrees that the requested $5,000 is an appropriate award of statutory damages against Defendant. However, enhanced damages are not warranted because Plaintiff has not met its burden of establishing the requisite level of willfulness to warrant that additional relief. Failure to participate in the litigation, standing alone, is not enough. See, e.g., Kenall Mfg. Co. v. Cooper Lighting, LLC, 723 F. Supp. 3d 640, 656 (N.D. Ill. 2024) ("[T]o establish willfulness, a patentee must show that the accused infringer had a specific intent to infringe at the time of the challenged conduct."). Enter Final Judgment Order. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (gel,)
36 2026-01-21 DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt on 1/21/2026. Mailed notice (gel,)
37 2026-01-22 MAILED Copyright report with certified copy of minute order dated 1/21/2026 to Registrar, Washington DC