2024-cv-08376

COMPLAINT filed by Christian Dior Couture, S.A.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22470783.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. Schedule A regarding complaint[1]

MOTION by Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. for leave to file under seal

CIVIL Cover Sheet

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Christian Dior Couture, S.A.

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Keri L. Holleb Hotaling. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2).

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Christian Dior Couture, S.A.

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.

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. by Justin R. Gaudio

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. by Amy Crout Ziegler

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. by Kahlia Roe Halpern

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. by Quinn Bradley Guillermo

MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials

MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC

MOTION by Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery

MEMORANDUM by Christian Dior Couture, S.A. in support of motion for temporary restraining order 14

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 15

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

(Exhibit 4)

DECLARATION of Nicolas Lambert regarding memorandum in support of motion 15

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

(Exhibit 4)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. Exhibit 5 - Parts 1-4 regarding declaration 17

Exhibit 5-1

Exhibit 5-2

Exhibit 5-3

(Exhibit 5-4)

MOTION by Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

MEMORANDUM by Christian Dior Couture, S.A. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 19

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 20

Exhibit 1

(Exhibit 2)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal, 3, and for a temporary restraining order, temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery, 14, are denied. Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal so that plaintiff may obtain a temporary restraining order freezing the defendants' assets before revealing the defendants' identities. See 3. "The Supreme Court has made clear that courts lack the power to issue an asset freeze at the beginning of a case, unless that party is seeking equitable monetary relief." Zorro Productions, Inc. v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 23-cv-5761, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2023) (citing Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)); see also Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-1560, at Dkt. 15 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2023). Indeed, "[a]s a general matter [ ] prejudgment asset restraints are not proper simply to establish a fund from which a later award of money damages can be satisfied." Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Banister v. Firestone, No. 17-cv-8940, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2018)). In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs often initially demand equitable relief in the form of an accounting of profits, but after obtaining a temporary asset freeze, plaintiffs uniformly shift their focus to demanding statutory damages. Id. at *3-4. In substance, then, if not in form, Schedule A plaintiffs seek prejudgment asset restraints to establish a fund from which money damages may be awarded. So, despite the demand in plaintiff's complaint that it be awarded defendants' profits, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff will actually seek or obtain such equitable relief-as opposed to statutory damages-in this case. See Zorro, 2023 WL 8807254, at *3-4. Thus, even if plaintiff's initial demand for an accounting of profits could provide this court with the power to issue a prejudgment asset freeze, see Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S. at 333; Banister, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9, the court is not persuaded that such a freeze is warranted. Because the court denies the motion for a temporary restraining order, there is no reason to seal plaintiff's filings pending such relief. Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal, 3, and for a temporary restraining order, 14, are therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, 2, 18, are stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 1/31/2025.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion or electronic service of process, 19, is granted. The court finds that electronic service of process is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). 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. To the extent that the motion requests service of process of any temporary restraining order in this case, service is not necessary because this court has already denied the motion for a TRO. 22.

MOTION by Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. for reconsideration regarding order on motion for leave to file, order on motion for temporary restraining order, text entry, 22

MOTION by Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. for extension of time to Comply with Order 22

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. by Hannah Alexa Abes

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, 24, is denied. "While motions to reconsider are permitted. they are disfavored." Patrick v. City of Chicago, 103 F. Supp. 3d 907, 911 (N.D. Ill. 2015). "This is a heavy burden for the moving party and makes a motion for reconsideration an inappropriate medium to 'rehash' past arguments[.]" Alice F. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., No. 17-cv-3710, 2019 WL 11626480, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 17, 2019) (citation omitted). "Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has not submitted any newly discovered evidence. Thus, plaintiff can prevail only if it demonstrates that the court made a manifest error of law or fact. "A manifest error of law or fact under this standard occurs when a district court 'has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.'" Patrick, 103 F. Supp. 3d at 912 (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). Plaintiff has not shown that the court made a manifest error of law or fact. Plaintiff points out that the court has the power to issue an asset restraint when a plaintiff seeks an accounting and profits in the alternative to statutory damages in its complaint. See CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Redisi, 309 F.3d 988, 996 (7th Cir. 2002) (asset freeze was "appropriate" when plaintiff sought statutory damages or equitable relief in the alternative). But simply because a court has the authority to issue an asset freeze in such circumstances does not mean that the plaintiff here is entitled to one. As explained in the prior minute entry, 22, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff intends to actually seek or obtain equitable relief-as opposed to statutory damages-in this case. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, 24, is denied.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to comply with order, 25, is granted. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 2/7/2025.

MOTION by Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. for discovery Expedited

MOTION by Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. to unseal document exhibit 18, exhibit 2

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion to unseal certain documents, 30, is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the Schedule A to the Complaint 2 and Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Nicolas Lambert 18.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery, 29, is granted in part and denied in part. Enter Order.

ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 2/11/2025:

SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A by Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A.

SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. by Jennifer Van Nacht

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Christian Dior Couture, S.A. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 2/24/2025, answer due 3/17/2025.

Declaration of Hannah A. Abes

(Exhibit A)

MOTION by Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. for entry of default, MOTION by Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. for default judgment as to all Defendants

Exhibit A

MEMORANDUM by Christian Dior Couture, S.A. in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment[38]

Exhibit 1

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[39]

Exhibit 1

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Any defendant objecting to plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, 38, must enter an appearance and file a written objection by 3/31/2025. If no objections are filed, the court will consider the motion unopposed. Plaintiff shall serve defendants with this notice.

AMENDED complaint by Christian Dior Couture, S.A. against Shenzhen Spark Industry Co., Ltd., The Individuals and Entities Operating Shenzhen Spark Industry Co., Ltd. and terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

Exhibit 1

(Exhibit 2)

EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. Amended Schedule A regarding amended complaint, 42

SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Shenzhen Spark Industry Co., Ltd. and the Individuals and Entities Operating Shenzhen Spark Industry Co., Ltd. by Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A.

SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on 8/12/2025, 42, but did not file an accompanying motion to amend its original complaint of 9/12/2024, 1. The court regards plaintiff's amended complaint as a motion under Fed. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) to amend the complaint. If any defendant wishes to oppose the motion, it has until 8/21/2025 to file a response. Should any defendant file a response, plaintiff will have until 8/27/2025 to file a reply.

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Christian Dior Couture, S.A. as to Shenzhen Spark Industry Co., Ltd. on 8/29/2025, answer due 9/19/2025; The Individuals and Entities Operating Shenzhen Spark Industry Co., Ltd. on 8/29/2025, answer due 9/19/2025.

Declaration of Hannah A. Abes

(Exhibit A)

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Christian Dior Couture, S.A. as to Defendants Shenzhen Spark Industry Co., Ltd. and the Individuals and Entities Operating Shenzhen Spark Industry Co., Ltd.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, [48]. This dismissal took effect without court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Waetzig v. Haliburton Energy Servs., 145 S. Ct. 690, 694 (2025). Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment as to all remaining defendants, [38], is denied as moot. Civil case terminated.