2025-cv-05350

COMPLAINT (Redacted) filed by Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23485822.

(Exhibit Exhibit 2 to the Redacted Complaint)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC Exhibit 1 to the Redacted Complaint

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC Schedule A to the Redacted Complaint

CIVIL Cover Sheet

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC Complaint (Unredacted)

Exhibit Exhibit 1 to the Unredacted Complaint

Exhibit Exhibit 2 to the Unredacted Complaint

(Exhibit Schedule A to the Unredacted Complaint)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC Notice of Trademark Claim

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC

MOTION by Plaintiff Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC to seal document sealed document 6, sealed document 2, sealed document, 5, sealed document 3

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC by Brandon Matthew Beymer

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC by Daliah Saper

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. 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.

AMENDED complaint by Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Redacted)

Exhibit Exhibit 2 to the Redacted Amended Complaint

MOTION by Plaintiff Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC for temporary restraining order

MOTION by Plaintiff Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC to seal document sealed document, [14], sealed document, [18], sealed document[12], sealed document[13], sealed document[17]

MOTION by Plaintiff Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC for service by publication

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff initially sought to sue 297 defendants in this single trademark infringement suit, see [1], [3]. Once the case was assigned to this Court, however, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint aimed at a single defendant, see [11], [13]. Having avoided joinder issues, Plaintiff may proceed on its amended complaint [11]. Additionally, based upon Plaintiff's submissions, the Court grants Plaintiff's motions for leave to seal, [8], [19], and for electronic service of process [20]. The Court also grants Plaintiff's motion seeking entry of a temporary restraining order [15]. Enter Sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Absent further order, this Temporary Restraining Order shall expire on 6/10/25. The 5/28/25 Notice of Motion date is stricken as to all motions. Mailed notice.

SEALED Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 5/27/2025. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC for extension of time to Extend the Temporary Restraining Order

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants Plaintiff's ex parte motion [25] to extend the temporary restraining order entered 5/27/25 [24]. The Court finds that good cause exists to extend the temporary restraining order, and the order is hereby extended an additional fourteen days, to 6/24/25. The 6/4/25 Notice of Motion date is stricken. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC for preliminary injunction

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Motion hearing held on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction [31] on 6/18/2025. Defendant failed to appear and failed to otherwise object in response to the TRO or Plaintiff's motion. Accordingly, and based upon the same findings made in this Court's TRO [24], this Court finds that a preliminary injunction is appropriate and warranted, as well as unopposed and grants Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction [31]. Enter Preliminary Injunction Order. The Court directs the Clerk to unseal any previously sealed documents in this matter. Plaintiff's counsel shall add Defendant to the Court's docket within three business days. Plaintiff may find instructions at https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_cmecf/pdfs/v60/Add_Terminate_Instructions.pdf. Plaintiff shall file a status report by 7/16/25 proposing next steps to advance the case. Mailed notice.

PRELIMINARY Injunction Order. Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 6/18/2025. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC for entry of default

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Hearing held 7/9/25 on Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and for default judgment [37]. Defendants failed to appear, despite proper service and notice. For the reasons stated on the record, the motion [37] is denied. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court again denies Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment [42]. The Court initially denied the motion because Plaintiff's counsel could not confirm that Defendant had, in fact, shipped infringing goods to Illinois, see [45]. Plaintiff renewed its motion adding representations that Plaintiff placed an order for Defendant's Counterfeit/Infringing Products and said order was received by Plaintiff at an address located within this District. Furthermore, in response to discovery requests outlined in the TRO, Amazon reported at least 605 cumulative sales for the four different Counterfeit/Infringing Products offered by Defendant." [43] at 2. These representations establish only that Defendant shipped a single item to Illinois, and that was in connection with Plaintiff's test buy. They thus fail to establish the propriety of default judgment and instead undermine the prior representations concerning personal jurisdiction and venue. See, e.g., Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) ("the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum"); Expeditee LLC v. Entities Listed on Exhibit 1, No. 21 C 6440, 2022 WL 1556381, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2022) ("Plaintiff claims that, as part of its preliminary investigation, it purchased infringing products from the Moving Defendants that the Moving Defendants shipped to Chicago. Such sales on their own are insufficient for the purposes of personal jurisdiction, for Plaintiff has not identified evidence of any transactions involving an allegedly counterfeit product between the Moving Defendants and Illinois customers, other than the 'test buys.'"). The 7/16/25 Notice of Motion date is stricken. If Plaintiff remains unable to establish personal jurisdiction 7/28/2025, the Court will dismiss this case on 7/31/25. Mailed notice. (jn,)

MOTION by Plaintiff Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC for reconsideration regarding order on motion for entry of default, order on motion for default judgment, terminate deadlines and hearings, [46]

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff asks this Court to reconsider its 7/15/25 order [46] denying Plaintiff's motion for default judgment based upon Plaintiff's failure to establish the propriety of exercising personal jurisdiction, see [47]. As Plaintiff correctly notes, when assessing jurisdiction, this Court must focus on Defendants' actions; doing so here, the Court determined that Plaintiff's proffer that it "placed an order for Defendant's Counterfeit/Infringing Products and said order was received by Plaintiff at an address located within this District," [43] at 2, remains insufficient, [69]. Plaintiff suggests that the Court's ruling remains inconsistent with NBA Props., Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614 (7th Cir. 2022); not so. That case emphasizes that, for the exercise of personal jurisdiction to comport with "established constitutional limitations," the defendant's actions must be "purposefully directed" a standard satisfied, for example, when a defendant "creates an interactive website and explicitly provides that Illinois residents could purchase its products through that website," "arranged for the sale of its products through third-party websites," "sent written confirmation to the Illinois customers acknowledging their sale and including their Illinois shipping address," and then, "shipped the product to its customers who were in Illinois." NBA Props., 46 F.4th at 624 (citing Curry v. Revolution Laboratories, LLC, 949 F.3d 385, 399 (7th Cir. 2020)). In distinguishing Matlin v. Spin Master Corp., 921 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2019), where the exercise of personal jurisdiction did not pass constitutional muster, the court in NBA Props. also emphasized, however, the importance of determining whether the "plaintiff-initiated contact" was done "solely to lure the defendants into Illinois to establish personal jurisdiction over them." 46 F.4th at 625. That is precisely what has transpired here. Although Plaintiff represents that Defendant has sold infringing products 605 times, the only one sold here was sold to Plaintiff, and, as in Matlin, constituted "a single incident conjured up by the plaintiffs' attorney for the exclusive purpose of establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendants." 921 F.3d at 706. As a result, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [47] and strikes the 7/30/25 Notice of Motion date. Mailed notice.