Revelyst Operations, LLC v. Salmenta et al

COMPLAINT filed by Revelyst Operations, LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25058657.

(Exhibit 1)

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC by Michael A. Hierl

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC by William Benjamin Kalbac

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC by Robert Payton Mcmurray

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC by John Wilson

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC by Elizabeth Aubree Miller

MOTION by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC Sealed Schedule A

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Revelyst Operations, LLC

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Revelyst Operations, LLC

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Mary M. Rowland. 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.

EMAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

EMAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials

MINUTE entry before the Executive Committee: Case reassigned to the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins for all further proceedings pursuant to IOP 13(f)(1). Mailed notice

(Request for Reassignment)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety of joining 16 defendants in a single action. By May 13, 2026, plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by May 13, 2026 with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why that smaller subset of defendants is properly joined. No motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order should be filed in this matter without counsel first consulting the opinion issued in Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025) (Alexakis, J.). Mailed notice.

AMENDED complaint by Revelyst Operations, LLC against The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Amended Schedule A Hereto

Exhibit 1

(Redline Amended Complaint)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC Amended Schedule A

DECLARATION of Paul Mills

(Exhibit 1)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC Exhibit 2 to Mills Declaration regarding declaration 18

MEMORANDUM by Revelyst Operations, LLC Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Joinder

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

(Exhibit 3)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC Supplemental Chart

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The court has reviewed Plaintiff's memorandum on joinder 20 and determines that plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden to show that joinder of more than a dozen defendants is proper in this matter under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). See Este Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2020) (noting that "[plaintiff] bears the burden of demonstrating that joinder is proper"). In evaluating the appropriateness of joinder, the court assesses whether a logical relationship exists between defendants through actual evidentiary overlap, not coincidence. Este Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 185. Overall, the arguments fall short of establishing a logical relationship among the defendants. The court is not persuaded that the creation of numerous internet stores by individual Defendants that are designed to appear to be selling genuine CQC products satisfies Rule 20. That is, the court cannot see how any one defendant's alleged trademark infringement is linked to the next defendant's infringement sufficient to show they are part of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as required by Rule 20. Plaintiff argues that the Defendants "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the counterfeit products offered for sale," which it says suggests Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. [Dkt. 20 at 4.] Similarities between websites, prices, sales tactics, and unauthorized products do not suggest a logical relationship between defendants. Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021). Further a claim that defendants infringed on its trademark in the same way does not sufficiently link one defendant to another. Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Companies, P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A Hereto, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) ("Courts in this district generally agree that alleging that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright in the same way does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence."). Even if the court were mistaken in its joinder analysis, it exercises its discretion to not permit joinder in this case. See Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 1103 (7th Cir. 2022). Joining this many defendants in one case simply will not promote judicial economy. See Este Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 189 ("[P]resenting dozens or hundreds of defendants in one lawsuit actually undermines judicial economy, because this Court must evaluate the evidence submitted in support of liability and, eventually, damages. That is especially true in the ex parte setting of a temporary restraining order, as well as for default-judgment motions."); Art Ask Agency, 2021 WL 5493226, at *3 (noting that "joinder in this case may yield significant financial benefits to [plaintiff] at the judiciary's expense."). Accordingly, the court dismisses Defendant Nos. 2-16 without prejudice. The clerk shall update the case caption to reflect that the Defendant is "DYL5662" Any motion for electronic service of process or request for early discovery should be filed by May 22, 2026. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The court provided Plaintiff until May 22, 2026 to file any motion for electronic service of process or request for early discovery but nothing has been filed. Plaintiff has until June 3, 2026 to take some action to advance the case, otherwise the court will dismiss it for want of prosecution. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC for reconsideration Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of May 14, 2026 [Dkt. No. 22]

Exhibit A

(Exhibit B)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion for reconsideration 24 is granted. Plaintiff may proceed on its amended complaint against Defendants Salmenta and Sarapandan. The clerk shall update the case caption to delete DYL5662 as a party and add the following two Defendants: Salmenta and Sarapandan. Plaintiff must take some action to advance the case by June 18, 2026. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC to expedite Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion for expedited discovery 26 is granted. Plaintiff is authorized to serve third-party discovery on an expedited basis, with responses due not less than 10 days after service. The requests shall be proportional to the immediate needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). For example, a request for "documents sufficient to show X" is better than a request for "all documents showing X." Plaintiff shall consider what documents it genuinely needs at this early stage and shall consider the burden on third parties. Plaintiff shall work cooperatively with third parties impacted by this Order and make reasonable, good faith efforts to ease the burdens imposed by Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion to seal 8 is denied as moot in light of the amended complaint. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal

MOTION by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC for leave to file excess pages Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Page Limitation

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC Plaintiff's Motion for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

Exhibit A

Exhibit A1

Exhibit A2

Exhibit B

Exhibit B1

Exhibit B2

Exhibit C

(Exhibit D)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion to seal and for excess pages 29 30 is granted. The motion for electronic service of process 31 is granted. Service by email in China is prohibited under the Hague Convention. Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., 177 F.4th 793 (7th Cir. 2026). The Hague Convention does not apply, however, where a defendant's address is not known and plaintiff has made reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify the defendant's mailing address before deeming it unknown. Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has made reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify the Defendants' mailing addresses before deeming it unknown. Those efforts are detailed in a sworn declaration provided by Plaintiff's counsel and investigators, see dkt. 31-1, dkt. 31-4 and dkt. 31-7. In particular, Plaintiff's counsel made efforts to locate and verify Defendant No. 7 Salmenta's address, including using QCC, Google Maps, Baidu Maps and a test mailing. Plaintiff's counsel also made efforts to locate and verify Defendant No. 8 Sarapandan's address, including using QCC, Google Maps, Baidu Maps and a test mailing. The submission also details the business information obtained through Walmart. The court therefore finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated reasonable diligence. See Storylines Glob. Inc. v. Fong, 2025 WL 2943332, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2025) ("Courts have found that searching the internet, calling known phone numbers, and conducting intensive investigations using multiple methods satisfies the reasonable diligence requirement."); Google LLC v. Doe 1, 2026 WL 353660, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2026) (plaintiff demonstrated reasonable diligence where it attempted to ascertain defendants' addresses through multiple means, including by hiring a cyber investigation firm to pursue an extensive investigation into defendants, seeking the disclosure of addresses associated with defendants from domain registrars, and attempting test mailings and other means of testing the accuracy of the addresses obtained). The court further finds that service by email is reasonably calculated to apprise Defendants of the pendency of the action and afford Defendants the opportunity to present objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). The court makes these findings without the benefit of adversarial presentation and therefore is amenable to revisiting them were Defendants to appear and challenge the sufficiency of service. Separate order to issue. Plaintiff must take some action to advance the case by October 15, 2026. Mailed notice.

ORDER Signed by the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins on 9/15/2026. Mailed notice.

SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Amended Schedule A Hereto

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Revelyst Operations, LLC as to The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Amended Schedule A Hereto on 9/16/2026, answer due 10/7/2026.

CERTIFICATE of Service by Elizabeth Aubree Miller on behalf of Revelyst Operations, LLC

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: By October 19, 2026, Plaintiff shall file a status report regarding next steps in this case. If Plaintiff intends to file a motion for default judgment, it should be filed by that date, and if Plaintiff moves for default judgment, no status report need be filed. Mailed notice.

CERTIFICATE of Service by Elizabeth Aubree Miller on behalf of Revelyst Operations, LLC

MOTION by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC for default judgment as to Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment Against Defendants Identified on Amended Schedule A

(Exhibit A)

MEMORANDUM by Revelyst Operations, LLC in support of motion for default judgment, 40

Exhibit 1

(Exhibit 2)

DECLARATION of Michael A. Hierl regarding motion for default judgment, 40

(Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 1)