2024-cv-11349

COMPLAINT filed by Bug Art Limited; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22685858.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

(Exhibit 4)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Bug Art Limited Schedule A to Complaint 1

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Bug Art Limited by Keith A. Vogt

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Bug Art Limited by Yanling Jiang

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Bug Art Limited by Yi Bu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Bug Art Limited by Adam Grodman

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Bug Art Limited by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Bug Art Limited by Monica Rita Martin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Bug Art Limited by Christopher Romero

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Bug Art Limited

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeannice W. Appenteng. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3).

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.

MOTION by Plaintiff Bug Art Limited for leave to file under seal

MOTION by Plaintiff Bug Art Limited for leave to file excess pages

MEMORANDUM in support of 14 Exparte motion

Declaration of Keith A. Vogt

Exhibit 1-4, of of Keith A. Vogt's declaration

Declaration of Jane Crowther

(Exhibit 1, of Jane Crowther's declaration)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Bug Art Limited Sealed Exhibit 2, Declaration of Jane Crowther regarding memorandum in support of motion, 15

Exhibit 2-1

Exhibit 2-2

Exhibit 2-3

Exhibit 2-4

Exhibit 2-5

Exhibit 2-6

Exhibit 2-7

Exhibit 2-8

Exhibit 2-9

(Exhibit 2-10)

MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC.

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 12/20/2024: Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages, 13, is granted. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal, 12, is denied. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery, and electronic service of process, 14, is granted in part and denied in part. 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 12. "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 motion for leave to file under seal, 12, is denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, 2, 16, are stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 1/31/2025. To the extent plaintiff's motion, 14, seeks a temporary restraining order and expedited discovery, the motion is denied. To the extent the motion, 14, seeks electronic service of process, the motion 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.

SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

Schedule A to the Complaint 1 and Schedule A 2 by Bug Art Limited

EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Bug Art Limited Exhibit 2, Declaration of Declaration of Jane Crowther regarding memorandum in support of motion, 15

Exhibit 2-1

Exhibit 2-2

Exhibit 2-3

Exhibit 2-4

Exhibit 2-5

Exhibit 2-6

Exhibit 2-7

Exhibit 2-8

Exhibit 2-9

(Exhibit 2-10)

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Bug Art Limited as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 1/29/2025, answer due 2/19/2025.

(Declaration of Service)

MOTION by Plaintiff Bug Art Limited for default judgment as to the Defendants Identified in Schedule A

MEMORANDUM by Bug Art Limited in support of motion for default judgment 23

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Declaration of Keith A. Vogt

(Declaration of Jane Crowther)

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs as to [certain] defendants

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal of certain defendants. 25. The defendants listed in the notice of voluntary dismissal are hereby dismissed. By 4/3/2025, plaintiff is ordered to (1) file an amended Schedule A on the docket reflecting the dismissal of certain defendants, and (2) submit an updated proposed order to the Court's proposed order inbox, Proposed_Order_Pacold@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has also received plaintiff's motion for default judgment. 23. Any defendant who opposes the motion shall appear by 4/3/2025. If no defendant appears and opposes the motion, the court will consider the motion unopposed.

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs as to defendant no. 81 HANGYUN*DN and defendant no. 45 GAANBODI Deals of The Day Clearance

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal of certain defendants. 28. Defendants No. 45 GAANBODI Deals of The Day Clearance and No. 81 HANGYUN*DN are hereby dismissed without prejudice. By 4/3/2025, plaintiff is ordered to (1) file an amended Schedule A on the docket reflecting the dismissal of certain defendants, and (2) submit an updated proposed order to the Court's proposed order inbox, Proposed_Order_Pacold@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs as to defendant no. 1HXHYQKP Prime Day Deals and defendant no. 32 LAJDKDV

First Amended Schedule A by Bug Art Limited

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: No defendant has appeared to respond to plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment. 23. The motion, 23, is granted. Based on the evidence submitted in support of the temporary restraining order and the motion for entry of default and default judgment, and the admission of liability by virtue of the default, plaintiff has established that the infringement was willful, that damages should be awarded in the amount of $100,000 per defaulting defendant, and that a permanent injunction should be entered. Plaintiff has shown that the infringement of its marks causes it irreparable harm in the form of diminished goodwill and brand confidence, damage to plaintiff's reputation, loss of exclusivity, and loss of future sales; that monetary damages are inadequate to address these harms; and that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. None of the remaining defendants have appeared to argue otherwise. Thus, the court also finds that the balance of the hardships favors an injunction. Enter final judgment. Civil case terminated.

DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 4/7/2025:

MAILED Copyright report with certified copy of minute order dated 4/7/2025 to Registrar, Washington DC

SATISFACTION of Judgment as to [certain] defendants