Deng v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff seeks to sue 126 separate defendants in this single trademark infringement case, see 1, 5. But joinder of multiple defendants in a single trademark 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 the "Defendant Online Stores share identifiers, such as using identical or slightly modified product photographs, and design elements and similarities of the counterfeit products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants' counterfeiting operation arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." 1 at paragraph 3. Plaintiff further alleges, on information and belief, that "Defendants are an interrelated group of counterfeiters working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell products using counterfeit versions of the Plaintiff Mark in the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." Id. at paragraph 14. Such conclusory allegations fail to support joinder, and the Court thus dismisses the complaint, 1, without prejudice and denies as moot Plaintiff's motion to seal, 4. If Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to allege facts to support the joinder of 126 defendants in this single action, it may do so by 7/31/26. If Plaintiff fails to comply, the Court will dismiss this case. If Plaintiff elects to amend its complaint, it should also consider its allegations relating to personal jurisdiction as to each defendant; the mere maintenance of a website accessible in Illinois 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."). Plaintiff must have a good faith factual and legal basis to allege that each defendant has in fact shipped infringing products to residents in Illinois, and not just in connection with Plaintiff's test buys for this case. See, e.g., Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) ("the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum"); Expeditee LLC v. Entities Listed on Exhibit 1, No. 21 C 6440, 2022 WL 1556381, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2022) ("Plaintiff claims that, as part of its preliminary investigation, it purchased infringing products from the Moving Defendants that the Moving Defendants shipped to Chicago. Such sales on their own are insufficient for the purposes of personal jurisdiction, for Plaintiff has not identified evidence of any transactions involving an allegedly counterfeit product between the Moving Defendants and Illinois customers, other than the 'test buys.'"). Additionally, if the case proceeds, Plaintiff must be prepared to either serve each defendant in accordance with the Hague Convention or demonstrate that, after "reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify" the defendants' mailing addresses, the addresses remain unknown. See Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., 177 F.4th 793, 799 (7th Cir. 2026). Finally, because it appears Plaintiff's counsel is a member of the general bar but not the trial bar, see 2, the Court reminds counsel that it expects strict compliance with LR 83.12. Mailed notice.