Mark Sanders LLC v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for entry of a preliminary injunction [25]. In the memorandum supporting its motion and in an accompanying declaration from Plaintiff's counsel, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel represent that "since and pursuant to the Court's entry of a Temporary Restraining Order and its extension of that TRO in this matter," Plaintiff's counsel has "been working with third party payment providers to freeze the financial accounts associated with the Infringing Webstores." [26-1] at 1; see also [26] at 2. Plaintiff's memorandum in support of its motion also asks the Court to issue a preliminary injunction so that "Defendant accounts in U.S.-based financial institutions remain frozen." [26] at 4. The Court never permitted Plaintiff to effectuate an asset restraint of Defendant's accounts. Instead, it expressly denied Plaintiff's request for a temporary asset restraint. [18], [19]. In addition, the TRO in this matter expired on 2/26/2026, [19], and Plaintiff never sought to extend it. So, none of Defendant's accounts should have been frozen in the first place and, if they were frozen contrary to the TRO, they certainly should not have remained frozen after the TRO expired. The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing by 3/10/2026 why it and Plaintiff's counsel should not be held in contempt and sanctioned for violating the Court's order denying in part its motion for a TRO. The Court converts the 3/12/2026 hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to an in-person hearing on 3/12/2026 at 2 p.m. on its rule to show cause. Mail notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal [14] and motion for leave to file a memorandum that exceeds the page limitations [15]. The Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiff's ex parte motion for entry of a temporary restraining order [10]. Based on Plaintiff's written submissions, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the harm to plaintiff is irreparable and cannot be fully compensated by money damages; (3) an injunction is in the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by counterfeit goods and infringement interferes with plaintiff's ability to control its intellectual property; and (4) there is no countervailing harm to defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. The Court therefore grants Plaintiff's request for an order temporarily restraining Defendant's manufacture, importation, distribution, offering for sale, and sale of the Sanders Products. Based on Plaintiff's written submissions, the Court further finds that expedited discovery is warranted to identify Defendant and that electronic service of process, under the facts presented, does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it is an effective way to communicate with this online-marketplace defendant. The Court resolves these aspects of Plaintiff's motion, though, without the benefit of adversarial presentation. If Defendant were to appear and object, the Court is willing revisit issues related to, among other topics, personal jurisdiction, electronic service of process, and the scope of injunctive relief. The Court denies Plaintiff's request for a temporary asset restraint because, based on Plaintiff's written submissions, there is evidence in the record that Defendant sells products other than the allegedly infringing Sanders Products. The Court has no reason to believe the sales of those products represent anything other than lawful commercial activity. Owing to this record evidence, the Court adopts the reasoning set forth in its order in Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025) ("Wham-O Order"). The Court further notes that it directed Plaintiff to consider the Wham-O Order before filing a motion for a temporary restraining order [6], but Plaintiff's motion neither cites the Wham-O Order nor addresses its reasoning. Finally, the $10,000 bond that Plaintiff has proposed is sufficient to secure the injunctive relief the Court has granted. [12] at 27. No appearance is required on 2/10/2026. By 2/10/2026, Plaintiff is directed to submit a modified proposed order to the Court's proposed order inbox reflecting only the relief the Court has granted. Plaintiff is further directed to file a status report by 3/9/2026 proposing next steps in these proceedings. If a defendant has appeared by 3/9/2026, the status report should be jointly submitted by the parties. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: The Court resets the 2/9/2026 status hearing to 2/10/2026 at 9:30 a.m. to coincide with the presentment hearing on plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and related motions [10], [14], [15]. Mailed notice.

NOTICE of Motion by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr for presentment of motion to seal document[14], motion for leave to file excess pages[15], motion for temporary restraining order[10] before Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis on 2/10/2026 at 09:30 AM.

MEMORANDUM by Mark Sanders LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order[10]

AFFIDAVIT by Plaintiff Mark Sanders LLC in Support of MOTION by Plaintiff Mark Sanders LLC for temporary restraining order [10]

MOTION by Plaintiff Mark Sanders LLC for temporary restraining order

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis:The Court grants plaintiff's motion for leave to file certain documents under seal 2. Upon review of the complaint and plaintiff's motion for leave to file certain documents under seal, the Court advises plaintiff that no motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order should be filed in this matter without counsel first consulting this Court's order in Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025).