2026-cv-03837

COMPLAINT filed by Celine SA; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24946619.

Exhibit 1 to the Complaint

Exhibit 2 to the Complaint

Exhibit 3 to the Complaint

(Exhibit 4 to the Complaint)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Celine SA Schedule A

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Celine SA by Paul Joseph Kossof

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Celine SA

Notice of Claim Involving Trademarks by Celine SA

Trademark Report by Celine SA

DECLARATION of Paul Kossof

Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Paul Kossof

Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Paul Kossof

(Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Paul Kossof)

DECLARATION of Nicolas Lambert

(Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Nicolas Lambert)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Celine SA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Nicolas Lambert

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. 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.

Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Nicolas Lambert by Celine SA

Schedule A to the Complaint by Celine SA

MOTION by Plaintiff Celine SAfor electronic service of process.

Supplement Memorandum in Support of Motion for Electronic Service

Declaration of Paul Kossof in Support of Motion for Electronic Service

Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Paul Kossof in Support of Motion for Electronic Service

(Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Paul Kossof in Support of Motion for Electronic Service)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for service by email and publication 13 is denied. Plaintiff must first attempt means of service "by any internationally agreed means. that is reasonably calculated to give notice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1); see also Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 317 (1950). If there is no internationally agreed means, Plaintiff shall attempt service by the means specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2). If those means fail, Plaintiff may inform the court and petition this court again for permission to serve process via "other means not prohibited by international agreement." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). The parties are directed to file an initial joint status report by 5/13/2026. Mailed notice.

(Outline for the initial joint status report)

Miscellaneous Relief

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion [15] for electronic service of process is granted. While a preferable means of service, the court is cognizant of the fact that physical service is not always possible. In this case, Plaintiff certifies that it has attempted, but has been unable, to obtain a physical address for defendant. In such a circumstance, a less preferable form of service is permissible. Service via email is "reasonably calculated" to be received by defendant, and it is thus adequate in this case. Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S 306, 319 (1950). What's more, service via email is not barred under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Thus, plaintiff may serve process via email. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Celine SAfor order directing clerk to issue summons.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion [17] is stricken with leave to refile pending the resolution of predicate legal issues. By 6/4/25, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or severed for improper joinder. Plaintiff is advised of the following: First, "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21(a). Second, sua sponte review of the propriety of joinder in Schedule A cases is a regular practice of courts in this district because plaintiffs "routinely file these multi-defendant cases. using cookie-cutter complaints that allege in a conclusory manner that 'on information and belief' each infringing defendant is inter-connected with the others." Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 24-cv-1566, 2024 WL 2953105, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Third, "[c]ourts generally find that claims against different defendants arose out of the same transaction or occurrence only if there is a logical relationship between the separate causes of action." Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Fourth, courts have held that "to be part of the same transaction requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts." Id. (quoting In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Fifth, courts have held that the allegation that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright or trademark in the same way "does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Schedule A Defs., No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Finally, courts have held that the allegation that defendants "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale," is not sufficient to establish joinder. Ilustrata Servicos Design, Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-05993, 2021 WL 5396690, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2021); Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-06197, 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021). Mailed notice.