1:25-cv-08377
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 2025-09-09 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Hublot SA of Defendant Micheal Travis |
| 2025-08-18 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hublot SA as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 8/18/2025, answer due 9/8/2025. |
| 2025-08-18 | SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| 2025-08-18 | Amended Schedule A by Hublot SA |
| 2025-08-18 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal 28, which seeks to voluntarily dismiss defendants hei11_1, Necoclock, chinaguangzhoumarket, Moneydor, Watchify, Sammie Luxury, Luxurylove_2024, Duke Jones, and Nick Watch under Rule 41(a)(1). But Rule 41(a) is not the proper vehicle for dismissing some, but not all, parties to an action. Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2015) ("Rule 41(a) should be limited to dismissal of an entire action."). The court therefore construes plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal as a request for leave to amend the pleadings under Rule 15(a)(2) by removing defendants hei11_1, Necoclock, chinaguangzhoumarket, Moneydor, Watchify, Sammie Luxury, Luxurylove_2024, Duke Jones, and Nick Watch from the Schedule A form, see Taylor, 787 F.3d at 857-58, and the court grants plaintiff leave to amend the pleadings. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended Schedule A form by 8/22/2025 iden |
| 2025-08-14 | STATUS Report regarding Defendant Micheal Travis by Hublot SA |
| 2025-08-14 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Hublot SA of hei11_1, Necoclock, chinaguangzhoumarket, Moneydor, Watchify, Sammie Luxury, Luxurylove_2024, Duke Jones, and Nick Watch |
| 2025-08-14 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has reviewed plaintiff's supplemental memorandum regarding joinder, 24. Having considered the memorandum and plaintiff's other filings in this case, the court finds that, although this case presents a closer question than many Schedule A cases, joinder of the defendants identified in plaintiff's amended Schedule A, 22, remains improper. Rule 20 allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants in an action where (1) "any right to relief is asserted against [the defendants] jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" and (2) "any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Here, plaintiff's arguments in support of joinder are unpersuasive for largely the same the reasons stated in Hong Kong Leyuzhen Tech. Co. Ltd. v. Schedule A, No. 25-cv-4947, Dkt. 21 (N.D. Ill. Ju |
| 2025-08-14 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's renewed motion for a temporary restraining order, 25, is denied. (1) The motion seeks an ex parte TRO, but plaintiff's attorney has not "certifie[d] in writing any efforts made to give notice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). (2) Neither the complaint nor the TRO motion adequately establishes personal jurisdiction. "For a TRO. to be valid, the issuing Court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendants." Am. Bridal & Prom Indus. Ass'n, Inc. v. The P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 192 F. Supp. 3d 924, 930 (N.D. Ill. 2016). The Seventh Circuit has, in some cases, found the existence of specific personal jurisdiction in trademark, copyright, and patent infringement suits against online retailers, but only when the defendant has shipped the allegedly infringing products to the forum state. See, e.g., NBA Props., Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614, 622-23 (7th Cir. 2022); Curry v. Revolution Lab'ys, LLC, 9 |
| 2025-08-12 | MOTION by Plaintiff Hublot SA for temporary restraining order |
| 2025-08-07 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process, [13], is granted. The court finds that electronic service of process is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). 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 defendants. To the extent that the motion requests service of process of any temporary restraining order in this case, no temporary restraining order has been issued. |
| 2025-07-23 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials |
| 2025-07-23 | MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
| 2025-07-23 | MOTION by Plaintiff Hublot SA for temporary restraining order |
| 2025-07-22 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Hublot SA Schedule A |
| 2025-07-22 | MOTION by Plaintiff Hublot SA to seal Schedule A, Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Nicolas Lambert, and Plaintiffs Memorandum Establishing That Joinder Is Proper |
| 2025-07-22 | DECLARATION of Paul Kossof |
| 2025-07-22 | Trademark Report by Hublot SA |
| 2025-07-22 | Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Hublot SA |
| 2025-07-22 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Hublot SA |
| 2025-07-22 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hublot SA by Paul Joseph Kossof |
| 2025-07-22 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 2025-07-22 | MOTION by Plaintiff Hublot SAfor electronic service of process. |
| 2025-07-22 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Hublot SA Plaintiff's Memorandum Establishing that Joinder is Proper |
| 2025-07-22 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Hublot SA Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Nicolas Lambert |
| 2025-07-22 | DECLARATION of Nicolas Lambert |
| 2025-07-22 | COMPLAINT filed by Hublot SA; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23780807. |
先核对信息，再决定下一步
请以案号、法院、立案日期与 docket 记录交叉确认。页面展示的是公开信息汇总，不等同于法院对侵权、TRO 是否签发或资金状态的认定。
