MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion to withdraw [33] is granted. Attorney Joshua H. Sheskin is terminated from the case. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. to withdraw Joshua H. Sheskin as counsel

MAILED Trademark report with certified copy of minute order dated 12/10/2025 to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

ENTERED JUDGMENT Signed by the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins on 12/10/2025. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: No remaining Defendant has responded to Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment. Accordingly, the motion [27] is granted. Enter Final Judgment Order. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice.

CERTIFICATE of Service by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn on behalf of Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. regarding text entry, [28]

附件：

1:Exhibit A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment. The defendant has failed either to plead or to otherwise appear to defend against this action. Accordingly, default is entered under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any objections to the motion for entry of default judgment must be filed on or before December 9, 2025. If no objections are filed by that date, the court will consider the motion unopposed. The Court will also rule on the papers unless a hearing is requested by December 5, 2025. A hearing may be requested by filing a Request for Hearing as a separate entry on the docket. Plaintiff must serve this minute order upon all remaining Defendants within one business day of its entry on the docket and must promptly file proof of that service. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. for entry of default AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

附件：

1:PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFA
2:Declaration of Joseph W. Droter

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Assuming no defendant appears beforehand, plaintiff is directed to file a motion for entry of default and default judgment by December 3, 2025. Mailed notice.

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. as to ShapebuS on 11/4/2025, answer due 11/25/2025.

附件：

1:SERVICE E-MAIL

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Assuming no defendant appears beforehand, plaintiff is directed to file a motion for entry of default and default judgment by November 18, 2025. Mailed notice.

SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A

SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) ShapebuS by Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited.

ORDER Signed by the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins on 10/3/2025. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion for service by publication and for expedited discovery [18] is granted as modified. Separate order to issue. The clerk is directed to update the case caption to reflect that Defendant is "ShapebuS". Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion for a temporary restraining order [17] is denied in without prejudice to renewal. The court acknowledges Plaintiff's arguments as to personal jurisdiction considering the representation that Defendant has shipped a fulfilled order to this district. Plaintiff is a "source for women's fashion apparel, accessories, and related merchandise," who has secured a brand trademark registered with the trademark office. Temporary restraining orders are extraordinary and drastic remedies that "should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). The party seeking such relief must show: (1) it has some likelihood of success on the merits; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; and (3) it will suffer irreparable harm if the court denies relief. GEFT Outdoors, LLC v. City of Westfield, 922 F.3d 357, 364 (7th Cir. 2019). If each of those factors is met, the Court, employing a sliding scale approach, first weighs the harm the plaintiff will suffer absent an injunction against the harm to the defendant from an injunction, and next considers whether an injunction is in the public interest First, it is "all but impossible for the Court to discern the likelihood of success from the one-sided evidence provided." Eicher v. The Partnerships, 2025 WL 2299593, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025). Indeed, "it is nearly impossible to resolve whether defendant[ is] engaged in [unlawful conduct] on such a sparse record," particularly absent adversarial briefing. Id. As for irreparable harm, it is true that the Seventh Circuit has held that damage to a trademark holder's goodwill can constitute irreparable injury for which the trademark owner has no adequate legal remedy and that as a result irreparable harm "is generally presumed in trademark infringement cases." Re/Max N. Cent., Inc. v. Cook, 272 F.3d 424, 432 (7th Cir. 2001)). Generic facts alleged in Schedule A cases cannot satisfy Rule 65(b); by extension, Schedule A plaintiffs should not be entitled to such presumptions. Even assuming that the likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and adequate remedy at law factors are met, the court is not persuaded that the Schedule A mechanism satisfies the balance of interests inquiry, or even that the court can properly weigh the interests at stake without Defendant's presence in the case. Nor will the public interest be served by an ex parte ruling. To satisfy interest balancing, the "injunction must do more good than harm (which is to say that the 'balance of equities' favors the plaintiff)." Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 721, 725 (7th Cir. 2009). For the reasons explained in Eicher, Schedule A cases may be more likely to harm the public interest than to favor it. Finally, should Plaintiff renew its request for injunctive relief, the court will review that request with these considerations in mind. Any request for a prejudgment asset restraint, however, is not well taken because such restraints are not to be used to secure assets for collection. Disgorgement is an equitable remedy the court can impose where the defendant "actually holds property or proceeds that belong to the plaintiff which can be returned to the plaintiff." See Cont'l Vineyard LLC v. Dzierzawski, 2018 WL 11195945, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 5, 2018). Even in the typical disgorgement of profits scenario, courts are not obligated to impose a prejudgment asset restraint. The decision to do so is discretionary. See Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Companies, Partnerships, & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, 735 F. Supp. 3d 981, 983 (N.D. Ill. 2024) ("[W]here a plaintiff seeks an equitable remedy like disgorgement, an asset freeze may be appropriate.") Here, the court declines to exercise its discretion in the broad manner requested, particularly considering that imposing a prejudgment asset restraint is likely to encompasses legitimate assets. An asset restraint is not necessary to conduct an accounting; discovery and records of sales can provide any accounting plaintiff may be entitled to. Schedule A plaintiffs rarely pursue an actual accounting as a remedy and rarely justify requests for statutory damages by reference to actual sales figures, lost profits, or the like. Instead, counsel typically ask for statutory damages based on notions of deterrence without case-specific factual support justifying the number. Mailed notice.

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. for service by publication PLAINTIFFS EX-PARTE MOTION FOR SERVICE BY PUBLICATION, ELECTRONIC SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO FRCP 4(f)(3) AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO FRCP 45

附件：

1:Declaration of Joshua H. Sheskin
2:PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX-PARTE MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC SERVICE OF P

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. for temporary restraining order PLAINTIFFS EX-PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INCLUDING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, AND A TEMPORARY ASSET RESTRAINT

附件：

1:PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX-PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING O
2:Declaration of Joshua H. Sheskin
3:Declaration of Anisah Beaston
4:Declaration of En Fang
5:Exhibit 1 to Declaration of En Fang
6:Exhibit 2 to Declaration of En Fang

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Plaintiff may proceed on its amended complaint. Any motion for electronic service of process or request for early discovery should be filed by October 6, 2025. Mailed notice.

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT regarding amended complaint, [14]

AMENDED complaint by Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. against Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited.

附件：

1:Exhibit 3 to the Amended Complaint
2:Exhibit 4 to the Amended Complaint
3:Exhibit 5 to the Amended Complaint
4:Exhibit 2 to the Amended Complaint
5:Exhibit 1 to the Amended Complaint

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The Court grants the motion to seal [4], but upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety of joining more than 10 defendants in a single action. By October 2, 2025, plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by October 2, 2025 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 the opinion issued in Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025) (Alexakis, J.). Mailed notice.

MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials

MAILED 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. (qrtr,)

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. by Gokalp Bayramoglu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. by Joseph Wendell Droter

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. by Nihat Deniz Bayramoglu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. by Joshua Howard Sheskin

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. to seal PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL 4

MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. to seal PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL

附件：

1:(Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Joshua H. Sheskin)
2:Declaration of Joshua H. Sheskin

CIVIL Cover Sheet

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT regarding complaint, 1

附件：

1:Exhibit 3 to the Complaint
2:(Exhibit 5 to the Complaint)
3:Exhibit 4 to the Complaint
4:Exhibit 2 to the Complaint

COMPLAINT filed by Hong Kong Yu'En E-Commerce Co. Limited. ; JURY DEMAND. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24103645.

附件：

1:(Exhibit 5 to the Complaint)
2:Exhibit 4 to the Complaint
3:Exhibit 3 to the Complaint
4:Exhibit 2 to the Complaint
5:Exhibit 1 to the Complaint