Nike, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

MEMORANDUM by Nike, Inc. in support of motion for preliminary injunction 36 (Slay, Marcella) (Entered: 07/09/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. for preliminary injunction as to Certain Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Slay, Marcella) (Entered: 07/09/2024)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/9/2024. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 07/09/2024)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction 28 is granted. Enter separate preliminary injunction order. Plaintiff's filings establish that Plaintiff has acted expeditiously to protect its interests and that there remains a significant risk Defendants will transfer relevant assets beyond the Court's reach. For these reasons, as well as the reasons provided in the whole of Plaintiff's filings and as stated by the Court in connection with entry of the TRO, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction. In addition, the Court finds that the balance of harms favors Plaintiff and that a preliminary injunction serves the public interest by, among other things, protecting consumers from the marketing of counterfeit or infringing goods. Plaintiff has also certified and established 31 33 that it provided electronic notice to Defendants of the pendency of this case and provided a link to a website containing relevant case documents, but, despite the Court having provided 32 the opportunity to do so, no Defendant has objected to the motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to ensure that all Defendants listed on Schedule A are added to the docket within five business days. The Clerk is directed to unseal any and all previously-sealed documents. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 07/09/2024)

CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. regarding order on motion for preliminary injunction,,,,,, text entry,,,,, 32 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Slay, Marcella) (Entered: 07/02/2024)

MEMORANDUM by Nike, Inc. in support of motion for preliminary injunction 28 (Slay, Marcella) (Entered: 06/28/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. for preliminary injunction as to Certain Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Slay, Marcella) (Entered: 06/28/2024)

EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 6/17/2024. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 06/17/2024)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's Motion to extend the temporary restraining order 23 is granted. Enter separate order. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 06/17/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. for extension of time of Temporary Restraining Order (Slay, Marcella) (Entered: 06/14/2024)

SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 6/5/2024. (exr, ) (Entered: 06/05/2024)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal 3, ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order 11, and motion for electronic service of process 16 are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 14 at 14) 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 for now file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal and appearing at docket entries 2 and 15 . The Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall also be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motions cited above, Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). Specifically, and as noted above, were Defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, it is likely assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating Plaintiff's interests in identifying Defendants, stopping Defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining the equitable accounting that, at this point, Plaintiff states that it may pursue. These facts justify, among other relief, the imposition of a prejudgment asset restraint against Defendants in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per separate account. In addition, the Court finds, at least for now on this limited and one-sided record and without prejudice to revisiting the issue, that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have sold products using infringing and counterfeit versions of Plaintiff's trademarks to residents of Illinois. The evidence presented to the Court also shows that Plaintiff has demonstrated 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 and infringing goods, and there is no countervailing harm to Defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to Defendants. As several judges have previously noted, there may be reason to question both the propriety of joining all Defendants in this one action and whether Plaintiff will pursue an accounting (which Plaintiff asserts as justification for an asset freeze), but at this preliminary stage, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify Defendants and to implement the asset freeze. If any Defendant appears and objects, the Court will reconsider the asset freeze and joinder. Enter sealed Temporary Restraining Order. (exr, ) (Entered: 06/05/2024)

MEMORANDUM by Nike, Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order 11 (Gaudio, Justin) (Entered: 01/29/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff Nike, Inc. for temporary restraining order Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery (Gaudio, Justin) (Entered: 01/29/2024)