2024-cv-06219

COMPLAINT filed by Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22275477.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

(Exhibit 4)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC Schedule A regarding complaint 1

MOTION by Plaintiff Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC for leave to file under seal

CIVIL Cover Sheet

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC by Justin R. Gaudio

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC by Amy Crout Ziegler

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC by Allyson M. Martin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC by Rachel S Miller

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Keri L. Holleb Hotaling. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2).

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 Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC for temporary restraining order Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Transfer of the Domain Names, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery

MEMORANDUM by Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order 11

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 12

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

(Exhibit 4)

DECLARATION of Lindsay Conn regarding memorandum in support of motion 12

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC regarding declaration 14

Exhibit 1-1

(Exhibit 1-2)

DECLARATION of Sterling Hawkins regarding memorandum in support of motion 12

(Exhibit 1)

MOTION by Plaintiff Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

MEMORANDUM by Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 17

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 18

Exhibit 1

(Exhibit 2)

MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

((List of Trademarks ex 1))

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

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order 11. Plaintiff argues in its motion that this Court should grant an ex parte temporary restraining order under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 65(b) permits a court to issue a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party only if: "(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A)(B) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has presented several facts in its complaint and in affidavits attached to its motion showing it will suffer immediate and irreparable harm unless an ex parte temporary restraining order is issued. (See, e.g., Dkt. 1 726; Dkt. 12 at 89; Dkt. 13; Dkt. 14; Dkt. 15.) But Plaintiff has not certified in writing, nor has it provided any information at all, regarding its efforts to give notice to Defendants. Plaintiff cites to several cases within this District where counterfeiters such as Defendants reduced or transferred funds in their financial accounts upon receipt of a lawsuit to argue that notice should not be required in this action. (Dkt. 12 at 34; Dkt. 13 510.) Anticipating the possibility that something similar will happen in this case, Plaintiff contends it is entitled to an ex parte order. (Id.) This approach is common, if not universal, in so-called "Schedule A" cases involving alleged violations of intellectual property rights; indeed, this Court has allowed many Schedule A plaintiffs to proceed ex parte at the beginning of many similar cases. That a practice has become routine, however, does not compel the conclusion that it is permissible. Plaintiff's asserted reasons for proceeding ex parte may not, standing alone, provide sufficient justification for the Court to enter an ex parte temporary restraining order without the notice contemplated by Rule 65(b)(1). That other defendants in similar cases have attempted to evade liability does not mean that Defendants in this case will too, and in any event, the applicable Rule might not permit Plaintiff's request to proceed ex parte. Accordingly, the Court directs Plaintiff to file a supplemental statement explaining its efforts to give notice to Defendants as required by Rule 65(b)(1)(B), or why that Rule permits entry of an ex parte temporary restraining order when no such efforts are made. Put another way, Plaintiff must provide a more compelling argument, with citation to binding or persuasive authority, that proceeding ex parte in Schedule A cases is allowed. Plaintiff's supplemental statement must not exceed ten pages and must be filed on or before 9/27/2024. Mailed notice.

SUPPLEMENT to motion for temporary restraining order 11 Plaintiff's Statement in Response to 22

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 12/27/2024: Mailed notice.

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 [11], and motion for electronic service of process [17] are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. [13], [14]) 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 [15]. 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, the Court holds, dubitante, that Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). (This holding is subject to reconsideration in future "Schedule A" cases.) 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 trademarked works 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. 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. A temporary transfer of domain names is appropriate to prevent infringing conduct. 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 12/30/2024.

Registry Deposit Information Form by Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC

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

SURETY BOND in the amount of $ 10,000.00 posted by Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC

MOTION by Plaintiff Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC for preliminary injunction as to Certain Defendants

(Exhibit A)

MEMORANDUM by Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC in support of motion for preliminary injunction 28

DECLARATION of Allyson M. Martin regarding memorandum in support of motion 29

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 1/8/2025, answer due 1/29/2025.

Declaration of Rachel S. Miller

(Exhibit A)

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant lukinyin by Sandra Cristina Perez-blackmar Defendant Lukinyin

MOTION by Defendant lukinyin for extension of time for Defendant Lukinyin to respond to Complaint, MOTION by Defendant lukinyin for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint[1]

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Defendant Lukinyin's Opposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint 34 is granted. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Defendant lukinyin for extension of time TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT [UNOPPOSED]

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Defendant Lukinyin's Motion for Extension of Time 36 is granted. Mailed notice.

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 3/6/2025, answer due 3/27/2025.

Declaration of Rachel S. Miller

Exhibit A

MOTION by Defendant lukinyin for extension of time to respond to Complaint [OPPOSED]

DEFENDANT LUKINYINS AMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT [AMENDED ONLY AS TO NON-OPPOSITION] by lukinyin

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Defendant Lukinyin's motion for extension of time 39 is granted. Defendant Lukinyin shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint on or before 4/2/2025. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC to approve consent judgment as to Certain Defendants

Exhibit A

MOTION by Plaintiff Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC for entry of default as to all Remaining Defendants, MOTION by Plaintiff Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC for default judgment as to all Remaining Defendants

Exhibit A

MEMORANDUM by Collegiate Licensing Company, LLC in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment, [43]

Exhibit 1

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[44]

Exhibit 1

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment as to Certain Defendants [42] is granted. Enter separate consent judgment. Mailed notice.

CONSENT JUDGMENT signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 4/18/2025. Mailed notice.

ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for entry of default [43] is granted.Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction [28] is dismissed as moot. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 4/18/2025. Mailed notice.

FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 4/18/2025. Mailed notice.

MAILED trademark report with certified copy of minute order dated 4/18/25 to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA.

NOTICE of withdrawal of bond 32 by John Summerfield.