TRO Case
Parfums Christian Dior v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
商标侵权
案件编号
1:2026-cv-06311
立案日期
5/29/2026
原告
Parfums Christian Dior
法院
Illinois Northern District Court
6/2/2026
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal [16] the case is dismissed without prejudice. The motion for electronic service [12] is denied as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice.
6/1/2026
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion to seal [11] is denied. Plaintiff has not established good cause under Local Rule 26.2 or Seventh Circuit precedent to justify sealing the names of the defendant. "Secrecy makes little sense if the goal of the litigation is to protect rightholders' IP interests by obtaining an injunction against defendants' sales of infringing or counterfeit goods." See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. The P'ships on Schedule A, 794 F.Supp.3d 543 (N.D. Ill. 2025). More importantly, this presumption of sealing runs counter to the well-established authority of this Circuit holding that "[m]any a litigant would prefer that the subject matter of a case. be kept from the curious (including its business rivals and customers), but the tradition that litigation is open to the public is of very long standing." See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-568 (7th Cir. 2000). The Clerk is directed to unseal the document filed at 2. Upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety of joining 9 defendants in a single action. By June 5, 2026, plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by June 5, 2026 with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why that smaller subset of defendants is properly joined. Mailed notice.
6/1/2026
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order [13] is denied without prejudice to renewal. First, the memorandum submitted does not sufficiently address the court's personal jurisdiction over any Defendant. To adequately plead personal jurisdiction, Plaintiff must sufficiently allege that the relevant defendant actually sold the allegedly infringing product to a customer in Illinois. See Liu v. Monthly, 170 F.4th 1090 (7th Cir. 2026) (citing Curry v. Revolution Lab'ys, LLC, 949 F.3d 385, 400 (7th Cir. 2020). The complaint here alleges merely that Defendants "target business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through at least [their] e-commerce stores" [Dkt. 13 at 4.] Those allegations are conclusory, and Plaintiff did not provide proof of actual sales in this district. See id. (remanding with instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because plaintiff had not provided screenshot evidence of actual sales in Illinois). 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 Defendants 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 specifically address any of the 9 Defendants named in this lawsuit. The closest Plaintiff comes is by stating that "Parfums Christian Dior has submitted extensive documentation showing that Defendants are selling Counterfeit Parfums Christian Dior Products that look similar to genuine Parfums Christian Dior Products and use infringing and counterfeit marks identical to the Parfums Christian Dior Trademarks." [Dkt. 13 at 6-7.] This generic argument won't do, and the court has no way of verifying whether all of the named Defendants, in fact, offer the same or similar produce for sale on their websites. "[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. Because generic facts cannot satisfy Rule 65(b), by extension, Schedule A plaintiffs should not be entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm. Even assuming that the likelihood of success and irreparable harm, 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 any Defendants' presence in the case. Nor will the public interest be served by an ex parte ruling. 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.
5/29/2026
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Parfums Christian Dior Schedule A
5/29/2026
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Parfums Christian Dior by Paul Joseph Kossof
5/29/2026
CIVIL Cover Sheet
5/29/2026
DECLARATION of Nicolas Lambert
5/29/2026
MOTION by Plaintiff Parfums Christian Dior for temporary restraining order
5/29/2026
Notice of Claim Involving Trademarks by Parfums Christian Dior
5/29/2026
Trademark Report by Parfums Christian Dior
5/29/2026
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2).
5/29/2026
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Parfums Christian Dior Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Nicolas Lambert
5/29/2026
MOTION by Plaintiff Parfums Christian Dior to seal Schedule A and Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Nicolas Lambert
5/29/2026
MOTION by Plaintiff Parfums Christian Diorfor electronic service of process.
5/29/2026
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.
5/29/2026
Complaint
5/29/2026
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Parfums Christian Dior
5/29/2026