#	Date	Description
[+] 1	2026-01-27	COMPLAINT filed by IN-N-OUT BURGERS; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24647645.
		Exhibit Schedule A
		Exhibit Index of Exhibits
		Exhibit 1-Registrations
		Exhibit 2-CBP Report
		Exhibit 3-Counterfeit Silk Road
		Exhibit 4-Northwestern Journal
		(Exhibit 5-DHS Report)
[+] 2	2026-01-27	MOTION by Plaintiff IN-N-OUT BURGERS to seal document
		(Exhibit Schedule A-Fully Redacted)
3	2026-01-27	SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff IN-N-OUT BURGERS Schedule A to Complaint
[+] 4	2026-01-28	MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA.
		CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. 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.
5	2026-01-28	ORDER: Local Rule 3.1 requires at the time of filing a case, plaintiff's counsel, or if the case is filed pro se, the plaintiff shall file with the original papers a completed designation sheet (civil cover sheet). No civil cover sheet was submitted at the time of filing this matter. IN-N-OUT BURGERS is directed to file the Civil Cover Sheet within 14 days of this notification. Signed by the Executive Committee.
6	2026-01-29	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Motion for leave to file under seal 2 is granted. Mailed notice.
7	2026-01-29	CIVIL Cover Sheet
8	2026-01-29	NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by IN-N-OUT BURGERS
9	2026-01-29	Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by IN-N-OUT BURGERS
10	2026-01-30	MOTION by Plaintiff IN-N-OUT BURGERS for temporary restraining order Including Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery
11	2026-01-30	MEMORANDUM by IN-N-OUT BURGERS in support of motion for temporary restraining order 10 Including Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery
[+] 12	2026-01-30	DECLARATION of Brian D. Wassom regarding motion for temporary restraining order 10, memorandum in support of motion 11
		Exhibit Index of Exhibits
		Exhibit 1-CBP Report
		Exhibit 2-Measuring the Magnitude of Global Counterfeiting
		Exhibit 3-BASCAP Report
		Exhibit 4-Counterfeits Filed Under Seal
		(Exhibit 5-Unpublished Cases)
13	2026-01-30	SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff IN-N-OUT BURGERS Exhibit 4-Counterfeits to Declaration of Brian Wassom
[+] 14	2026-01-30	DECLARATION of Joe Tadros regarding motion for temporary restraining order 10, memorandum in support of motion 11
		(Exhibit 1-Registrations)
15	2026-01-30	SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff IN-N-OUT BURGERS Sealed Temporary Restraining Order
16	2026-01-30	MOTION by Plaintiff IN-N-OUT BURGERSElectronic Service of Process
17	2026-01-30	MEMORANDUM by IN-N-OUT BURGERS in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 16 for Electronic Service of Process
[+] 18	2026-01-30	DECLARATION of Brian D. Wassom regarding motion for miscellaneous relief 16, memorandum in support of motion 17
		Exhibit Index of Exhibits
		Exhibit 1-Hague Convention on Service Abroad
		(Exhibit 2-Unpublished Cases)
19	2026-01-30	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: The Court requires that any motion for a temporary restraining order and/or asset freeze is accompanied by a declaration from an attorney of record that provides the following information. First, to demonstrate the immediate harm necessary to grant the drastic remedy of an ex parte temporary restraining order, the declaration must confirm that each named defendant has sold or offered to sell the allegedly infringing product(s) within the last two months and describe the evidence supporting this confirmation. Generally, evidence that a defendant has sold or offered to sell the infringing products within the last two months may include: (1) screenshots of the listings collected within the last two months; (2) screenshots older than two months with an attestation that the listings reflected in the screenshots have been checked within the last two months and were active; or (3) evidence of a purchase by a customer in Illinois within the last two months. Second, as relevant to personal jurisdiction, without which any temporary restraining order or asset freeze would be invalid, the declaration must confirm that each named defendant sold at least one allegedly infringing product to a customer in Illinois and describe the evidence supporting this confirmation. Here, "sold" means that the defendant accepted an order and payment for an allegedly infringing product to be shipped to Illinois. Third, to assure that Court that the rights of defendants who have not yet been served are being appropriately protected, the declaration must identify the case number(s) and assigned judge(s) for any pending case(s) brought by the plaintiff(s) against any of the named defendants, noting whether the intellectual property at issue was the same or different than in this case. If it is the same, the declaration should describe the disposition of the other case. The Court will address any motion for a temporary restraining order only after receipt of the described declaration, which can be filed contemporaneously with the motion. Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff also makes a motion for expedited discovery or for an order permitting electronic service of process, Plaintiff should submit a proposed order for that relief that is separate from the proposed order for the TRO and asset restraint. The proposed order for the TRO and asset restraint should name the relevant defendants directly in the order, without reference to Schedule A. Mailed notice.
[+] 20	2026-02-03	SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff IN-N-OUT BURGERS Supplemental Declaration of Brian Wassom ISO Motion for TRO
		(Exhibit A-Purchase)
21	2026-02-03	SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff IN-N-OUT BURGERS Sealed Temporary Restraining Order
22	2026-02-03	SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff IN-N-OUT BURGERS Sealed Order Granting Expedited Discovery and Electronic Service of Process
23	2026-02-04	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process 16 is granted. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, asset restraint, and expedited discovery 10 is granted in part and denied in part. The request for expedited discovery is granted. In its supplemental declaration 20, Plaintiff indicates that 28 of the 39 defendants have sold at least one allegedly infringing product to a customer in Illinois. Accordingly, the TRO and asset restraint are granted as to the 28 defendants that have sold products to customers in Illinois and denied as to the 11 defendants that have not because Plaintiff has not made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over these defendants. Additionally, Plaintiff's request to post a bond of no more than $10,000 is denied. The Court's practice is to require a $1,000 bond per restrained defendant and it sees no reason to deviate from this. Thus, Plaintiff shall post a $28,000 bond at this time. Plaintiff shall submit a revised proposed order consistent with this order. Mailed notice.
24	2026-02-04	SEALED ORDER Granting Expedited Discovery and Electronic Service of Process. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 2/4/2026. Mailed notice.