Glitch Productions Pty Ltd v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings. Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process [18] is terminated without prejudice as withdrawn. If plaintiff intends to file a renewed motion for leave for electronic service, it must comply with the dicates of Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., 177 F.4th 793, 799 (7th Cir. 2026). Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal [3], and motion for a temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction and a temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery [14] are granted. At the outset, the Court notes that plaintiff has presented evidence of completed purchases of the allegedly infringing products to customers in Illinois, (Dckt. #17). See Liu v. Monthly, 170 F.4th 1090 (7th Cir. 2026). Moreover, plaintiff's submissions establish that, were defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. Accordingly, subject to unsealing at an appropriate time, plaintiff may file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal. The Temporary Restraining Order that will be entered with this order will also be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motions cited above, plaintiff's filings support proceeding on an ex parte basis at this time. Specifically, and as noted above, were defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, the Court finds that it is likely that their assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating plaintiff's interests in identifying defendants, stopping defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining an accounting. In addition, the evidence submitted by plaintiff shows a likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois), that the harm to plaintiff is irreparable, and that an injunction is in the public interest. An injunction serves the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by counterfeit goods, and there is no countervailing harm to defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendants and to implement the asset freeze. Enter Sealed TRO. Tracking status hearing set for 11/30/26 at 9:00 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). Mailed notice

法院批准TRO