2025-cv-07697

COMPLAINT for Copyright Infringement filed by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23722773.

Exhibit 1 to the Complaint

Exhibit 2 to the Complaint

Declaration of Katherine M. Kuhn in Support of Motion for Leave to File Under Se

Exhibit Memorandum in Support of Motion for Electronic Service and Expedited Dis

Exhibit 1 to the Complaint

Exhibit 1 to the Complaint

Exhibit Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion for Electronic Service and Exped

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited Exhibit 1 to the Complaint regarding complaint, [1]

Exhibit 2 to the Complaint

(Exhibit 6 to the Complaint)

Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn

Declaration of Katherine M. Kuhn in Support of Motion for Electronic Service and

Exhibit 2 to the Complaint

Exhibit 2 to the Complaint

Declaration of Katherine M. Kuhn in Support of Renewed Motion for Electronic Ser

CIVIL Cover Sheet

Exhibit 3 to the Complaint

Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn

Exhibit 3 to the Complaint

Exhibit 3 to the Complaint

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited to seal

Exhibit 4 to the Complaint

Exhibit 4 to the Complaint

Exhibit 4 to the Complaint

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited to seal [4]

Exhibit 5 to the Complaint

Exhibit 5 to the Complaint

Exhibit 5 to the Complaint

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited

Exhibit 6 to the Complaint

Exhibit 6 to the Complaint

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Joseph Wendell Droter

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Nihat Deniz Bayramoglu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Gokalp Bayramoglu

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). (Text entry; no document attached.)

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for service by publication, Electronic Service and Expedited Discovery

Plaintiff's NOTICE of Motion by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn for presentment of motion for service by publication, [11] before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 7/16/2025 at 11:00 AM.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff seeks to sue 20 separate Defendants in this single copyright infringement suit, see [1], [2-1]. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single copyright infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). In this regard, Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants' Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the competing products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them, and suggesting that Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." [1] 7, 10, 14. Plaintiff also alleges that the "Competing Products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores bear similarities and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the Competing Products were manufactured by and come from a common source and that, upon information and belief, Defendants are interrelated." Id. 31. But these allegations remain conclusory and unsupported by Plaintiff's submissions. Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the propriety of joining all Defendants in this single suit, the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice, denies Plaintiff's motion for electronic service and expedited discovery [11], and strikes the 7/16/25 Notice of Motion date. To the extent Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to allege facts to support the joinder of all Defendants in this single action, it may do so by 7/25/25. If Plaintiff fails to comply, the Court will dismiss this case. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal [4], and Plaintiff may file any amended complaint under seal as well. Mailed notice. (jn,)

MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC. (jn,)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited First Amended Complaint for Copyright Infringement

FIRST AMENDED complaint by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited against The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A for Copyright Infringement

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff's amended complaint seeks to sue 13 separate defendants, see [15], [15-2]. As the Court previously observed, joinder of multiple defendants in a single copyright infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). To support joinder, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' webpages are substantially similar in design," using similar "product description, size chart, and photograph"; additionally, Defendants "all share the identical typographical error by using the wording 'Women'S' with a capitalized 'S.'" [15] 33. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants' products all feature the same "fabric composition of 5% elastane and 95% polyester," and alleges that the products sold on Defendants' websites can be traced to the same six Hong Kong based entities. Id. 31, 35. Importantly, however, Defendants are not accused of infringing protected dresses or clothing; they are accused of infringing protected photographs. And although it appears Plaintiff claims infringement of multiple copyrighted photographs, it failed to include any of those photos in its submissions. As a result, the Court remains unable to assess the propriety of joinder or Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits of its claim for infringement of copyrighted photographs. The Court thus dismisses Plaintiff's amended complaint for improper joinder. If Plaintiff elects to file a second amended complaint, it should consider its allegations relating to personal jurisdiction as to each named defendant; the mere maintenance of a website accessible in Illinois remains insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Am. Bridal & Prom Indus. Ass'n, Inc. v. The Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 192 F. Supp. 3d 924, 93435 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (simply alleging the existence of purported counterfeiting via an interactive website is not enough, by itself, to confer personal jurisdiction); Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) ("Having an interactive website. should not open a defendant up to personal jurisdiction in every spot on the planet where that interactive website is accessible."); Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 20-CV-5338, 2021 WL 825668, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (screenshot evidence showing that an order could be placed by an Illinoisan, "amounts to nothing more than maintaining an interactive website that is accessible in Illinois," and "that alone cannot confer personal jurisdiction."). If Plaintiff declines to amend by 8/27/25, the Court will dismiss this case. Mailed notice.

Second AMENDED complaint by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited against Dcrhldl for Copyright Infringement

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited Second Amended Complaint for Copyright Infringement regarding amended complaint, [18]

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for service by publication, Electronic Service and Expedited Discovery RENEWED

Plaintiff's NOTICE of Motion by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn for presentment of motion for service by publication, [20] before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 9/3/2025 at 11:00 AM.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process [20]. Before the turning to the motions, the Court must first satisfy itself that venue is proper here and that it may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant, a foreign company operating in China or Hong Kong. See [19], paragraph 28. 28 U.S.C. § 1391 provides that venue lies in "a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located"; in "a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated"; or "if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action." Defendant is not a resident of this district. The complaint only claims that shipping is available to Illinois and "a pre-lawsuit investigation" successfully ordered and received a purchase shipped to Chicago. See [19] paragraph 8. This representation establishes only that Defendant shipped a single item to Illinois, and that was in connection with Plaintiff's test buy. Plaintiff thus fails to establish that this Court has proper personal jurisdiction and venue in this matter. See, e.g., Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) ("the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum"); Expeditee LLC v. Entities Listed on Exhibit 1, No. 21 C 6440, 2022 WL 1556381, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2022) ("Plaintiff claims that, as part of its preliminary investigation, it purchased infringing products from the Moving Defendants that the Moving Defendants shipped to Chicago. Such sales on their own are insufficient for the purposes of personal jurisdiction, for Plaintiff has not identified evidence of any transactions involving an allegedly counterfeit product between the Moving Defendants and Illinois customers, other than the 'test buys.'"). The Court thus denies without prejudice Plaintiff's motion [20] and dismisses Plaintiff's second amended complaint [18]. If Plaintiff can, consistent with their obligations under Rule 11, amend the complaint to allege facts demonstrating that venue remains proper here and that this Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants, they may file an amended complaint by 9/22/25. If Plaintiff declines to amend, the Court will dismiss this case. Mailed notice.