TRO101 logo TRO101

2026-cv-05012

Glitch Productions Pty Ltd v. The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A,

法院:伊利诺伊州北法院
发案日期:2026-04-30
原告:Glitch Productions PTY LTD
代理律所:TME
诉讼类型:商标、版权
# Date Description
[+] 1 2026-04-30 COMPLAINT filed by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25055050.
2 2026-04-30 SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd Schedule A regarding complaint 1
3 2026-04-30 MOTION by Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd for Leave to File Certain Documents Under Seal
4 2026-04-30 CIVIL Cover Sheet
5 2026-04-30 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd
6 2026-04-30 Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd
7 2026-04-30 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd by Martin Francis Trainor
[+] 8 2026-04-30 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd by Alexander Whang
9 2026-05-01 MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA
[+] 10 2026-05-01 MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials
11 2026-05-05 Notice of Withdrawal of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd
[+] 12 2026-05-05 AMENDED complaint by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd against biataf-0
13 2026-05-12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's motion to seal [3] is withdrawn and therefore stricken. See [11]. Mailed notice
14 2026-05-20 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Upon review of the amended complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the issue of whether the Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Evidence "that it was possible to order the defendants' products and have them shipped to Illinois," including screenshots of the defendant's "website showing the checkout page with the infringing product, a Chicago shipping address, and the estimated total," but without evidence of a completed purchase is insufficient. Liu v. Monthly, 170 F.4th 1090, 1093 (7th Cir. 2026). By 5/28/2026, plaintiff shall file supplemental evidence showing a sale within the jurisdiction or a status report stating its basis to continue this case without such sale. Also, the Court advises Plaintiff that no motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order should be filed in this matter without counsel first evaluating whether a restraint of assets would capture more than sales from the allegedly infringing products. A court cannot impose an asset restraint "simply to establish a fund from which a later award of money damages can be satisfied." See Banister v. Firestone, No. 17 C 8940, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2018); see also Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025). Mailed notice