Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A
最近更新时间：2025-07-22
案件信息
案件号：ilnd-1:2025-cv-04788
状态：open
提交时间：2025-07-15 00:00:00
诉讼类型：商标
律所：Saper Law
原告：Intercontinental Great Brands, LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A
| # | 日期 | 案件进程 |
| 1 | 2025-07-15 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court again denies Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment 65. The Court initially denied the motion because Plaintiff's counsel could not confirm that Defendant had, in fact, shipped infringing goods to Illinois, see 68. 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, the product listing for Defendant's Counterfeit/Infringing Products indicates that the product had been sold at least 53 times." 66 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 by 7/28/2025, the Court will dismiss this case on 7/31/25. Mailed notice. (jn,) |
