#	Date	Description
[+] 1	2025-07-31	COMPLAINT filed by Yu Wang; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23820483.
		Exhibit 1
		Exhibit 2
		(Exhibit 3)
2	2025-07-31	SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Yu Wang Trademark Registration regarding complaint 1
3	2025-07-31	SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Yu Wang Schedule A regarding complaint 1
4	2025-07-31	SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Yu Wang Genuine Listing regarding complaint 1
5	2025-07-31	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Yu Wang by Zhiwei Hua
[+] 6	2025-07-31	CIVIL Cover Sheet
		CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Beth W. Jantz. 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.
7	2025-08-01	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: The plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging infringement by 73 defendants. This case follows a pattern common to "Schedule A" cases where plaintiffs allege that defendants employ similar methods and "work in active concert" to infringe plaintiffs' intellectual property. But experience has shown that not all defendants named in a Schedule A case work together. More importantly, experience has shown that joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 is rarely appropriate in Schedule A cases. See, e.g., Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 9401, Dkt. 27 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2024). Accordingly, the Court raises the propriety of joinder and requires the plaintiff to file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder on or before August 15, 2025. Alternatively, by the same date, the plaintiff may file an amended complaint naming one or more defendants; however, if the plaintiff names multiple defendants, the plaintiff must show that joinder of those defendants is proper. All pending motions are hereby stayed pending resolution of the joinder issue. Further, should the plaintiff (1) file an amended complaint naming fewer defendants in this case, (2) file a separate complaint naming one or more of the remaining defendants originally named in this case, and (3) assert the same claims against those defendants, the Court reminds the plaintiff of Local Rule 40.3(b)(2), which requires the plaintiff to indicate the number of the this case and the name of the judge to whom it was assigned. Mailed notice
[+] 8	2025-08-06	MEMORANDUM by Yu Wang in support to Joinder
		Exhibit 1 Schedule B part 1
		Exhibit 2 Schedule B part 2
		Exhibit 3 Schedule B part 3
		Exhibit 4 Schedule B part 4
		Exhibit 5 Schedule B part 5
		Exhibit 6 Schedule B part 6
		Exhibit 7 Schedule B part 7
		Exhibit 8 Schedule B part 8
		Exhibit 9 Schedule B part 9
		(Exhibit 10 Schedule B part 10)
9	2025-08-11	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: This case is dismissed for misjoinder. The dismissal is without prejudice. The plaintiff argues that all of defendants' alleged infringing conduct arises out of the same transaction or occurrence because the defendants use the same platform and sales mechanism, sell identical products, misuse the plaintiff's mark, and identify the same manufacturer of their products. The reasoning set forth in Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 9401, Dkt. 27 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2024) covers the first three issues. As for the defendants listing the same manufacturer on their respective websites, that only suggests a common supplier. Contrary to the plaintiff's suggestion, it does not show coordinated distribution. More importantly, it does not trace back to a common transaction or occurrence. At best, it alleges a series of parallel infringements by separate defendants. The Court notes that the plaintiff mentions that the wallets are all identical in design, (R. 8 at 3), but it is unclear whether the plaintiff has ordered each defendants' product. Thus, when the plaintiff argues that the "infringing wallets are identical in design," the Court understands that to mean that the photographs of the accused products show wallets that are identical in design. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice.
10	2025-08-11	ENTERED JUDGMENT. Mailed notice.