TRO101 logo TRO101

2022-cv-03250

Pink Floyd (1987) Limited v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

法院：伊利诺伊州北法院
发案日期：2022-06-22
原告：PINK FLOYD (1987) LIMITED
代理律所：Keith
诉讼类型：商标
# Date Description
[+] 1 2022-06-22 COMPLAINT filed by Pink Floyd (1987) Limited; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-19583365.
2 2022-06-22 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Pink Floyd (1987) Limited Schedule A to Complaint (1)
3 2022-06-22 CIVIL Cover Sheet
4 2022-06-22 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Pink Floyd (1987) Limited by Keith A. Vogt
5 2022-06-22 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Pink Floyd (1987) Limited by Yanling Jiang
6 2022-06-22 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Pink Floyd (1987) Limited by Yi Bu
[+] 7 2022-06-22 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Pink Floyd (1987) Limited by Adam Grodman
8 2022-06-22 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Pink Floyd (1987) Limited
9 2022-06-22 MOTION by Plaintiff Pink Floyd (1987) Limited for leave to file under seal
10 2022-06-22 MOTION by Plaintiff Pink Floyd (1987) Limited for leave to file excess pages
[+] 12 2022-06-22 MEMORANDUM in support of [11] Exparte Motion
13 2022-06-22 SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Pink Floyd (1987) Limited Sealed Exhibit 2, Declaration of Thomas Schlegel regarding memorandum in support of motion, [12]
[+] 14 2022-06-23 MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA.
15 2022-07-06 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion 9 for leave to file under seal, motion 10 for leave to file excess pages, and ex parte motion 11 for a temporary restraining order and other relief are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (including the Declarations of Thomas Schlegel and Keith A. Vogt (Dkt. 12, 13)) 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 for now file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal and appearing at docket entries 2, 11 and 13. The Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall also be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motions cited above, Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). Specifically, and as noted above, were defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, it is likely assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating Plaintiff's interests in identifying defendants, stopping Defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining an equitable accounting. In addition, the Court finds, at least for now on this limited and one-sided record and without prejudice to revisiting the issue, that it has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because they directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have sold products using infringing and counterfeit versions of Plaintiff's trademarks to residents of Illinois. The evidence presented to the Court also shows that Plaintiff has demonstrated 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. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to Defendants. As this Court and others have noted, there may be reason to question both the propriety of the joinder of all Defendants in this one action and whether plaintiff will pursue an accounting (which Plaintiff asserts as justification for an asset freeze), but at this preliminary stage, the court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendants and to implement the asset freeze. If any defendant appears and objects, the court will reconsider the asset freeze and joinder. Enter Sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Mailed notice
[+] 16 2022-07-06 SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/6/2022.
17 2022-07-13 SURETY BOND in the amount of $ 10,000 posted by Pink Floyd (1987) Limited. (Document not scanned)
18 2022-07-18 MOTION by Plaintiff Pink Floyd (1987) Limited for extension of time for Temporary Restraining Order
19 2022-07-20 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's Motion to extend the temporary restraining order 18 is granted. Enter separate order. Mailed notice
20 2022-07-20 ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/20/2022. Mailed notice
21 2022-07-29 MOTION by Plaintiff Pink Floyd (1987) Limited for preliminary injunction
[+] 22 2022-07-29 MEMORANDUM by Pink Floyd (1987) Limited in support of motion for preliminary injunction 21
[+] 23 2022-07-29 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Pink Floyd (1987) Limited as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 7/29/2022, answer due 8/19/2022.
24 2022-08-02 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion 21 for entry of a preliminary injunction. In connection with that motion, which is entered and continued, Plaintiff must forthwith serve all Defendants with the following statement: "The Court has taken the motion for a preliminary injunction under advisement and will consider the motion unopposed if no Defendant appears and objects on or before 8/9/2022." Plaintiff must file proof of service of the Court's statement within two business days of service. For the reasons stated in the Court's orders entering and extending the TRO, as well as in Plaintiff's earlier motion 18 to extend the TRO, the TRO is further extended to and including the date on which the Court adjudicates the motion for a preliminary injunction. See H-D Mich., LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827, 843-45 (7th Cir. 2012). Because this extension exceeds the maximum duration for a TRO under FRCP 65(b), this extension "becomes in effect a preliminary injunction that is appealable, but the order remains effective." Id. at 844. Mailed notice
25 2022-08-02 CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Pink Floyd (1987) Limited regarding order on motion for preliminary injunction, terminate deadlines and hearings, set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings, 24
26 2022-08-12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction [21] is granted. Plaintiff's filings establish that Plaintiff has acted expeditiously to protect its interests and that there remains a significant risk Defendants will transfer relevant assets beyond the Court's reach. For these reasons, as well as the reasons provided in the whole of Plaintiff's filings and as stated by the Court in connection with entry of the TRO, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction. In addition, the Court finds that the balance of harms favors Plaintiff and that a preliminary injunction serves the public interest by, among other things, protecting consumers from the marketing of counterfeit goods. Plaintiff has also certified and established [25] that it provided electronic notice to defendants of the pendency of this case and provided a link to a website containing relevant case documents, but, despite the Court having provided [24] the opportunity to do so, no Defendant has objected to the motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to ensure that all defendants listed on Schedule A are added to the docket within five business days. The Clerk is requested to unseal any previously-sealed documents. Mailed notice
27 2022-08-12 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 8/12/2022. Mailed notice
[+] 28 2022-08-15 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs
29 2022-08-22 MOTION by Plaintiff Pink Floyd (1987) Limited for default judgment as to The Defendants Identified In The First Amended Schedule A
[+] 30 2022-08-22 MEMORANDUM by Pink Floyd (1987) Limited in support of motion for default judgment[29]
31 2022-08-23 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion [29] for entry of default and default judgment against all Defendants. All remaining defendants have failed either to plead or to otherwise appear to defend against this action. Accordingly, default is entered under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any objections to the motion for entry of default judgment must be filed on or before 9/1/2022. If no objections are filed by that date, the court will consider the motion unopposed. Plaintiff must serve this minute order upon all remaining Defendants within two business days of its entry on the docket and must file proof of service within three business of service being effected. Mailed notice
32 2022-08-24 CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Pink Floyd (1987) Limited regarding text entry, 31
33 2022-08-29 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs
34 2022-10-31 ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 10/31/2022. The ten-thousand-dollar ($10,000) surety bond posted by Pink Floyd (1987) Limited. is hereby released to Pink Floyd (1987) Limited. or its counsel, Keith Vogt, Ltd. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the surety bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court to Keith Vogt, Ltd. 33 West Jackson Boulevard, #2W Chicago, Illinois 60604. via certified mail. Enter final judgment order. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice
35 2022-10-31 FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 10/31/2022. Mailed notice
[+] 36 2022-11-01 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs
37 2022-11-16 RETURN of U.S. Post Office Receipt, article no. 7019 2280 0000 0963 1927.
38 2025-05-22 SATISFACTION of Judgment as to defendant no. 175 cozyroomer Store