SUMMONS Returned Executed by New Wave Holdings, LLC as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 5/28/2025, answer due 6/18/2025.

附件：

1:(Affidavit Affidavit of Service)

NOTICE of Motion by Brandon Matthew Beymer for presentment of motion for preliminary injunction 57 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 6/4/2025 at 11:00 AM.

MEMORANDUM by New Wave Holdings, LLC in support of motion for preliminary injunction 57

MOTION by Plaintiff New Wave Holdings, LLC for preliminary injunction

附件：

1:(Exhibit Schedule A)

SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant 3 Cn1083050029swmae Store and all other Defendants identified in the Complaint

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants Plaintiff's ex parte motion 50 to extend the temporary restraining order entered 5/6/25 49. The Court finds that good cause exists to extend the temporary restraining order, and the order is hereby extended an additional fourteen days, to 6/3/25. The 5/21/25 Notice of Motion date is stricken. Mailed notice.

SURETY BOND in the amount of $ 10,000.00 posted by New Wave Holdings, LLC

NOTICE of Motion by Brandon Matthew Beymer for presentment of extension of time 50 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 5/21/2025 at 11:00 AM.

MOTION by Plaintiff New Wave Holdings, LLC for extension of time to Extend the Temporary Restraining Order

SEALED Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 5/6/2025. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint 36, seeking to sue three defendants for trademark and copyright infringement in a single action, see 41. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single copyright or trademark 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). The second amended complaint alleges that the "Defendants appear to be an interrelated group of counterfeiters and infringers, who create numerous Defendant Internet Stores and design these stores to appear to be selling genuine Plaintiff's Product, while they are actually selling inferior, unauthorized imitations of Plaintiff's Product. The Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as the following: common design elements, the same or similar Counterfeit/Infringing Products that they offer for sale, similar Counterfeit/Infringing Product descriptions, the same or substantially similar shopping cart platforms, the same accepted payment methods, the same check-out methods, the same dearth of contact information, and identically or similarly priced Counterfeit/Infringing Products and volume sales discounts. Moreover, each of the Defendants list the same "legal representative." The foregoing similarities establish a logical relationship between them and suggest that Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences." 41 17. Along with its complaint, Plaintiff submitted screenshot evidence demonstrating that the three defendants all use the same stock photographs, language, and layout and do indeed appear to be selling the same product. See [41-3]. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiff has supported the joinder of all three defendants in this single suit, and Plaintiff may proceed on its second amended complaint 41. Additionally, based upon Plaintiff's submissions, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process 45 and grants Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order 42. Enter Sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Absent further order, this TRO shall expire 5/20/25. The 5/7/25 Notice of Motion date is stricken. Mailed notice.

NOTICE of Motion by Brandon Matthew Beymer for presentment of motion for service by publication 45, motion for temporary restraining order 42 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 5/7/2025 at 11:00 AM.

MEMORANDUM by New Wave Holdings, LLC in support of motion for service by publication 45

MOTION by Plaintiff New Wave Holdings, LLC for service by publication

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff New Wave Holdings, LLC Unredacted Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order

MEMORANDUM by New Wave Holdings, LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order 42 Redacted Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order

MOTION by Plaintiff New Wave Holdings, LLC for temporary restraining order

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff New Wave Holdings, LLC Unredacted Second Amended Complaint

附件：

1:(Exhibit Schedule A to the Unredacted Second Amended Complaint)
2:Exhibit Exhibit 4 to the Unredacted Second Amended Complaint
3:Exhibit Exhibit 3 to the Unredacted Second Amended Complaint
4:Exhibit Exhibit 2 to the Unredacted Second Amended Complaint
5:Exhibit Exhibit 1 to the Unredacted Second Amended Complaint

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff New Wave Holdings, LLC Schedule A to the redacted Second Amended Complaint

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff New Wave Holdings, LLC Exhibit 3 to the Redacted Second Amended Complaint

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff New Wave Holdings, LLC Exhibit 2 to the Redacted Second Amended Complaint

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff New Wave Holdings, LLC Exhibit 1 to the Redacted Second Amended Complaint

Redacted Second AMENDED complaint by New Wave Holdings, LLC against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

附件：

1:(Exhibit Exhibit 4 to the redacted Second Amended Complaint)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserts trademark and copyright infringement claims jointly against 238 separate Defendants. See [28]. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single trademark or copyright 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 (like most plaintiffs seeking to pursue claims against scores of defendants in a single suit) alleges that the "Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers establishing a logical relationship between them and reflecting that Defendants' counterfeiting operation arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." [28] at 4. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants share "common design elements, the same or similar Counterfeit/Infringing Products that they offer for sale, similar Counterfeit/Infringing Product descriptions, the same or substantially similar shopping cart platforms, the same accepted payment methods, the same check-out methods, the same dearth of contact information, and identically or similarly priced Counterfeit/Infringing Products and volume sales discounts," which "establish a logical relationship between them and suggest that Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences." Id. 17. To support the point, Plaintiff alleges that: (1) among the 238 Defendants, 223 of them (93%) sell Counterfeit/Infringing Products that look identical to each other; (2) 233 of the Defendants (97%) appear to be located in China; (3) a majority of the Defendants appear to obtain their Counterfeit/Infringing Products from the same manufacturer; and (4) 92 of them use the same product photos (which are not photos that are owned, controlled, or offered by Plaintiff)." Id. 18. Plaintiff's statistical evidence suggests that, although joinder of some of the identified Defendants may be appropriate, joinder of all of the identified Defendants remains inappropriate, as they are not all selling identical products obtained from the same manufacturer. Plaintiff's allegations fail to demonstrate that the claims against all 238 identified Defendants are asserted as to the same transaction or series of transactions. As a result, joinder remains inappropriate and the Court dismisses Plaintiff's amended complaint [28]. For this same reason, and because the screenshot evidence suggests that at least some of the Defendants' products do not even use Plaintiff's mark, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [29]. The Court also denies Plaintiff's motion for service by publication [32] and strikes the 4/30/25 Notice of Motion date as to all motions. The Court will grant Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend its complaint to allege facts to support the joinder of all identified Defendants, if it can do so consistent with its obligations under Rule 11. If Plaintiff fails to amend by 5/30/25, the Court will dismiss this case. Mailed notice.

NOTICE of Motion by Brandon Matthew Beymer for presentment of motion for service by publication 32, motion for temporary restraining order 29 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 4/30/2025 at 11:00 AM.

MEMORANDUM by John Doe in support of motion for service by publication 32

MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe for service by publication

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Unredacted Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order

MEMORANDUM by John Doe in support of motion for temporary restraining order 29 Redacted Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order

MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe for temporary restraining order

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Unredacted Amended Complaint

附件：

1:(Exhibit Schedule A to Unredacted Amended Complaint)
2:Exhibit Exhibit 3F to Unredacted Amended Complaint
3:Exhibit Exhibit 3G to Unredacted Amended Complaint
4:Exhibit Exhibit 3H to Unredacted Amended Complaint
5:Exhibit Exhibit 4 to Unredacted Amended Complaint
6:Exhibit Exhibit 5 to Unredacted Amended Complaint
7:Exhibit Exhibit 3D to Unredacted Amended Complaint
8:Exhibit Exhibit 3E to Unredacted Amended Complaint
9:Exhibit Exhibit 3B to Unredacted Amended Complaint
10:Exhibit Exhibit 3C to Unredacted Amended Complaint
11:Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Unredacted Amended Complaint
12:Exhibit Exhibit 3A to Unredacted Amended Complaint
13:Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Unredacted Amended Complaint

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Schedule A to Redacted Amended Complaint

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Exhibit 4 to Redacted Amended Complaint

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Exhibit 3 to Redacted Amended Complaint

附件：

1:(Exhibit Exhibit 3H to Redacted Amended Complaint)
2:Exhibit Exhibit 3F to Redacted Amended Complaint
3:Exhibit Exhibit 3G to Redacted Amended Complaint
4:Exhibit Exhibit 3E to Redacted Amended Complaint
5:Exhibit Exhibit 3C to Redacted Amended Complaint
6:Exhibit Exhibit 3D to Redacted Amended Complaint
7:Exhibit Exhibit 3A to Redacted Amended Complaint
8:Exhibit Exhibit 3B to Redacted Amended Complaint

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Exhibit 2 to Redacted Amended Complaint

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Exhibit 1 to Redacted Amended Complaint

Redacted AMENDED complaint by John Doe against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

附件：

1:(Exhibit Exhibit 5 to the redacted Amended Complaint)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has initiated this copyright, and trademark infringement case against 218 Defendants and seeks to proceed, at least initially, via pseudonym. See 1. Plaintiff also seeks leave to temporarily seal its complaint, the "Schedule A" listing the named Defendants, and copies of Plaintiff's trademarks, and certificates of copyright registration, 15. "No-name litigation is disfavored in general, and particularly in this Circuit." XYZ Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 21-CV-06471, 2022 WL 180151, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022). The Seventh Circuit has "repeatedly voiced its disfavor of parties proceeding anonymously, as anonymous litigation runs contrary to the rights of the public to have open judicial proceedings and to know who is using court facilities and procedures funded by public taxes. To proceed anonymously, a party must demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances' that outweigh both the public policy in favor of identified parties and the prejudice to the opposing party that would result from anonymity." Id. (citing Doe v. Vill. of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 37677 (7th Cir. 2016); Doe v. Smith, 429 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2005); Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997)). Here, Plaintiff simply filed its complaint using a pseudonym, without leave, and without any effort to justify the tactic. Yet, many cases just like this are filed every day in this District without anonymous plaintiffs, and the Court has no reason to think that the requested sealing order (which would prevent Defendants from learning that they have been sued) remains insufficient by itself to alleviate any concerns Plaintiff may have about disclosing its identity. Because Plaintiff has failed to identify itself on any of the pending pleadings, the Court dismisses the complaint 1 without prejudice and denies without prejudice the motions for service by publication 13 and for a TRO 9. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to seal 15, and, if Plaintiff elects to proceed, it may file an amended complaint under seal. The 3/12/25 Notice of Motion date is stricken as to all motions. If Plaintiff elects to pursue an amended complaint and revised motions, it should ensure that its pleadings provide a factual and legal basis to join multiple defendants in a single suit. Plaintiff should also ensure that its submissions support the exercise of personal jurisdiction as to each Defendant; in this regard, the mere maintenance of a website, even a fully interactive website accessible in Illinois, remains insufficient. E.g., 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.

MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials

MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

NOTICE of Motion by Brandon Matthew Beymer for presentment of motion for temporary restraining order 9, motion to seal document 15, motion for service by publication 13 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 3/12/2025 at 11:00 AM.

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 Jeannice W. Appenteng. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2).

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff John Doe by Daliah Saper

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff John Doe by Brandon Matthew Beymer

MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe to seal document sealed document, 12, sealed document, 6, sealed document 4, sealed document 3, sealed document 8, sealed document 11, sealed document 2

MEMORANDUM by John Doe in support of motion for service by publication 13

MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe for service by publication

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Declaration of Plaintiff in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

附件：

1:(Exhibit Exhibit 4F)
2:Exhibit Exhibit 4E
3:Exhibit Exhibit 3
4:Exhibit Exhibit 4A
5:Exhibit Exhibit 4B
6:Exhibit Exhibit 4C
7:Exhibit Exhibit 1
8:Exhibit Exhibit 4D
9:Exhibit Exhibit 2

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Unredacted Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order

MEMORANDUM by John Doe in support of motion for temporary restraining order 9 Redacted Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order

MOTION by Plaintiff John Doe for temporary restraining order

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Notice of Trademark Claim

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by John Doe

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Unredacted Complaint

附件：

1:Exhibit Exhibit 3 to Unredacted Complaint
2:(Exhibit Schedule A to Unredacted Complaint)
3:Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Unredacted Complaint
4:Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Unredacted Complaint

CIVIL Cover Sheet

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Schedule A to Redacted Complaint

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Exhibit 2 to Redacted Complaint

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff John Doe Exhibit 1 to Redacted Complaint

COMPLAINT Redacted Complaint filed by John Doe; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23176767.

附件：

1:(Exhibit Exhibit 3)