Casio Computer Co., Ltd. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A Hereto

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Extend the Temporary Restraining Order 24 is granted. For the reasons stated in Plaintiff's Memorandum 24, the Court finds good cause to extend the temporary restraining order an additional 14 days to 11/11/2025. Plaintiff shall file a preliminary injunction motion if appropriate no later than 11/4/2025. Telephone status hearing set for 10/28/2025 is stricken and reset to 11/11/2025 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice

SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani on 10/14/2025. Mailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal 8, ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction, a temporary asset restraint, expedited discovery, and motion for electronic service of process 17, and motion for leave to file excess pages 16 are granted. Plaintiff's submissions establish that were defendant to learn of these proceedings before the execution of plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that defendant 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 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 on an ex parte basis at this time. Specifically, and as noted above, were defendant 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 defendant, stopping defendant's infringing conduct, and obtaining an accounting. Further, 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 products, and there is no countervailing harm to defendant 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 defendant. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendants and to implement the asset freeze. Enter Sealed Temporary Restraining Order at 4:30 p.m. on 10/14/2025. Plaintiff shall file the TRO extension motion (or a preliminary injunction motion) if appropriate no later than 10/21/2025. Telephone status hearing is set for 10/28/2025 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice