TV Tokyo Corporation v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A Hereto

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: In this case, Plaintiff seeks to sue 41 separate Defendants for infringement of its trademark and copyright rights. As pled, however, Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege facts to support joinder. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single trademark or copyright 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 "Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the counterfeit 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 at 4. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants' Internet Stores and their counterfeit products are similar in numerous respects, see id. at 22. But these allegations remain conclusory, and the Court thus need not accept them. Moreover, similar websites and goods do not necessarily mean that the Defendants' sales constitute a single series of transactions; rather, 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). As a result, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint 1. If Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to allege facts to support the joinder of all Defendants in this single action, it may do so by 5/23/25. If Plaintiff fails to comply, the Court will dismiss this case. If Plaintiff elects to amend its complaint, it should also bolster its allegations relating to personal jurisdiction as to each Defendant; the mere maintenance of a website accessible in Illinois (which is what Plaintiffs have alleged, see 1 at 5) 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."). If Plaintiff declines to amend, the Court will dismiss this case. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to seal 7 but reminds counsel that, in the future, all motions must be noticed for presentment. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Executive Committee: Case reassigned to the Honorable John Robert Blakey for all further proceedings pursuant to Local Rule IOP 13(f) (1). Mailed notice. (rc