|
[+]
1
|
2026-04-29 |
COMPLAINT filed by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25050802. |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
Exhibit 2 |
|
|
Exhibit 3 |
|
|
Exhibit 4 |
|
|
(Exhibit 5) |
|
2
|
2026-04-29 |
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd Schedule A regarding complaint 1 |
|
3
|
2026-04-29 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd for Leave to File Certain Documents Under Seal |
|
4
|
2026-04-29 |
CIVIL Cover Sheet |
|
[+]
5
|
2026-04-29 |
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd |
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Laura K. McNally. 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. |
|
6
|
2026-04-29 |
Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd |
|
7
|
2026-04-29 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd by Martin Francis Trainor |
|
8
|
2026-04-29 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd by Alexander Whang |
|
[+]
9
|
2026-05-01 |
AMENDED complaint by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd against The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
Exhibit 2 |
|
|
Exhibit 3 |
|
|
Exhibit 4 |
|
|
(Exhibit 5) |
|
10
|
2026-05-01 |
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd Schedule A regarding amended complaint, 9 |
|
11
|
2026-05-05 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery |
|
[+]
12
|
2026-05-05 |
MEMORANDUM by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 11 |
|
|
Declaration of Martin F. Trainor |
|
|
(Exhibit 1) |
|
[+]
13
|
2026-05-05 |
DECLARATION of Andrew Masterson regarding memorandum in support of motion 12 |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
(Exhibit 2) |
|
[+]
14
|
2026-05-05 |
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd Exhibit 3, Parts 1-5 regarding declaration 13 |
|
|
Exhibit 3, Part 1 |
|
|
Exhibit 3, Part 2 |
|
|
Exhibit 3, Part 3 |
|
|
Exhibit 3, Part 4 |
|
|
(Exhibit 3, Part 5) |
|
15
|
2026-05-05 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) |
|
[+]
16
|
2026-05-05 |
MEMORANDUM by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 15 |
|
|
Declaration of Martin F. Trainor |
|
|
(Exhibit 1) |
|
17
|
2026-07-10 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings. The Court has reviewed plaintiff's filings and orders as follows. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal 3 is granted. Plaintiff's ex parte motion for temporary restraining order 11 is entered and continued. Plaintiff's motion for electronic service 15 is denied without prejudice for the following reasons. First, the Court notes that plaintiff appears to have presented evidence of completed purchases of the allegedly infringing products to customers in Illinois as to each defendant. (Dckt. #14). See Liu v. Monthly, 170 F.4th 1090 (7th Cir. 2026). However, plaintiff's motion for electronic service is denied in light of the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., 177 F.4th 793 (7th Cir. 2026). In Kangol, the Seventh Circuit held that the Hague Service Convention "prohibits service by email in China." Kangol, 177 F.4th at 801. The Court acknowledged, however, that the Convention does not apply if the defendant's address is unknown. Id. at 799. "[C]ourts handling Schedule A cases typically require plaintiffs to make 'reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify [the] defendant's mailing address' before deeming the defendant's address unknown." Id., quoting NBA Props., Inc. v. P'ships and Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified in Schedule "A", 549 F. Supp. 3d 790, 796 (N.D.Ill. 2021). Here, plaintiff has not made a proper showing that it has made reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify each defendants' mailing address. Indeed, plaintiff's counsel's declaration in support of such efforts includes only conclusory and generic assertions regarding the defendants listed in the Schedule A. (See e.g., Dckt. #16-1 ("Because e-commerce store operators can currently input any physical address, such addresses are usually false and/or are not where the e-commerce store operator is located. As such, even if a physical address is available, it is not as reliable as an e-mail address for providing notice to Defendants."). These "bare assertions regarding the reliability of Defendant[s]' publicly available address[es] are not a substitute for actual diligence." NBA Props., 549 F.Supp.3d at 796. Equally unhelpful are screenshots of maps for some defendants' apparent addresses with no substantive articulation of plaintiff's efforts to investigate the address or why it supports a finding that the address is unknown. As such, if plaintiff ultimately files a renewed motion for electronic service, it must outline the specific, diligent efforts taken to determine the physical address (and the outcome of those efforts) as to each defendant. Any such renewed motion shall be filed no later than 7/31/26. Tracking status hearing set for 8/28/26 at 9:00 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). Mailed notice |
|
18
|
2026-07-30 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) |
|
[+]
19
|
2026-07-30 |
MEMORANDUM by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 18 |
|
|
Declaration of Martin F. Trainor |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
Exhibit 2 |
|
|
(Declaration of Alexander Whang) |
|
20
|
2026-10-16 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service [18] is granted as plaintiff has demonstrated that it has made "'reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify [the] defendant's mailing address' before deeming the defendant's address unknown." Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., 177 F.4th 793, 799 (7th Cir. 2026), quoting NBA Props., Inc. v. P'ships and Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified in Schedule "A", 549 F. Supp. 3d 790, 796 (N.D.Ill. 2021). Plaintiff may effectuate service as set forth in the accompanying Order. Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction and a temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery [11] is granted. Plaintiff's submissions establish that, were defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. Accordingly, subject to unsealing at an appropriate time, plaintiff may file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal. The Temporary Restraining Order that will be being entered with this order will also be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motions cited above, plaintiff's filings support proceeding on an ex parte basis at this time. Specifically, and as noted above, were defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, the Court finds that it is likely that their assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating plaintiff's interests in identifying defendants, stopping defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining an accounting. In addition, the evidence submitted by plaintiff shows a likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois), that the harm to plaintiff is irreparable, and that an injunction is in the public interest. An injunction serves the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by counterfeit goods, and there is no countervailing harm to defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendants and to implement the asset freeze. Enter Sealed TRO and Service Order. The previously set 8/28/26 tracking status hearing is stricken and reset to 11/30/26 at 9:00 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). Mailed notice |
|
21
|
2026-10-16 |
SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings on 10/16/2026 |
|
22
|
2026-10-16 |
SEALED ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings on 10/16/2026 |
|
26
|
2026-10-20 |
SURETY BOND in the amount of $ 10,000.00 posted by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd |
|
23
|
2026-10-27 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd to Extend the Temporary Restraining Order |
|
[+]
24
|
2026-10-27 |
MEMORANDUM by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd in support of motion for miscellaneous relief[23] |
|
|
Declaration of Martin F. Trainor |
|
25
|
2026-10-29 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: Plaintiff's motion to extend the TRO [23] is granted. The TRO entered on 10/16/26 is extended to 11/13/26. Mailed notice. |
