2024-cv-00639

COMPLAINT filed by Nike, Inc.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-21562881.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. Schedule A regarding complaint[1]

MOTION by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. for leave to file under seal

CIVIL Cover Sheet

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Nike, Inc.

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Nike, Inc.

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Nike, Inc. by Justin R. Gaudio

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Nike, Inc. by Amy Crout Ziegler

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Nike, Inc. by Marcella Deshonda Slay

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Nike, Inc. by Berel Yonathan Lakovitsky

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category Two). (Text entry; no document attached.)

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.)

MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA.

MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials.

MOTION by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. for temporary restraining order Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery

MEMORANDUM by Nike, Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order 13

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 14

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

(Exhibit 4)

DECLARATION of Joe Pallett regarding memorandum in support of motion 14

Exhibit 1

(Exhibit 2)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. Exhibit 3 - Parts 1-7 regarding declaration 16

Exhibit 3-1

Exhibit 3-2

Exhibit 3-3

Exhibit 3-4

Exhibit 3-5

Exhibit 3-6

(Exhibit 3-7)

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

MEMORANDUM by Nike, Inc. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 18

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 19

Exhibit 1

(Exhibit 2)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal [3], ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order [13], and motion for electronic service of process [18] are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 15 at 45) 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 for now file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal and appearing at docket entries [2], and [17]. 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 (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). Specifically, and as noted above, were Defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, it is likely assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating Plaintiff's interests in identifying Defendants, stopping Defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining the equitable accounting that, at this point, Plaintiff states that it may pursue. These facts justify, among other relief, the imposition of a prejudgment asset restraint against Defendants in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per separate account. In addition, the Court finds, at least for now on this limited and one-sided record and without prejudice to revisiting the issue, that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have sold products using infringing and counterfeit versions of Plaintiff's trademarks to residents of Illinois. The evidence presented to the Court also shows that Plaintiff has demonstrated 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 and infringing 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. As several judges have previously noted, there may be reason to question both the propriety of joining all Defendants in this one action and whether Plaintiff will pursue an accounting (which Plaintiff asserts as justification for an asset freeze), but at this preliminary stage, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify Defendants and to implement the asset freeze. If any Defendant appears and objects, the Court will reconsider the asset freeze and joinder. Enter sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Mailed notice.

SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 6/5/2024.

Registry Deposit Information Form by Nike, Inc.

SURETY BOND in the amount of $ 10,000 posted by Nike, Inc. (Document not scanned)

MOTION by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. for extension of time of Temporary Restraining Order

MEMORANDUM by Nike, Inc. in support of extension of time[25]

DECLARATION of Marcella D. Slay regarding memorandum in support of motion[26]

SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Text entry; no document attached.)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's Motion to extend TRO 25 is granted. Enter separate order. Mailed notice.

EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 6/14/2024. Mailed notice.

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Nike, Inc. as to a Certain Defendant

MOTION by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. for preliminary injunction as to Certain Defendants

Exhibit A

MEMORANDUM by Nike, Inc. in support of motion for preliminary injunction[31]

DECLARATION of Marcella D. Slay regarding memorandum in support of motion[32]

Exhibit 1

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Nike, Inc. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 6/26/2024, answer due 7/17/2024.

Declaration of Berel Y. Lakovitsky

Exhibit A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion [31] for entry of a preliminary injunction. In connection with that motion, which is entered and continued, Plaintiff must forthwith serve all remaining 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 on or before 7/8/2024." Plaintiff must file proof of service of the Court's statement within two business days of service. For the reasons stated in the Court's orders [21] [29] entering and extending the temporary restraining order ("TRO"), as well as in Plaintiff's earlier motion [25] to extend the TRO, the TRO is further extended to and including the date on 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 FRCP 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 Plaintiff Nike, Inc. regarding text entry, [35]

Exhibit A

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Nike, Inc. as to a Certain Defendant

MOTION by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. for preliminary injunction as to Certain Defendants

Exhibit A

MEMORANDUM by Nike, Inc. in support of motion for preliminary injunction[38]

Declaration of Marcella D. Slay

Exhibit 1

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Nike, Inc. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 7/8/2024, answer due 7/29/2024.

Declaration of Berel Y. Lakovitsky

Exhibit A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction [31] is granted. Enter separate preliminary injunction order. Plaintiff's filings establish that Plaintiff 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 or infringing goods. Plaintiff has also certified and established [34] [36] that it provided electronic notice to Defendants of the pendency of this case and provided a link to a website containing relevant case documents, but, despite the Court having provided [35] the opportunity to do so, no Defendant has objected to the motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to ensure that all Defendants listed on Schedule A are added to the docket within five business days. The Clerk is directed to unseal any and all previously-sealed documents. Mailed notice.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/9/2024. Mailed notice.

NEW PARTIES: Baoding Smart Trading Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Shangxi Clothing Co., Ltd., Haikou Longhuaqu Jiake Trading Company, Hangzhou Ciny Fashion Co., Ltd., Jieyang Ground Shoes Industry Co., Ltd, Jinhua Dongfa Art&Craft Co., Ltd., Longyan Yiciyuan Trading Co., Ltd., Nikou Technology (Xiamen) Co., Ltd., Qiloo International Limited, Quanzhou Andu Sports Goods Co., Ltd., Quanzhou Beiyingcai Trade Co., Ltd., Quanzhou Fonleader E-Commerce Co., Ltd., Quanzhou Jinqiu Sports Products Co., Ltd., Quanzhou Nayouge E-Commerce Limited, Quanzhou Richer Import And Export Trade Co.,ltd., Quanzhou Wenhaha Trading Co., Ltd., Rui'an Aile Brand Operation Management Co., Ltd., Ruian Douchuan Trading Co., Ltd., Taizhou Yuxin Trading Co., Ltd., Wenzhou Better Import And Export Co., Ltd., Wenzhou Ginwell Trade Co., Ltd., Wenzhou Populus Technology Co., Ltd., Xiamen Ishinetao Network Technology Co., Ltd., Xiamen Shengda Trading Co., Ltd., Yiwu City Meiban Clothing Co., Ltd., Yiwu Pingyu Trade Co., Ltd., Yiwu Vensol Import And Export Co., Ltd., Glow in the Dark LD04, guangzhourucishangmao, guangzhouyingpinshangmao, hefeinarenzhedianzishangwuyouxiangongsi, jiechudexiaodian, Licui_useu, liwei123456456, Luckyerr, strong and I, uanGuanXiKeJiYouXia, WangCaiRongSHOP, zhijiangshitanchishangmaoyouxiangongsi, best_clothes_store, braclothes, brand_classic_sports, byck, cdhmsmyxgs Store, cgbag Store, chanelshirt Store, cheap_clothes, chenlipingwjf, clothing0815, clothing103, clothing112, clothing209, clothing909, clothing943 Store, clothingzw, cqh01, cyldhdps, desigerstorea, designerclothing20, designergood, designermentracksuit, designershoes668, dhgatecctv, dhgatedola Store, dhgatezysb, dhtetasv, down1996 Store, dunkok, fafa2023, fashion_clothing11, fengjiao22, haoyunlai202308, heartjewels, hoodies5, intersport, jacketstop, jhymyxje, jiachengxiangxiang, justdoo, lai777, linjian1991, liuyingta, lp2228, luckyjade, lxhong50, monclerjakcet8, naaa, nikedh, nlnl2022, offsrhude3, onlineclothing, orangeclothing_115, platform_shoes, supervipfactory, sygg888, thenorths, topapparel104, ussale, yezzies350shoes, zeng9988, zlili1250, zlili888, a290876116, blue-sea-jewelry, peipei950, tianshiguiti, TrastStore13, cc07168030, gregorioalberto487, hjhfvhn, shalizhou11, Elegant childrens shoes, Walking World Plus, fangwangwei6974, Flyland Original, lintianxiang2134, MaggieEarthavGuN, wangliangliang5349, billionsneaker.com, fashionsneaker1818.com, fyysports888.co, gmkicks.com, lindajersey.com, salesshopslides.com and xtopbuy.com added to case caption. (Text entry; no document attached.)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion 38 for entry of a preliminary injunction as to certain Defendants. In connection with that motion, which is entered and continued, Plaintiff must forthwith 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 on or before 7/18/2024." Plaintiff must file proof of service of the Court's statement within two business days of service. For the reasons stated in the Court's orders entering and extending the temporary restraining order ("TRO"), as well as in Plaintiff's earlier motion 25 to extend the TRO, the TRO is further extended to and including the date on 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 FRCP 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 Plaintiff Nike, Inc. regarding text entry, 43

(Exhibit A)

MOTION by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. for entry of default as to all Defendants, MOTION by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. for default judgment as to all Defendants

Exhibit A

MEMORANDUM by Nike, Inc. in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment[45]

Exhibit 1

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[46]

Exhibit 1

MOTION by Defendants Jieyang Ground Shoes Industry Co., Ltd, Taizhou Yuxin Trading Co., Ltd. for leave to appear as ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Jieyang Ground Shoes Industry Co., Ltd, Taizhou Yuxin Trading Co., Ltd. by Hongchang Deng

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion [45] for entry of default and default judgment against all Defendants. All remaining Defendants have failed either to plead or to otherwise appear to defend against this action. Accordingly, 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 8/13/2024. If no objections are filed by that date, the Court will consider the motion unopposed. Plaintiff must serve this minute order forthwith upon all remaining Defendants and must file proof of service. The motion at Dkt. [48] is terminated in view of the attorney appearance filed at Dkt. [49]. Mailed notice.

CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. regarding order on motion for leave to appear, text entry, [50]

Exhibit A

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Nike, Inc. as to certain defendants

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Nike, Inc. as to certain defendant

ORDER: No Defendant has responded to Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 45) for entry of default judgment. Accordingly, the motion is granted. Because Defendants directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Am. Bridal & Prom Indus. Ass'n v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 192 F. Supp. 3d 924, 934 (N.D. Ill. 2016). Plaintiff has presented screenshot evidence that each Defendant Internet Store is reaching out to do business with Illinois residents by operating one or more commercial, interactive Internet Stores through which Illinois residents can and do purchase infringing products. See, e.g., Dkt. 15, 16, 17. In addition, 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 is warranted. The infringement of Plaintiff's marks irreparably harms Plaintiff and confuses the public.Defendants' infringement was willful and statutory damages are thus 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 not sought an accounting of profits), the value of Plaintiff's brands, and the need to deter infringement that is easily committed and difficult to stop, the Court finds that $100,000 per distinct Defendant is an appropriate award of statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) for Defendants' willful use of counterfeit trademarks.1 Enter separate Final Judgment Order. Plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 38) seeking the entry of a preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot. Civil case terminated.SO ORDERED in No. 24-cv-00639. Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 8/16/2024. Mailed notice

FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 8/16/2024.Mailed notice

FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order 55 in the amount of $100,000 as to certain defendants

FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order 55 in the amount of $100,000 as to certain defendant

FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order 55 in the amount of $100,000 as to certain defendant

NOTICE of withdrawal of bond 24 by John Summerfield