2025-cv-08186

COMPLAINT filed by Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. ; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23765740.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 1

Declaration of Madeline B. Halgren

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. Schedule A regarding complaint 1

Exhibit 2

(Exhibit A)

MOTION by Plaintiff Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. for leave to file under seal

Exhibit 3

CIVIL Cover Sheet

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc.

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc.

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. by Justin R. Gaudio

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. by Amy Crout Ziegler

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. by Jennifer Van Nacht

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. by Madeline Halgren

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. (Text entry; no document attached.)

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeannice W. Appenteng. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (Text entry; no document attached.)

EMAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

EMAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The Court grants the motion to seal [3], but upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety of joining nearly 45 defendants in a single action. By July 23, 2025, plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by July 23, 2025 with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why that smaller subset of defendants is properly joined. No motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order should be filed in this matter without counsel first consulting the opinion issued in Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025) (Alexakis, J.). Mailed notice.

MEMORANDUM order on motion for leave to file, set deadlines, [13] by Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. Establishing that Joinder is Proper

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum[14]

MOTION by Plaintiff Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery

MEMORANDUM by Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order[16]

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[17]

DECLARATION of Kia Holifield Wimmer regarding memorandum in support of motion[17]

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. Exhibit 2 regarding declaration[19]

MOTION by Plaintiff Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

MEMORANDUM by Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief[21]

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[22]

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. Schedule A Template per [13]

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's memorandum on joinder [Dkt. [14]] and determines, within its discretion, that it has failed to satisfy its burden to show that joinder of more than 40 defendants is proper in this matter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2). See Este Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. The Partnerships, 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (noting that "[plaintiff] bears the burden of demonstrating that joinder is proper"). In evaluating the appropriateness of joinder, the court assesses whether a logical relationship exists between defendants through actual evidentiary overlap, not coincidence. Este Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 185. Plaintiff argues that joinder is necessary to combat online counterfeiters and make their infringement unprofitable, and that the joinder of dozens of defendants in one action is one of the few available mechanisms for effectively combatting internet counterfeiters. The court is not persuaded that any one defendant's infringement is linked to the next defendant's infringement sufficient to show they are part of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as required by Rule 20. Even if the court were mistaken in its joinder analysis, it exercises its discretion to not permit joinder in this case. See Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 110204 (7th Cir. 2022). Joining this many defendants in one case simply will not promote judicial economy. See Este Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 189 ("[P]resenting dozens or hundreds of defendants in one lawsuit actually undermines judicial economy, because this Court must evaluate the evidence submitted in support of liability and, eventually, damages. That is especially true in the ex parte setting of a temporary restraining order, as well as for default-judgment motions."); Art Ask Agency, 2021 WL 5493226, at *3 (rejecting joinder of 216 defendants, noting that "joinder in this case may yield significant financial benefits to [the plaintiff] at the judiciary's expense.") Nor is the court persuaded by Plaintiff's arguments concerning an increase in the number of case filings, which is not a proper basis to overlook joinder issues. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint consistent with this order along with an amended Schedule A by no later than July 28, 2025. A revised electronic service of process order should also be submitted by July 28, 2025. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion for a TRO [16] is denied. The court is not persuaded that an asset restraint is necessary to conduct an accounting; discovery and records of sales can provide any accounting plaintiff may be entitled to. Plaintiffs in Schedule A cases rarely pursue an actual accounting as a remedy and rarely justify requests for statutory damages by reference to actual sales figures, lost profits, or the like. Instead, counsel typically asks for an amount of statutory damages based on notions of deterrence without case-specific factual support justifying the number. Upon filing its amended complaint, Plaintiff may submit a proposed TRO that enjoins the named Defendant from using or selling the allegedly infringing works on an ex parte basis if it wishes, but an asset restraint is not necessary here. Mailed notice.

AMENDED complaint by Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. against bibigg and the Individuals and Entities Operating bibigg and terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. Amended Schedule A regarding amended complaint, [27]

MOTION by Plaintiff Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. for discovery Expedited

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion for expedited discovery and electronic service of process 29 is granted. Separate order to issue. Mailed notice.

ORDER Signed by the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins on 7/24/2025. Mailed notice.

SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) bibigg and the Individuals and Entities Operating bibigg by Plaintiff Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc.

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

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. as to bibigg and the Individuals and Entities Operating bibigg on 8/4/2025, answer due 8/25/2025.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Assuming no defendant appears beforehand, plaintiff is directed to file a motion for entry of default and default judgment by August 28, 2025. Mailed notice.

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Birkenstock US BidCo, Inc. as to Defendants bibigg and the Individuals and Entities Operating bibigg

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: In light of the voluntary dismissal 36 the clerk is directed to close the case. Civil case closed. Mailed notice.