NOTICE of Correction regarding mailed.

MAILED Order [12] dated 03/21/2025 to Plaintiff Niachol Moore.

MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Based upon the notice of dismissal [19], this case is dismissed without prejudice. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice.

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Intersport Corp. as to the Defendant(s) Identified in Amended Schedule A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint directed to a single defendant, thus avoiding the joinder issues raised in the Court's prior order 12. The complaint raises another issue, however. To state a claim for trademark infringement or false designation of origin, Plaintiff must allege "(1) that its mark is protectable, and (2) that the defendant's use of that mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers." Sega Corp. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Companies, Partnerships, & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 24 C 4688, 2025 WL 92564, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2025) (citing Phoenix Ent'mt Partners v. Rumsey, 829 F.3d 817, 822 (7th Cir. 2016)). Plaintiff submits screenshot evidence showing that Defendant has used the word Frisbee (lower case), whereas the mark at issue is all caps; and, significantly, Plaintiff seeks to sue a defendant for selling a calming dog toy when it appears its registrations do not extend to such products. See [13-1]. As a result, the Court dismisses the amended complaint 13 without prejudice and denies without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery and for electronic service of process. The 2/26/25 Notice of Motion date is stricken. Mailed notice.

Presentment for Exparte Motion [15] NOTICE of Motion by Keith A. Vogt for presentment of before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 2/26/2025 at 11:00 AM.

MEMORANDUM in Support of [15] Exparte Motion

附件：

1:Exhibit 1-2, of Keith A. Vogt's Declaration
2:Declaration of Keith A. Vogt
3:Exhibit 1

[Amended] Schedule A to Complaint [1], Schedule A [2], and Amended Complaint [13] by Intersport Corp.

AMENDED complaint by Intersport Corp. against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

附件：

1:Exhibit 4
2:Exhibit 3
3:Exhibit 2
4:Exhibit 1

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: In this case, Plaintiff sues 91 Defendants for trademark infringement, 1, 2. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). In this regard, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Internet Stores "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." 1 7, 11. Plaintiff also alleges that the counterfeit products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores "bear similarities and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the counterfeit products were manufactured by and come from a common source and that, upon information and belief, Defendants are interrelated." Id. 23. But these allegations, which lump all Defendants together, constitute legal conclusions, which the Court need not accept, given the lack of any factual support. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to support the joinder of all 91 identified Defendants and dismisses Plaintiff's complaint 1 based upon improper joinder. To the extent Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to allege facts to support the joinder of 91 Defendants in this single action, it may do so by 2/21/25. If Plaintiff fails to amend, the Court will dismiss this case. If Plaintiff elects to amend, it should also bolster its allegations relating to personal jurisdiction as to each Defendant; the mere maintenance of a website accessible in Illinois (which is all Plaintiff appears to allege, see 1 2, 12) remains insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Am. Bridal & Prom Indus. Ass'n, Inc. v. The Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 192 F. Supp. 3d 924, 93435 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (simply alleging the existence of purported counterfeiting via an interactive website is not enough, by itself, to confer personal jurisdiction); Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) ("Having an interactive website. should not open a defendant up to personal jurisdiction in every spot on the planet where that interactive website is accessible."); Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 20-CV-5338, 2021 WL 825668, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (screenshot evidence showing that an order could be placed by an Illinoisan, "amounts to nothing more than maintaining an interactive website that is accessible in Illinois," and "that alone cannot confer personal jurisdiction."). Mailed notice.

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 Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2).

MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA.

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a Wham-O by Yi Bu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a Wham-O by Yanling Jiang

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a Wham-O by Monica Rita Martin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a Wham-O by Christopher Romero

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a Wham-O by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a Wham-O by Adam Grodman

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a Wham-O by Keith A. Vogt

CIVIL Cover Sheet

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a Wham-O Schedule A to Complaint [1]

COMPLAINT filed by Intersport Corp. d/b/a Wham-O; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22915759.

附件：

1:Exhibit 4
2:Exhibit 3
3:Exhibit 2
4:Exhibit 1