2024-cv-02735

COMPLAINT filed by ARTDECO Inc. ; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-21823103.

CIVIL Cover Sheet

MOTION by Plaintiff ARTDECO Inc. to seal

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff ARTDECO Inc. Schedule A

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff ARTDECO Inc. by Shengmao Mu

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by ARTDECO Inc.

MOTION by Plaintiff ARTDECO Inc. for service by publication

MEMORANDUM motion for service by publication[7] by ARTDECO Inc.

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff ARTDECO Inc. Exhibit 1

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff ARTDECO Inc. Exhibit 2

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3).

MOTION by Plaintiff ARTDECO Inc. for temporary restraining order

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff ARTDECO Inc. Memorandum in support of TRO

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff ARTDECO Inc. Declaration

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.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal [3], motion for electronic service of process [7], and ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order [11] are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 13 69) 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 [4], [9], and [10]. 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 the equitable accounting that, at this point, Plaintiff states that it may pursue. These facts justify, among other relief, the imposition of a prejudgment asset restraint against Defendants in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per separate account. 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 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 copyrighted works 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 several judges have previously noted, there may be reason to question both the propriety of joining 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. The disabling of domain names is appropriate to prevent infringing conduct. 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.

SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 6/11/2024.

SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A To The Complaint

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff ARTDECO Inc. by Keaton David Smith

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by ARTDECO Inc. as to certain Defendants

SURETY BOND in the amount of $ $10,000.00 posted by ARTDECO Inc.

SUMMONS Returned Executed by ARTDECO Inc. as to The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A To The Complaint on 6/21/2024, answer due 7/12/2024.

MOTION by Plaintiff ARTDECO Inc. for preliminary injunction

MEMORANDUM by ARTDECO Inc. in support of motion for preliminary injunction 20

(Declaration of Shengmao Mu)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion 20 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 7/3/2024." Plaintiff must file proof of service of the Court's statement within two business days of service. For the reasons stated in the order entering the temporary restraining order ("TRO"), the TRO is 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.

CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff ARTDECO Inc. regarding order on motion for preliminary injunction, text entry, 22

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction [20] is granted. Enter separate preliminary injunction order. 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 or infringing goods. Plaintiff has also certified and established [19] [23] 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 [22] 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 directed to unseal any and all previously-sealed documents. Mailed notice.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/8/2024. Mailed notice.

NEW PARTIES: Home Tablecloth and Tablecloth decoration added to case caption. Terminating The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A To The Complaint

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by ARTDECO Inc. as to certain Defendants

MOTION by Plaintiff ARTDECO Inc. to Return Posted Bond

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's Motion to Return Posted Bond 27 is granted. Mailed notice.

ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/27/2024: Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: On 7/12/2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal "as to certain Defendants" [26] but the Court misperceived that the dismissal was in fact pertinent to all remaining Defendants. Accordingly, because the notice of dismissal was filed before the remaining opposing parties served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the case is dismissed with prejudice consistent with the terms of the notice and by operation of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 587 (7th Cir. 2011) (Rule 41(a)(1)(A) notice of dismissal "is self-executing and effective without further action from the court"). Each party is to bear its own fees and costs. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice.