Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A

COMPLAINT filed by Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25305327.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. Schedule A regarding complaint[1]

MOTION by Plaintiffs Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. for Leave to File Certain Documents Under Seal

CIVIL Cover Sheet

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. by Martin Francis Trainor

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. by Alexander Whang

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. by Victor Benjamin Chahin, Jr

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis. 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.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: The Court grants plaintiff's motion for leave to file certain documents under seal [3]. Upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety of joining 59 defendants in a single action. By 7/13/2026, plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder in light of this Court's orders in Bug Art Limited v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 7777, Dkt. 28 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2024), and Anagram International v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12194, Dkt. 87 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2025). In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by 7/13/2026 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 this Court's order in Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025). Mailed notice.

MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: An initial status hearing is set for 9/8/2026 at 9:30 a.m. in person in Courtroom 1719. By 9/1/2026, the parties shall file a Joint Initial Status Report that complies with the Court's standing order, which can be found on the Court's website. If the defendant(s) have not been served by the initial status hearing date, counsel for Plaintiff must contact the Courtroom Deputy to reschedule the status hearing and the date for filing the Joint Initial Status Report. Mailed notice.

NEW PARTIES: 2012yqtek added to case caption. Terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A

AMENDED complaint by Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. against 2012yqtek

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. Schedule A regarding amended complaint[14]

MOTION by Plaintiffs Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. for Expedited Discovery

Exhibit 1

Declaration of Martin F. Trainor

Exhibit 1

NOTICE of Motion by Martin Francis Trainor for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief[16] before Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis on 7/22/2026 at 09:45 AM.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: For the reasons set forth by Plaintiffs, including the need to ascertain Defendant's identity, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery [16]. Enter Order. The Court vacates the 7/22/2026 presentment hearing. Mailed notice.

ORDER AUTHORIZING EXPEDITED DISCOVERY. Signed by the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis on 7/20/2026. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: Plaintiff is directed to file their motion for electronic service and notice it up by 9/14/2026. The Court resets the 9/8/2026 initial status hearing to 10/8/2026 at 9:30 a.m. The initial status report is now due 10/1/2026. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiffs Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

MEMORANDUM by Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief[21]

Declaration of Martin F. Trainor

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit A

Declaration of Victor B. Chahin

NOTICE of Motion by Martin Francis Trainor for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief[21] before Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis on 9/22/2026 at 09:30 AM.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: The Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for electronic service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 4(f)(3) [21] without prejudice to renewal. The Court vacates the 9/22/2026 presentment hearing. The Hague Service Convention prohibits electronic service in China. See Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., 177 F.4th 793, 796 (7th Cir. 2026). Therefore, electronic service in China is valid only when the Convention does not apply, which includes instances where a defendant's address is not known. Id. at 799; see also 20 U.S.T. at 362 (Article 1 of the Convention applies "in all cases where there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad" but "shall not apply where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known"). "District courts handling Schedule A cases typically require plaintiffs to make 'reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify [the] defendant's mailing address' before deeming the defendant's address unknown." Kangol, 177 F.4th at 799 (quoting NBA Props., Inc. v. P'ships and Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified in Schedule "A", 549 F. Supp. 3d 790, 796 (N.D. Ill. 2021)) (addition in original). Here, Plaintiffs argue that they have made reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify Defendant's mailing address because Plaintiffs took the physical address that Defendant provided to third-party eBay, which they maintain was almost certainly false; input that address into Google, Google Maps, and Baidu Maps; and received no "results identifying any business associated with Defendant at the address." [22] at 23; see also [22-5]. The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiffs' argument that addresses typically provided to e-commerce operators are false. [22] at 2. See Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. A AO, 25 C 13065, 2026 WL 1802901, at *5 (N.D. Ill. June 23, 2026) ("[B]are assertions regarding the reliability of Defendant's publicly available address are not a substitute for actual diligence.'"). Nor does the Court find that Plaintiffs' efforts to pinpoint Defendant's physical address, a sum total of three internet searches, to amount to reasonable diligence. Compare with Xuchang Changmei Trading Co., Ltd. v. usbinbin, 26-cv-6033 (N.D. Ill. May 22, 2026), Dkt. 19 (plaintiff made reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify the defendant's mailing address before deeming it unknown by using Chinese search engine Baidu to locate and verify defendant's business information and determine defendant's actual business name; conducting a search of defendant's actual business name using QiChaCha, a Chinese corporate information database, which yielded defendant's registered principal place of business; undertaking multiple test mailings at that principal place of business using an established courier service; and speaking, through counsel, with the delivery courier regarding the circumstances surrounding the failed deliveries); Advanced Access Content Sys. Licensing Adm'r, LLC v. Shen, No. 14-CV-1112 (VSB), 2018 WL 4757939, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018) (plaintiff showed reasonable diligence by investigating physical addresses associated with Chinese online retailer's internet domains through conducting multiple internet searches, calling known phone numbers, and conducting in-person visits where reasonable). Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: On 10/1/2026, the Court received email correspondence from Plaintiff stating that Defendant has not yet been served. The Court therefore resets the 10/8/2026 status hearing to 11/16/2026 at 9:30 a.m. The parties' joint initial status report is now due by 11/9/2026. Mailed notice. (jn,)

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. by Sydney Paige Fenton

MOTION by Plaintiffs Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) (Renewed)

Exhibit A

MEMORANDUM by Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief[27]

Declaration of Martin F. Trainor

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit A

Declaration of Yinglun Ma

Exhibit 1

NOTICE of Motion by Martin Francis Trainor for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief[27] before Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis on 11/3/2026 at 09:30 AM.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: The Court grants Plaintiff's renewed motion for electronic service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). [27]. The Court vacates the 11/3/2026 presentment hearing. The Hague Service Convention prohibits electronic service in China. See Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., 177 F.4th 793, 796 (7th Cir. 2026). Therefore, electronic service in China is valid only when the Convention does not apply, which includes instances where a defendant's address is not known. Id. at 799; see also 20 U.S.T. at 362 (Article 1 of the Convention applies "in all cases where there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad" but "shall not apply where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known"). "District courts handling Schedule A cases typically require plaintiffs to make 'reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify [the] defendant's mailing address' before deeming the defendant's address unknown." Kangol, 177 F.4th at 799 (quoting NBA Props., Inc. v. P'ships and Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified in Schedule "A", 549 F. Supp. 3d 790, 796 (N.D. Ill. 2021)) (addition in original). As set forth in Plaintiff's motion and accompanying materials, Plaintiff engaged an investigator in China to verify the business address that Defendant provided eBay, the investigator visited the address, and the investigator found no evidence that defendant maintained an active office or business operation at that address. The Court finds that Plaintiff's efforts amount to reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify the Defendant's mailing address and the address is therefore not known. See TushBaby, Inc. v. Jinjang Kangbersi Trade Co., Ltd., No. 24-CV-6150 (JMF), 2025 WL 358409, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2025) (reasonable diligence standard satisfied where "the plaintiff searched websites associated with the defendant's domain names, completed internet searches, and attempted to visit the defendant's domicile in person"). Accordingly, Plaintiff is not bound by the Hague Service Convention. The Court further finds that service by email is reasonably calculated to apprise Defendant of the pendency of the action and to afford it 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 Defendant to appear and challenge the sufficiency of service. Mailed notice.