|
13
|
2024/12/10 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has filed a complaint which seeks to sue 43 separate defendants for copyright infringement in connection with three separate works, see [1], [1-1], [2]. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single copyright infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). In this regard, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Internet Stores "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. [1] 8, 10. Plaintiff also alleges that the "Infringing Products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores bear similarities and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the Infringing Products were manufactured by and come from a common source and that, upon information and belief, Defendants are interrelated. The Defendant Internet Stores also include other notable common features, including use of the same Defendant Internet Store registration patterns, unique shopping cart platforms, accepted payment methods, check-out methods, meta data, illegitimate SEO tactics, HTML user-defined variables, lack of contact information, identically or similarly priced items and volume sales discounts, similar hosting services, similar name servers, and the use of the same text and images. Id. 22. These allegations remain conclusory, and they are belied by the screenshot evidence submitted by Plaintiff, which shows that, although some of the sellers do appear to use identical layouts, reviews, descriptions, images, etc., many do not. For example, although a couple of the sellers offering one particular infringing product use the same photos, see, e.g., [8] at 7-13, and some of the sellers offering other infringing products use common, but different photos and display common reviews, see, e.g., [8] at 24-49, the submissions provide no basis to connect the two groups of sellers. Additionally, it appears that several of the seller's products may not even infringe Plaintiff's copyright, see, e.g., [8] at 84, 87; [8-1] at 56-70. These submissions thus undermine Plaintiff's allegations concerning joinder, and they also undermine any claimed likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint [1] and denies Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [6]. If Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to cure the defects discussed above, it may file an amended complaint by 12/24/24. The Court grants Plaintiff's motions to seal [5], [10] and denies as moot Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages [9]. The 12/11/24 Notice of Motion date is stricken as to all motions. If Plaintiff elects to amend its complaint, it should also bolster its allegations relating to personal jurisdiction as to each Defendant; the mere maintenance of a website accessible in Illinois remains insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Am. Bridal & Prom Indus. Ass'n, Inc. v. The Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 192 F. Supp. 3d 924, 93435 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (simply alleging the existence of purported counterfeiting via an interactive website is not enough, by itself, to confer personal jurisdiction); Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) ("Having an interactive website. should not open a defendant up to personal jurisdiction in every spot on the planet where that interactive website is accessible."); Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 20-CV-5338, 2021 WL 825668, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (screenshot evidence showing that an order could be placed by an Illinoisan, "amounts to nothing more than maintaining an interactive website that is accessible in Illinois," and "that alone cannot confer personal jurisdiction."). Mailed notice
|