TRO101 logo TRO101

2025-cv-13948

Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

法院:伊利诺伊州北法院
发案日期:2025-11-13
原告:Marc Jacobs Trademarks
代理律所:GBC
诉讼类型:商标
# Date Description
[+] 1 2025-11-13 COMPLAINT filed by Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC, Marc Jacobs International, LLC; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24344721.
2 2025-11-13 SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Marc Jacobs International, LLC, Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC Schedule A regarding complaint[1]
3 2025-11-13 SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Marc Jacobs International, LLC, Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC Exhibit 2 -- Part 1 regarding complaint[1]
4 2025-11-13 MOTION by Plaintiffs Marc Jacobs International, LLC, Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC for leave to file under seal
5 2025-11-13 CIVIL Cover Sheet
6 2025-11-13 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Marc Jacobs International, LLC, Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC
7 2025-11-13 Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Marc Jacobs International, LLC, Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC
[+] 8 2025-11-13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Marc Jacobs International, LLC, Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC by Justin R. Gaudio
9 2025-11-13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Marc Jacobs International, LLC, Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC by Amy Crout Ziegler
10 2025-11-13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Marc Jacobs International, LLC, Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC by Jennifer Van Nacht
11 2025-11-13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Marc Jacobs International, LLC, Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC by Hannah Alexa Abes
12 2025-11-14 MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA.
[+] 13 2025-11-17 AMENDED complaint by Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC, Marc Jacobs International, LLC against zhenhong666 and terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
14 2025-11-17 Notice of Withdrawal of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Under Seal by Marc Jacobs International, LLC, Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC
15 2025-11-18 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff initially filed a complaint seeking to sue 20 separate defendants in this single trademark infringement suit, see [1], [2]. Once the case was reassigned to this Court, however, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which names just one defendant, and thus avoids any joinder issues. See [13]. But before Plaintiff may proceed, it must file a supplemental report confirming whether it has previously named any of the 20 defendants identified in this case in a prior case asserting infringement of the same intellectual property. See Julie Stiebritz v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 1:25-cv-03459, at [19] (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2025) (dismissing the case because plaintiff previously named defendants in a prior case and dismissed them to avoid an unfavorable joinder ruling, which constitutes forum shopping). Plaintiff shall file the report by 12/1/25. Additionally, based upon Plaintiff's notice of withdrawal, [14], the motion for leave to file under seal [4] is withdrawn, and the Clerk shall terminate the entry as a pending motion. Mailed notice.
16 2025-12-01 Supplemental Response to Order [15] by Marc Jacobs International, LLC, Marc Jacobs Trademarks, LLC
17 2025-12-04 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief 16, which indicates that, prior to initiating this case, Plaintiff named all of the defendants identified in this case in three prior cases. In each of those cases, Plaintiff voluntarily amended its complaint to drop all but one defendant once the case was assigned to a particular judge. Such conduct suggests that Plaintiff lacks a good faith factual and legal basis to join the defendants in a single proceeding. And repeatedly naming the same group of defendants in new cases until a case is assigned to a judge the plaintiff believes to be hospitable to joinder constitutes an abuse of process. As a result, the Court issues an order to show cause on or before 12/15/2025, why this case should not be dismissed for an abuse of process. Mailed notice.