Intersport v. Schedule A - Order Re Joinder

Case: 1:24-cv-11472 Document #: 19 Filed: 11/19/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1855
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.8 (rev. 1.8.1)
Eastern Division
Intersport Corp.
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.:
1:24−cv−11472
Honorable John
Robert Blakey
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations
Identified on Schedule A
Defendant.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, November 19, 2024:
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: In this lawsuit, Plaintiff
seeks to sue 203 separate defendants for trademark infringement, see [1], [2]. Joinder of
multiple defendants in a single 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). In this regard,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "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. The
Court finds the allegations concerning commonalities in Defendants' websites and stores
to be conclusory; indeed, it is equally possible that each online retailer set up shop in the
same or similar manner. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. Partnerships &
Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 188−89 (N.D. Ill.
2020). Plaintiff also alleges, upon information and belief, that Defendants "are an
interrelated group of counterfeiters working in active concert to knowingly and willfully
manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell counterfeit products," and 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. 20, 23. But the screenshot evidence Plaintiff submitted
belies the allegation, see [15]; although some of the identified stores do appear to show
the same photos, others do not. Nor does the screenshot evidence demonstrate a likelihood
of success on the merits of the infringement claim; in fact, the registration attached to the
complaint suggests a use inconsistent with the uses claimed by many of the allegedly
infringing products. For these reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint [1] for
improper joinder and denies the pending motions for leave to file excess pages [12] and
motion for injunctive relief [13]. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under
seal [11]. If Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its
Case: 1:24-cv-11472 Document #: 19 Filed: 11/19/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1856
complaint to allege facts to support the joinder of numerous Defendants in this single
action, it may do so by 12/9/24. If Plaintiff fails to comply, the Court will dismiss this
case. If Plaintiff elects to amend its complaint, it should also address in its allegations the
issue of personal jurisdiction as to each Defendant, see [1] 12 (alleging personal
jurisdiction based upon Defendants' offering to sell and ship infringing products into this
judicial district). The mere maintenance of a website accessible in Illinois 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."). Finally, the
Court reminds Plaintiff that all motions must be noticed for presentment. Mailed
notice(gel, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was
generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and
criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please
refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our
web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Intersport v. Schedule A - Order Re Joinder

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intersport v. Schedule A - Order Re Joinder

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intersport v. Schedule A - Order Re Joinder

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:24-cv-11472 Document #: 19 Filed: 11/19/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1855

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

You might also like