SUMMONS Returned Executed by Thomas Fedro as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 4/2/2025, answer due 4/23/2025.

附件：

1:(Declaration of Service)

MEMORANDUM by Thomas Fedro in support of motion for preliminary injunction 26

附件：

1:(Exhibit 1, of Keith A. Vogt's Declaration)
2:Declaration of Keith A. Vogt

MOTION by Plaintiff Thomas Fedro for preliminary injunction

SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 3/24/2025.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal 11, motion to exceed page limitations 12, and ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, which includes a request for electronic service of process 13 are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 14-1) establish that, were Defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of Plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that Defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. Accordingly, subject to unsealing at an appropriate time, Plaintiff may for now file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal and appearing at docket entries 2 and 15. The Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall also be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motions cited above, the Court holds, dubitante, that Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). (This holding is subject to reconsideration in future "Schedule A" cases.) Specifically, and as noted above, were Defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, it is likely assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating Plaintiff's interests in identifying Defendants, stopping Defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining the equitable accounting that, at this point, Plaintiff states that he may pursue. These facts justify, among other relief, the imposition of a prejudgment asset restraint against Defendants in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per separate account. In addition, the Court finds, at least for now on this limited and one-sided record and without prejudice to revisiting the issue, that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have sold products using infringing versions of Plaintiff's copyrighted works to residents of Illinois. The evidence presented to the Court also shows that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois), that the harm to Plaintiff is irreparable, and that an injunction is in the public interest. An injunction serves the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by infringing goods, and there is no countervailing harm to Defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to Defendants. As several judges have previously noted, there may be reason to question both the propriety of joining all Defendants in this one action and whether Plaintiff will pursue an accounting (which Plaintiff asserts as justification for an asset freeze), but at this preliminary stage, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify Defendants and to implement the asset freeze. If any Defendant appears and objects, the Court will reconsider the asset freeze and joinder. Enter sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Mailed notice.

ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/20/2024: Mailed notice.

NOTICE of Correction regarding 17

ENTERED IN ERROR.

MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC.

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Thomas Fedro Sealed Exhibit 2, Declaration of Thomas Fedro regarding memorandum in support of motion, 14

附件：

1:(Exhibit 2-4)
2:Exhibit 2-3
3:Exhibit 2-2
4:Exhibit 2-1

MEMORANDUM in Support of 13 Exparte Motion

附件：

1:(Exhibit 1, of Thomas Fedro's Declaration)
2:Declaration of Thomas Fedro
3:Exhibit 1-4, of Keith A. Vogt's Declaration
4:Declaration of Keith A. Vogt

MOTION by Plaintiff Thomas Fedro for leave to file excess pages

MOTION by Plaintiff Thomas Fedro for leave to file under seal

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.

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeannice W. Appenteng. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3).

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Thomas Fedro by Yi Bu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Thomas Fedro by Yanling Jiang

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Thomas Fedro by Monica Rita Martin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Thomas Fedro by Christopher Romero

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Thomas Fedro by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Thomas Fedro by Adam Grodman

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Thomas Fedro by Keith A. Vogt

CIVIL Cover Sheet

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Thomas Fedro Schedule A to Complaint 1

COMPLAINT filed by Thomas Fedro; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22813669.

附件：

1:Exhibit 1
2:Exhibit 2
3:Exhibit 3
4:(Exhibit 4)