2025-cv-04957

COMPLAINT filed by TV Tokyo Corporation; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23444385.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff TV Tokyo Corporation Schedule A to Complaint [1]

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff TV Tokyo Corporation by Keith A. Vogt

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff TV Tokyo Corporation by Adam Grodman

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff TV Tokyo Corporation by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff TV Tokyo Corporation by Christopher Romero

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff TV Tokyo Corporation by Monica Rita Martin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff TV Tokyo Corporation by Yanling Jiang

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff TV Tokyo Corporation by Yi Bu

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by TV Tokyo Corporation

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Laura K. McNally. 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.

SUMMONS - ERROR UNPROCESSED due to The caption of the summons form does not match the caption on the face of the complaint exactly.

MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC

MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials

Amended Schedule A to Complaint [1] and Schedule A [2] by TV Tokyo Corporation

Motion by TV Tokyo Corporation for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery and Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

MEMORANDUM in support of [16] Motion for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery and Service of Process by E-Mail and/or Electronic Publication Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

Exhibit 1

Declaration of Keith A. Vogt

Exhibit 1-2, of Keith A. Vogt's declaration

MOTION by Plaintiff TV Tokyo Corporation Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery and Electronic Service of Process by E-Mail and/or E-Publication Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for expedited relief and alternative service, [18], is granted in part and denied in part. Enter order.

ORDER for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery and Service of Process by Email and/or Electronic Publication Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 5/22/2025:

SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Coalada by Plaintiff TV Tokyo Corporation

SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant Coalada

SUMMONS Returned Executed by TV Tokyo Corporation as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 6/16/2025, answer due 7/7/2025.

(Declaration of Service)

MOTION by Plaintiff TV Tokyo Corporation for default judgment as to The Defendants Identified In Amended Schedule A

MEMORANDUM by TV Tokyo Corporation in support of motion for default judgment[24]

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Declaration of Keith A. Vogt

Declaration of Hiroaki Saiki

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's motion for default and default judgment, [24]. If defendant objects to the entry of default judgment, it shall file a response by 8/22/2025. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on defendant.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff is directed to file a supplemental brief (not to exceed 10 pages) by 8/22/2025, explaining the basis for personal jurisdiction over defendant. On 7/28/2025, plaintiff moved for entry of default and default judgment against defendant. [24]. "Before a court can enter a default judgment, however, it must be satisfied that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendants." Simonsen v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, No. 01 C 3081, 2002 WL 230777, at *15 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2002) (citation omitted). That is because "this Court cannot enter a default judgment against a party over whom it lacks personal jurisdiction." Pardo v. Mecum Auction, Inc., No. 12 C 08410, 2014 WL 627690, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 18, 2014); see also Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Does 1-55, No. 11-cv-10, 2011 WL 2036454, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 24, 2011) ("To enter a default judgment against one or more of the Defendants, the Court must have personal jurisdiction." (citing Relational, LLC v. Hodges, 627 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 2010))); Barry v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 410 F.Supp.3d 161, 171 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2019) ("The court must also 'satisfy itself that it has personal jurisdiction before entering judgment against an absent defendant.'" (quoting Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1, 6-7 (D.C. Cir. 2005))). The Seventh Circuit has, in some cases, found the existence of specific personal jurisdiction in trademark, copyright, and patent infringement suits against online retailers, but only when the defendant has shipped the allegedly infringing products to the forum state. See, e.g., NBA Props., Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614, 622-23 (7th Cir. 2022); Curry v. Revolution Lab'ys, LLC, 949 F.3d 385, 399 (7th Cir. 2020); Illinois v. Hemi Group, LLC, 622 F.3d 754, 758 (7th Cir. 2010). Absent fulfillment and shipment of an order into the forum state, the operation of an "interactive" online storefront is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. See 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."). Here, the complaint alleges that defendant "conducts business throughout the United States, including within Illinois and in this judicial district, through the operation of the fully interactive commercial websites and online marketplaces operating under the Defendant Internet Stores." [1] para. 14. However, "displaying products online that are shippable to Illinois amounts to nothing more than maintaining an interactive website that is accessible in Illinois. That alone cannot confer personal jurisdiction." Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. P'ships and Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified in Schedule A, No. 20-cv-5338, 2021 WL 825668, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) ("The maintenance of an interactive website, without more, is insufficient to vest a court with personal jurisdiction."). Further, the complaint alleges that defendant, "on information and belief, has sold and continues to sell unauthorized NARUTO products to consumers within the United States, including Illinois, and in this judicial district." [1] para. 12. However, "conclusory allegations stated only upon 'information and belief,' are insufficient to establish that the court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant." Cagan v. Gadman, CV 08-3710 (SJF) (ARL), 2009 WL 10712634, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2009) (citation omitted).

SUPPLEMENT to text entry, [27] Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief Establishing Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to [27]

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's response to the order to show cause, [28]. The court is satisfied that the response is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction at this stage. If defendant opposes plaintiff's motion for default judgment, [24], it shall appear and file a response by 8/28/2025. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on defendant.