【2025-cv-12690 】POWERBALL 腕力球

案件号：2025-cv-12690
原告：POWERBALL 腕力球
原告律所：David
原告品牌：POWERBALL 腕力球

日期：11/04/2025

#	Date	Description
23	11/04/2025	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion for a temporary restraining order [14] is denied without prejudice to renewal. According to the memorandum, personal jurisdiction over Defendant lionpeace is proper because lionpeace "directly target[s] business activities toward consumers in Illinois and cause[s] harm to Plaintiff's business within the Northern District of Illinois" and has "sold and continues to sell his/her products to consumers within the State of Illinois" [Dkt. 15 at 14.] The court doubts this is sufficient to establish jurisdiction, at least without more information. Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. The Partnerships, 2021 WL 825668, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (no personal jurisdiction over a defendant where only connection to the forum was operating an online marketplace that had "the possibility" of shipping to Illinois). Second, temporary restraining orders are extraordinary and drastic remedies that "should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). The party seeking such relief must show: (1) it has some likelihood of success on the merits; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; and (3) it will suffer irreparable harm if the court denies relief. GEFT Outdoors, LLC v. City of Westfield, 922 F.3d 357, 364 (7th Cir. 2019). If each of those factors is met, the court, employing a sliding scale approach, first weighs the harm the plaintiff will suffer absent an injunction against the harm to the defendant from an injunction, and next considers whether an injunction is in the public interest. Here, Plaintiff's memorandum in support of a TRO does not address Defendant lionpeace specifically in its memorandum. The closest reference to lionpeace appears to be that "Defendants [plural] facilitate sales of Counterfeit Products by designing the Infringing Webstore listings so that they appear to unknowing consumers to be authorized listings, outlet stores, or wholesalers selling genuine POWERBALL Products and accept payment in U.S. Dollars." [Dkt. 15 at 10.] In short, the filing makes generic arguments without any specifics to lionpeace in particular. "[G]eneric facts alleged in Schedule A cases cannot satisfy Rule 65(b)." Eicher v. The Partnerships, 2025 WL 2299593, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025). It is "all but impossible for the Court to discern the likelihood of success from the one-sided evidence provided" and "it is nearly impossible to resolve whether defendant [is] engaged in [unlawful conduct] on such a sparse record," particularly absent adversarial briefing. Id. As for irreparable harm, it is true that the Seventh Circuit has held that damage to a trademark holder's goodwill can constitute irreparable injury for which the trademark owner has no adequate legal remedy and that as a result irreparable harm "is generally presumed in trademark infringement cases." Re/Max N. Cent., Inc. v. Cook, 272 F.3d 424, 432 (7th Cir. 2001). Generic facts alleged in Schedule A cases cannot satisfy Rule 65(b); by extension, Schedule A plaintiffs should not be entitled to such presumptions. Even assuming that the likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and adequate remedy at law factors are met, the court is not persuaded that the Schedule A mechanism satisfies the balance of interests inquiry, or even that the court can properly weigh the interests at stake without Defendant's presence in the case. Nor will the public interest be served by an ex parte ruling. To satisfy interest balancing, the "injunction must do more good than harm (which is to say that the 'balance of equities' favors the plaintiff)." Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 721, 725 (7th Cir. 2009). For the reasons explained in Eicher, Schedule A cases may be more likely to harm the public interest than to favor it. Finally, should Plaintiff renew its request for injunctive relief, the court will review that request with these considerations in mind. Any request for a prejudgment asset restraint, however, is not well taken because such restraints are not to be used to secure assets for collection. Disgorgement is an equitable remedy the court can impose where the defendant "actually holds property or proceeds that belong to the plaintiff which can be returned to the plaintiff." See Cont'l Vineyard LLC v. Dzierzawski, 2018 WL 11195945, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 5, 2018). Even in the typical disgorgement of profits scenario, courts are not obligated to impose a prejudgment asset restraint. The decision to do so is discretionary. See Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Companies, Partnerships, & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, 735 F. Supp. 3d 981, 983 (N.D. Ill. 2024) ("[W]here a plaintiff seeks an equitable remedy like disgorgement, an asset freeze may be appropriate.") Here, the court declines to exercise its discretion in the broad manner requested, particularly considering that imposing a prejudgment asset restraint is likely to encompasses legitimate assets. An asset restraint is not necessary to conduct an accounting; discovery and records of sales can provide any accounting plaintiff may be entitled to. Schedule A plaintiffs rarely pursue an actual accounting as a remedy and rarely justify requests for statutory damages by reference to actual sales figures, lost profits, or the like. Instead, counsel typically ask for statutory damages based on notions of deterrence without case-specific factual support justifying the number. Mailed notice.
22	11/04/2025	ORDER Signed by the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins on 11/4/2025. Mailed notice.
21	11/04/2025	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The clerk shall update the case caption to reflect that Defendant is lionpeace. The motions to seal [12] [18] are denied. The court has denied the request for injunctive relief and the reasons Plaintiff provided to seal its submission do not override the fundamental need for judicial proceedings to be conducted in public. Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997). The motion for excess pages [17] is granted. The court has modified and grants the motion for early discovery and for electronic service of process. Separate order to issue. Mailed notice.
20	11/03/2025	MOTION by Plaintiff Pure Body Logistics, Inc. to seal document sealed document[13], sealed document[16]
19	11/03/2025	MOTION by Plaintiff Pure Body Logistics, Inc. for leave to file excess pages
18	11/03/2025	SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Pure Body Logistics, Inc. Exhibit 1 to Delcaration of David Gulbransen
17	11/03/2025	AFFIDAVIT by Plaintiff Pure Body Logistics, Inc. in Support of MOTION by Plaintiff Pure Body Logistics, Inc. for temporary restraining order [14] Declaration Declaration of Plaintiff Declaration Declaration of David Gulbransen Exhibit Exhibit 2
16	11/03/2025	MOTION by Plaintiff Pure Body Logistics, Inc. for temporary restraining order
15	11/03/2025	SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Pure Body Logistics, Inc. Amended Schedule A
14	11/03/2025	MOTION by Plaintiff Pure Body Logistics, Inc. to amend/correct order on motion to seal document, set deadlines, [8], sealed document[2]
13	11/03/2025	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The court provided Plaintiff until October 24, 2025 to either file a memorandum addressing the propriety of joining almost three hundred defendants in a single action, or to file an amended complaint with a smaller subset of Defendants. Plaintiff did neither. The court determines, within its discretion, that plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden to show that joinder of 294 defendants is proper in this matter under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 110204 (7th Cir. 2022). Joining this many defendants in one case simply will not promote judicial economy. Este Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. The Partnerships, 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (noting that "[plaintiff] bears the burden of demonstrating that joinder is proper"). Accordingly, the Court dismisses defendant Nos. 2 through 294 without prejudice. The case will proceed against defendant No. 1, Nanjing Bewe Int'l Trading Co., Ltd. only. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint against Nanjing Bewe Int'l Trading Co., Ltd. by November 6, 2025. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the entire case without prejudice. Mailed notice.
12	10/24/2025	MAILED Copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC.
11	10/20/2025	MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA.
10	10/20/2025	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The Court grants the motion to seal [7], but upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety of joining nearly 300 defendants in a single action. By October 24, 2025, plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by October 24, 2025 with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why that smaller subset of defendants is properly joined. No motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order should be filed in this matter without counsel first consulting the opinion issued in Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025) (Alexakis, J.). Mailed notice.
9	10/17/2025	CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Laura K. McNally. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2).
8	10/17/2025	CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order.
7	10/17/2025	MOTION by Plaintiff Pure Body Logistics, Inc. to seal document sealed document[2]
6	10/17/2025	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Pure Body Logistics, Inc. by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr
5	10/17/2025	USPTO Cover Sheet by Pure Body Logistics, Inc.
4	10/17/2025	NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Pure Body Logistics, Inc.
3	10/17/2025	CIVIL Cover Sheet
2	10/17/2025	SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Pure Body Logistics, Inc. Schedule A to Complaint
1	10/17/2025	COMPLAINT filed by Pure Body Logistics, Inc.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24211957. Exhibit Exhibit 1