EMAILED Trademark report with certified copy of minute order dated 08/22/25 to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: The Court has reviewed plaintiff's response to its rule to show cause and, having done so, dismisses this matter with prejudice. On July 15, 2025, the Court instructed that "[n]o motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order 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) ("the Wham-O Order"). 14. Plaintiff proceeded to file a motion for a TRO that contained deficiencies the Court had criticized in the Wham-O Order, thereby demonstrating that plaintiff had not consulted the Wham-O Order beforehand. 24. The Court then issued a rule to show cause directing plaintiff to address "why this matter should not be dismissed with prejudice. given plaintiff's failure to abide by the Court's order" that it review the Wham-O Order before seeking emergency relief. 24 In its response to the Court's rule to show cause 25, plaintiff does not answer that question. Instead, it belatedly attempts to address the Court's concerns, as articulated in the Wham-O Order, regarding the need for a party seeking a TRO to demonstrate (1) the irreparable nature of ongoing harm and (2) that its request for a blanket asset freeze is not overbroad. These are issues plaintiff should have addressed in the first place; the response to the rule to show cause was the avenue to explain why it had neglected to do so. (Counsel's response to the rule to show cause also includes an obvious typographical error, referring to "Britto Central, Inc." as the plaintiff in this matter, 25 at 4, thus reflecting just how little care counsel took in responding to the Court's rule to show cause.) Given its repeated failure to abide by the Court's orders, this matter is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Civil case terminated.

RESPONSE by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. Memorandum in Response to Order of August 14, 2025 [Dkt. No. 24]

附件：

1:(Exhibit C)
2:Exhibit B
3:Exhibit A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: The Court grants plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages 18. Plaintiff's motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order is denied 19. Plaintiff's memorandum in support of its motion for a TRO asserts that plaintiff is experiencing "ongoing" and "immediate" harm owing to defendants' alleged infringement of plaintiff's intellectual property. See 20 at 10, 17, 20, 23. This representation is critical in light of Rule 65(b)(1)(A)'s requirement that a court "issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Yet plaintiff has submitted documents reflecting only that defendant offered for sale the allegedly infringing products in early June 2025, more than two months ago and one month before this lawsuit was filed. 21. The Court further observes that plaintiff requests a blanket freeze of defendant's assets. That request fails to identify the property or proceeds plaintiff seeks to enjoin with a sufficient degree of specificity, where based on the Court's review of the third-party seller's website, the defendant appears to sell products unrelated to plaintiff's products. The Court previously directed plaintiff to review its order in Wham-O Holding, Ltd. and Intersport Corp. d/b/a Wham-O v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A, 24 CV 12523, ECF No. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025), before filing any motion for a temporary restraining order. In Wham-O Holding, the Court discussed the deficiencies plaintiff has exhibited here. Indeed, the two cases involve the same plaintiff. By 8/21/25, plaintiff is directed to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b) given plaintiff's failure to abide by the Court's order.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: The Court, on its own motion, re-sets the hearing on plaintiff's motion for leave to exceed page limitations and a temporary restraining order until 8/18/25 at 9:30 a.m.

NOTICE of Motion by Michael A. Hierl for presentment of motion for temporary restraining order, 19, motion for leave to file excess pages 18 before Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis on 8/15/2025 at 09:30 AM.

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. Exhibit 2 to Rios Declaration regarding memorandum in support of motion, 20

MEMORANDUM by Intersport Corp. in support of motion for temporary restraining order, 19

附件：

1:Declaration Hierl Declaration
2:(Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 4)
3:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 3
4:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 2
5:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 1
6:Declaration Rios Declaration
7:Exhibit 1

MOTION by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. for temporary restraining order Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, Expedited Discovery, and Service of Process by Email and/or Electronic Publication

MOTION by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. for leave to file excess pages Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Page Limitation

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. Amended Schedule A

AMENDED complaint by Intersport Corp. against The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Amended Schedule A Hereto

附件：

1:(Exhibit 1)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N Alexakis: Initial status hearing is set for 9/18/25 at 9:30 a.m. in person in Courtroom 1719. By 9/11/25, 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.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N Alexakis: The Court grants plaintiff's motion for leave to file certain documents under seal 8. Upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety of joining 250 defendants in a single action. By 7/30/25, 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 7/30/25 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).

EMAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials

EMAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

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 Georgia N Alexakis. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2).

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O Sealed Schedule A

MOTION by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O by Elizabeth Aubree Miller

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O by John Wilson

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O by Robert Payton Mcmurray

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O by William Benjamin Kalbac

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O by Michael A. Hierl

CIVIL Cover Sheet

COMPLAINT filed by Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23749012.

附件：

1:(Exhibit 1)