Khara Inc. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"
| Khara Inc. and Ground Works Co., Ltd. |
| The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" |
| 1:2022cv00715 |
| February 9, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John F Kness |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 7, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 17 SURETY BOND in the amount of $ 10,000.00 posted by Ground Works Co., Ltd., Khara Inc. (Document not scanned) (rc, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" (ey, ) |
| Filing 16 SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 4/4/2022 (td, ) |
| Filing 15 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal #8 , motion #9 for leave to file excess pages, and ex parte motion 10 for a temporary restraining order and other relief are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions, including the Declaration [11-3] of Yasuhiro Kamimura, establish that, were Defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of Plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that Defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. Accordingly, subject to unsealing at an appropriate time, Plaintiff may for now file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal and appearing at docket entries #2 , 10 , and #12 . The Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall also be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motions cited above, Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). Specifically, and as noted above, were defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, it is likely assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating Plaintiff's interests in identifying defendants, stopping Defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining an equitable accounting. In addition, the Court finds, at least for now on this limited and one-sided record and without prejudice to revisiting the issue, that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have sold products using infringing and counterfeit versions of Plaintiff's trademarked goods to residents of Illinois. The evidence presented to the Court also shows that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois), that the harm to plaintiff is irreparable, and that an injunction is in the public interest. An injunction serves the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by counterfeit goods, and there is no countervailing harm to defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. 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. As this Court and others have noted, there may be reason to question both the propriety of the joinder of all Defendants in this one action and whether plaintiff will pursue an accounting (which Plaintiff asserts as justification for an asset freeze), but at this preliminary stage, the court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendants and to implement the asset freeze. If any defendant appears and objects, the court will reconsider the asset freeze and joinder. Enter Sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Mailed notice (ef, ) |
| Filing 14 MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials. (rc, ) |
| Filing 13 MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. (rc, ) |
| Filing 12 SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Ground Works Co., Ltd., Khara Inc. Sealed Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Yasuhiro Kamimura regarding memorandum in support of motion, #11 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 2, Part 1, #2 Exhibit 2, Part 2, #3 Exhibit 2, Part 3, #4 Exhibit 2, Part 4, #5 Exhibit 2, Part 5, #6 Exhibit 2, Part 6, #7 Exhibit 2, Part 7, #8 Exhibit 2, Part 8, #9 Exhibit 2, Part 9)(Vogt, Keith) |
| Filing 11 MEMORANDUM In Support of 10 Ex Parte Motion (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Keith A. Vogt, #2 Exhibit 1-4, Declaration of Keith Vogt, #3 Declaration of Yasuhiro Kamimura, #4 Exhibit 1, Declaration of Yasuhiro Kamimura)(Vogt, Keith) |
| Filing 9 MOTION by Plaintiffs Ground Works Co., Ltd., Khara Inc. for leave to file excess pages (Vogt, Keith) |
| Filing 8 MOTION by Plaintiffs Ground Works Co., Ltd., Khara Inc. for leave to file [Certain] Documents Under Seal (Vogt, Keith) |
| Filing 7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Ground Works Co., Ltd., Khara Inc. by Adam Grodman (Grodman, Adam) |
| Filing 6 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Ground Works Co., Ltd., Khara Inc. by Yi Bu (Bu, Yi) |
| Filing 5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Ground Works Co., Ltd., Khara Inc. by Yanling Jiang (Jiang, Yanling) |
| Filing 4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Ground Works Co., Ltd., Khara Inc. by Keith A. Vogt (Vogt, Keith) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Vogt, Keith) |
| Filing 2 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiffs Ground Works Co., Ltd., Khara Inc. Schedule A to Complaint #1 (Vogt, Keith) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Khara Inc., Ground Works Co., Ltd.; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0752-19139397. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4)(Vogt, Keith) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Susan E. Cox. Case assignment: Random assignment. (ey, ) |
| 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. (ey, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Khara Inc. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Khara Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Adam Grodman |
| Represented By: | Yanling Jiang |
| Represented By: | Yi Bu |
| Represented By: | Keith A. Vogt |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Ground Works Co., Ltd. | |
| Represented By: | Adam Grodman |
| Represented By: | Yanling Jiang |
| Represented By: | Yi Bu |
| Represented By: | Keith A. Vogt |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
