2024-cv-00393

COMPLAINT filed by Entertainment One UK Ltd.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-21526760.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. Schedule A regarding complaint[1]

MOTION by Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. for Leave to File Certain Documents Under Seal

CIVIL Cover Sheet

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Entertainment One UK Ltd.

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. by Martin Francis Trainor

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. by Sydney Paige Fenton

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. by Richard M. Poskozim

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.

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Entertainment One UK Ltd. (Corrected)

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Entertainment One UK Ltd.

AMENDED complaint by Entertainment One UK Ltd. against The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. Schedule A regarding amended complaint[11]

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. by Alexander Whang

MOTION by Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery

MEMORANDUM by Entertainment One UK Ltd. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief[14]

Declaration of Martin F. Trainor

Exhibit 1

DECLARATION of Paul Varley regarding memorandum in support of motion[15]

Exhibit 1

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. Exhibit 2 regarding declaration[16]

MOTION by Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

MEMORANDUM by Entertainment One UK Ltd. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief[18]

Declaration of Martin F. Trainor

Exhibit 1

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file certain documents under seal [3], ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction, a temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery [14], and motion for electronic service of process [18] are granted solely as to the defendants identified in plaintiff's amended schedule A [12]. Plaintiff's submissions 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 file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal. 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 on an ex parte basis at this time. Specifically, and as noted above, were defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, the Court finds that it is likely that their assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating plaintiff's interests in identifying defendants, stopping defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining an accounting. In addition, the evidence submitted by plaintiff shows 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. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendants and to implement the asset freeze. Enter Sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Status hearing is set for 3/4/24 at 9:00 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). Mailed notice

SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings on 1/29/2024. Mailed notice.

SURETY BOND in the amount of $ 2,000 posted by Entertainment One UK Ltd.(Document not Scanned)

MOTION by Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. to Extend the Temporary Restraining Order

MEMORANDUM by Entertainment One UK Ltd. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief[23]

Declaration of Martin F. Trainor

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: Plaintiff's ex parte motion to extend the temporary restraining order [23] is granted. Enter Order. Mailed notice

EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings on 2/7/2024. Mailed notice

SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and all other Defendants identified in the Amended Complaint (jcc,)

MOTION by Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. to Extend the Temporary Restraining Order

MEMORANDUM by Entertainment One UK Ltd. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief[27]

Declaration of Martin F. Trainor

Exhibit 1

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: Plaintiff's ex parte motion to extend the TRO [27] is granted. For the reasons stated in the Court's order entering the TRO [20], as well as in plaintiff's motions to extend the TRO [23] [27], the TRO is extended to and including 3/11/24. 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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b), this extension "becomes in effect a preliminary injunction that is appealable, but the order remains effective." Id. at 844. The 3/4/24 tracking status hearing is stricken and is re-set to 3/29/24 at 9:00 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). Mailed notice

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Entertainment One UK Ltd. as to The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A, on 3/6/2024, answer due 3/27/2024.

Declaration of Alexander Whang

Exhibit A

MOTION by Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. for preliminary injunction

Exhibit A

MEMORANDUM by Entertainment One UK Ltd. in support of motion for preliminary injunction[31]

Declaration of Martin F. Trainor

Exhibit 1

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: Before the Court is plaintiff's motion for entry of a preliminary injunction [31]. In connection with that motion, plaintiff must 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 by or before March 20, 2024." If no objections are filed by that date, the Court will consider the motion unopposed. Plaintiff must serve this minute order upon alll defendants within one business day of its entry on the docket and must promptly file proof of that service. For the reasons stated in the Court's order entering the TRO, the TRO is extended to and including the date upon 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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 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 Martin Francis Trainor on behalf of Entertainment One UK Ltd.

Exhibit A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction [31] is granted. Plaintiff's filings establish that it 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 goods. Plaintiff has also certified and established that it provided electronic notice to defendants of the pendency of this action and the motion, but no objection to the motion for a preliminary injunction has been filed on behalf of any defendant. Enter Preliminary Injunction Order. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to ensure that all defendants listed on Schedule A are added to the court's docket within five business days. The Clerk is requested to unseal any previously-sealed documents. The 3/29/24 tracking status hearing is stricken and re-set to 5/20/24 at 9:00 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). Mailed notice

NEW PARTIES: Quanzhou Yoho Yoho Trading Co., Ltd. and SHENZHEN OXOFUN TECHNOLOGY LIMITED added to case caption. Terminating The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings on 3/26/2024: Mailed notice

MOTION by Attorney Richard Poskozim to withdraw as attorney for Entertainment One UK Ltd. No party information provided

MOTION by Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. for entry of default, MOTION by Plaintiff Entertainment One UK Ltd. for default judgment as to all Defendants

Exhibit A

MEMORANDUM by Entertainment One UK Ltd. in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment[38]

Exhibit 1

DECLARATION of Martin F. Trainor regarding memorandum in support of motion[39]

Exhibit 1

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: Attorney's motion to withdraw as attorney for plaintiff [37] is granted. Richard Poskozim is terminated as counsel. Mailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: Before the Court is plaintiff's motion [38] for entry of default and default judgment against all defendants. Defendants have failed either to plead or to otherwise appear to defend against this action. Accordingly, an order of default is entered under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any objections to the motion for entry of default judgment must be filed on or before 5/31/24. If no objections are filed by that date, the Court will consider the motion unopposed. Plaintiff must serve this minute order upon all remaining defendants within one business day of its entry on the docket and must promptly file proof of that service. The 5/20/24 tracking status hearing is stricken and re-set to 6/28/24 at 9:00 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). Mailed notice

CERTIFICATE of Service by Alexander Whang on behalf of Entertainment One UK Ltd.

Exhibit A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: No remaining defendant has responded to plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment. Accordingly, the motion [38] is granted. Based on the evidence previously submitted by plaintiff and the admission of liability by virtue of the default, plaintiff has established that a permanent injunction should be entered. The infringement of plaintiff's marks irreparably harms plaintiff and confuses the public. This infringement was willful and statutory damages are awarded. After considering the nature of the products, the price point, the absence of any concrete evidence of lost profits or high-volume infringement by defendants (plaintiff has failed to seek an accounting of profits), the value of plaintiff's brand, and the need to deter infringement that is easily committed and difficult to stop, the Court concludes that $100,000 is an appropriate award of statutory damages. Enter Final Judgment Order. All pending deadlines and hearings are stricken. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice

DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings on 6/25/2024. Mailed notice

ENTERED JUDGMENT Mailed notice

MAILED Closing Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA.

Closing Order dated 6/25/2024