v.
`
`
`BILL NYE PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS,
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES,
`
`PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED
`ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED
`
`
`ON SCHEDULE A HERETO,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 22-cv-5788
`
`Judge Joan H. Lefkow
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 1 of 38 PageID #:42
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR
`ENTRY OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INCLUDING A TEMPORARY
`INJUNCTION, A TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF THE DEFENDANT DOMAIN
`NAMES, A TEMPORARY ASSET RESTRAINT, EXPEDITED DISCOVERY, AND
`SERVICE OF PROCESS BY E-MAIL AND/OR ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION
`
`Plaintiff BILL NYE PRODUCTIONS, INC. submits this Memorandum in support of its Ex
`
`Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, including a temporary injunction, a
`
`temporary transfer of the Defendant Domain Names, a temporary asset restraint, expedited
`
`discovery, and service of process by email and/or electronic publication (the “Ex Parte Motion”).
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 2 of 38 PageID #:43
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................1
`II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ..........................................................................................................5
`A. PLAINTIFF'S TRADEMARKS AND PRODUCTS .............................................................................5
`B. DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................6
`i. Defendants Operate Legitimate-Looking Internet Stores .................................................6
`ii. Defendants Illegitimately Optimize the Defendants' Internet Stores for Search Engines 7
`iii. Defendants Use Fictitious Aliases and Common Tactics to Evade Shut Down ..............7
`III. ARGUMENT ..............................................................................................................................10
`A. THIS COURT MAY EXERCISE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS ..........................11
`B. STANDARD FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ............13
`C. PLAINTIFF WILL LIKELY SUCCEED ON THE MERITS ...............................................................14
`i. Plaintiff Will Likely Succeed on Its Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting Claim14
`ii. Plaintiff Is Likely to Succeed on Its False Designation of Origin Claim........................17
` iii. Plaintiff Is Likely to Succeed on Its Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
`
`Claim…………………………………………………………………………………………………….18
`
`D. THERE IS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW AND PLAINTIFF WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE
` HARM IN THE ABSENCE OF PRELIMINARY RELIEF ..................................................................18
`E. THE BALANCING OF HARMS TIPS IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR .......................................................20
`F. ISSUANCE OF THE INJUNCTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ....................................................20
`IV. THE EQUITABLE RELIEF SOUGHT IS APPROPRIATE ................................................22
`A. A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IMMEDIATELY ENJOINING DEFENDANTS’
` UNAUTHORIZED AND UNLAWFUL USE OF PLAINTIFF'S MARKS IS APPROPRIATE ...................22
`B. TRANSFERRING THE DEFENDANT DOMAIN NAMES TO PLAINTIFF'S CONTROL IS APPROPRIATE24
`C. PREVENTING THE FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF ASSETS IS APPROPRIATE ...............................25
`D. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED DISCOVERY...............................................................27
`V. A BOND SHOULD SECURE THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ................................................28
`VI. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................28
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 3 of 38 PageID #:44
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co.,
` 971 F.2d 6, 11 (7th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. 4cheapbags.com,
` No. 1:12-cv-21088 (S. D. Fla. April 4, 2012) (unpublished).................................................3, 23, 28
`
`All Star Nyeship Racing, Inc. v. O’Reilly Auto. Stores, Inc.,
` 2013 WL 1701871, *10 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 18, 2013) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Am. Broad. Co. v. Maljack Prods., Inc.,
` 34 F. Supp. 2d 665, 681 (N.D. Ill. 1998) ........................................................................................ 18
`
`Animale Grp. Inc. v. Sunny’s Perfume Inc.,
` 256 F. App’x 707, 709 (5th Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................... 25, 26
`
`Beats Electronics, LLC v. The Partnerships, et al.,
` No. 13-cv-6724 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2014) (unpublished) ........................................................... 3, 23
`
`Board of Directors of Sapphire Bay Condos. W. v. Simpson,
` 129 F. App’x 711 (3d Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................... 24
`
`Burger King Corp. v. Majeed,
` 805 F. Supp. 994, 1006 (S.D. Fla. 1992) ........................................................................................ 20
`
`CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Eng’g Inc.,
` 267 F.3d 660, 681 (7th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 16
`
`Calvin Klein Trademark Trust, et al. v. The Partnerships, et al.,
` No. 13-cv-8186 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2013) (unpublished) ........................................................... 3, 23
`
`Chanel, Inc. v. Paley,
` No. 3:09-cv04979-MHP (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2009) (unpublished) ............................................... 24
`
`Charter Nat’l Bank & Trust v. Charter One Fin., Inc.,
` No. 1:01-cv-00905, 2001 WL 527404, *1 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2001).............................................. 13
`
`Christian Dior Couture, S.A. v. Liu,
` 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158225 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2015).............................................................. 12
`
`Chrome Hearts LLC v. The Partnerships, et al.,
` No. 13-cv-4784 (N.D. Ill. July 10, 2013) (unpublished) ............................................................ 3, 23
`
`Chrome Hearts LLC v. P'ships & Unincorporated Assns. Identified on Schedule "A",
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 4 of 38 PageID #:45
`
` 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120232 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2015) ............................................................... 12
`
`Coach, Inc., et al. v. Does 1-100,
` No. 1:12-cv-8963 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2012) (unpublished) .................................................. 3, 23, 28
`
`Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Jasso,
` 927 F. Supp. 1075, 1077 (N.D. Ill. 1996) ....................................................................................... 11
`
`CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Redisi,
` 309 F.3d 988 (7th Cir. 2002) .......................................................................................................... 26
`
`Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Does 1-1,281,
` No. 1:12-cv-01973 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2012) (unpublished) ................................................... 3, 23, 28
`
`Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp.,
` 311 U.S. 282 (1940) ........................................................................................................................ 26
`
`Dorr-Oliver, Inc. v. Fluid-Quip, Inc.,
` 94 F.3d 376, 381 (7th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 15
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc.,
` 233 F.3d 456, 461, 462, 469 (7th Cir. 2000) ................................................................ 13, 15, 18, 21
`
`Ford Motor Co. v. Lapertosa,
` 126 F. Supp. 2d 463, 467 (E.D. Mich. 2001) ............................................................................ 24, 25
`
`G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,
` 873 F.2d 985, 999 (7th Cir. 1989) .................................................................................................. 15
`
`Gateway Eastern Railway Co. v. Terminal Railroad Assoc. of St. Louis,
` 35 F.3d 1134, 1140 (7th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................... 19
`
`
`Gillespie v. Civiletti,
` 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................. 27
`
`Grupo Mexicano de Desarollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund,
` 527 U.S. at 308 (1999) .................................................................................................................... 26
`
`Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc.,
` 560 F.2d 1325, 1332 (7th Cir. 1977) .............................................................................................. 19
`
`Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp.,
` 174 F.3d 411, 421 (4th Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) ............................................................... 28
`
`Ideal Indus., Inc. v. Gardner Bender, Inc.,
`612 F.2d 1018, 1026 (7th Cir. 1979)………………………………………………………...19
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 5 of 38 PageID #:46
`
`In re Vuitton et Fils, S.A.,
` 606 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1979).................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Int’l Kennel Club of Chicago, Inc. v. Mighty Star, Inc.,
` 846 F.2d 1079, 1092 (7th Cir. 1988) .............................................................................................. 19
`
`James Burrough Ltd. v. Sign of the Beefeater, Inc.,
` 540 F.2d 266, 274 (7th Cir. 1976) .................................................................................................. 21
`
`Johnny Blastoff, Inc. v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co.,
` 188 F. 3d 427, 436 (7th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................. 17
`
`Kraft Food Holdings, Inc. v. Helm,
` 205 F. Supp. 2d 942, 956 (N.D. Ill. 2002) ...................................................................................... 24
`
`Krause Int’l Inc. v. Reed Elsevier, Inc.,
` 866 F. Supp. 585, 587-88 (D.D.C. 1994) ........................................................................................ 20
`
`Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l Trading Inc.,
` 51 F.3d 982, 987 (11th Cir. 1995) ........................................................................................... 25, 26
`
`Libman Co. v. Vining Indus., Inc.,
` 69 F.3d 1360, 1363 (7th Cir.1995) ................................................................................................. 17
`
`Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Montrose Wholesale Candies,
` 2005 WL 3115892, at *13 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2005)........................................................................ 26
`
`Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. v. The Partnerships, et al.,
` No. 13-cv-6297 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 10, 2013) (unpublished) ........................................................... 3, 23
`
`Luxottica USA LLC v. The Partnerships, et al.,
` No. 13-cv-4429 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2013) (unpublished) ............................................................ 3, 23
`
`Malarkey-Taylor Assocs., Inc. v. Cellular Telecomms. Indus. Ass’n,
` 929 F. Supp. 473, 478 (D.D.C. 1996). ............................................................................................ 20
`
`Manolo Blahnik Int’l Ltd. v. The Partnerships, et al.,
` No. 13-cv-7810 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2013) (unpublished) ........................................................... 3, 23
`
`Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Meridian Ins. Group, Inc.,
` 128 F.3d 1111, 1114 (7th Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................. 18
`
`Michael Kors, L.L.C. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule
`“A”,
` No. 13-cv-8612 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2013) (unpublished).............................................................. 3, 23
`
`Monster Energy Co. v. Chen Wensheng,
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 6 of 38 PageID #:47
`
` 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132283 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2015) ............................................................. 12
`
`NBA Properties, Inc., et al. v. The Partnerships, et al.,
` No. 13-cv-7181 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2013) (unpublished) .............................................................. 3, 23
`
`Neopost Industrie B.V. v. PFE Int’l Inc.,
` 403 F. Supp. 2d 669, 684 (N.D. Ill. 2005) ................................................................................ 14, 18
`
`Oakley, Inc. v. Does 1-100,
` No. 12-cv-9864 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2012) (unpublished)...................................................... 3, 23, 28
`
`Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders,
` 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 2380 (1978) ........................................................................................ 27
`
`Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc. v. Otamedia Ltd.,
` 331 F. Supp. 2d 228, 246 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)..................................................................................... 24
`
`Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp.,
` 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1961).................................................................................................... 14
`
`Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Craftex, Inc.,
` 816 F.2d 145, 148 (4th Cir.1987) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`Promatek Industries, Ltd. v. Equitrac Corp.,
` 300 F.3d 808, 813 (7th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 19
`
`Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Sythelabo, S.A.,
` 338 F.3d 773, 782 (7th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 12
`
`Rathmann Grp. v. Tanenbaum,
` 889 F.2d 787, 789 (8th Cir. 1989) .................................................................................................. 28
`
`Re/Max N. Cent., Inc. v. Cook,
` 272 F.3d 424, 432 (7th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 18
`
`Reebok Int'l Ltd. v. Marnatech Enters., Inc.,
` 970 F.2d 552, 559 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................... 25, 26
`
`Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co.,
` 978 F.2d 947, 960 (7th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................. 17
`
`Shashi, Inc. v. Ramada Worldwide, Inc.,
` No. 7:05-cv-00016-JGW-mfu, 2005 WL 552593, *4 (W.D. Va. Mar. 1, 2005) ............................ 21
`
`Spex, Inc. v. Joy of Spex, Inc.,
` 847 F. Supp. 567, 579 (N.D. Ill. 1994) ........................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 7 of 38 PageID #:48
`
`Stahly, Inc. v. M.H. Jacobs Co.,
` 183 F.2d 914, 917 (7th Cir. 1950) .................................................................................................. 21
`
`Topps Co., Inc. v. Gerrit J. Verburg Co.,
` 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1412, 1417 (S.D.N.Y.1996) .................................................................................... 15
`
`Tory Burch LLC v. Zhong Feng, et al.,
` No. 1:12-cv-09066 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2012) (unpublished) ................................................ 3, 23, 28
`
`Tory Burch, LLC v. Yong Sheng Int’l Trade Co., Ltd.,
` No. 1:10-cv-09336-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2011) (unpublished) .............................................. 3, 23
`
`Trans Union LLC v. Credit Research, Inc.,
` 142 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1043 (N.D. Ill. 2001) .................................................................................. 16
`
`True Religion Apparel, Inc. v. Does 1-100,
` No. 12-cv-9894 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2012) (unpublished)..................................................... 3, 23, 28
`
`
`Ty, Inc. v. The Jones Group, Inc.,
` 237 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................ 13, 20
`
`uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Group, Inc.
` 623 F.3d 421, 423 (7th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 12
`
`Vance v. Rumsfeld,
` No. 1:06-cv-06964, 2007 WL 4557812, *6 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2007) ........................................... 27
`
`Wesley–Jessen Division of Schering Corp. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.,
` 698 F.2d 862, 867 (7th Cir.1983) ................................................................................................... 18
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq....................................................................................................................... 11
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) ........................................................................................................................ 5, 14
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) ............................................................................................................................ 14
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) ........................................................................................................................ 4, 22
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) .............................................................................................................................. 5
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(1) ........................................................................................................................ 25
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ............................................................................................................................ 17
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 8 of 38 PageID #:49
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1) .......................................................................................................................... 5
`
`17 U.S.C. § 101………………………………………………………………………………………11
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ................................................................................................................................. 11
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) ............................................................................................................................ 11
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391 ................................................................................................................................. 11
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a)-(b) .................................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(2) ...................................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)....................................................................................................................... 27
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 ................................................................................................................................ 22
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c)…………………………………………………………………………………28
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) ..................................................................................................................... 10, 22
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(C) ....................................................................................................... 4, 22, 27
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.65(b)(1)........................................................................................................................ 20
`
`Other Authorities
`
` 4
`
` Callmann on Unfair Competition, Trademark and Monopolies
` § 88.3(b) at 205 (3d ed. 1970)..........................................................................................................19
`
`J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademark and Unfair Competition
` § 30:40 (4th ed. 2013) ......................................................................................................................26
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 9 of 38 PageID #:50
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Plaintiff brings this action against the defendants identified in Schedule A to the
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Complaint (collectively, the “Defendants”) for federal trademark infringement and counterfeiting
`
`(Count I), false designation of origin (Count II) and violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
`
`Trade Practices Act (Count IIII). As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants are promoting,
`
`advertising, marketing, distributing, offering for sale, and selling counterfeit products in
`
`connection with Plaintiff’s federally Registered Trademarks -- No. 1,794,982 for “THE
`
`SCIENCE GUY” word mark in classes 16 and 25 and common law rights in the “BILL NYE”
`
`name and mark (collectively, the “Counterfeit BILL NYE Products”), through various fully
`
`interactive commercial Internet websites operating under at least the Defendant Domain Names
`
`and Online Marketplace Accounts listed in Schedule A to the Complaint (collectively, the
`
`“Defendant Internet Stores”). In short, Defendants run a counterfeiting operation with disregard
`
`for anything except generating profits.
`
`
`
`The Defendants create numerous Defendant Internet Stores with an intent to have them
`
`appear to be selling genuine products, while actually selling unauthorized and unlicensed
`
`Counterfeit BILL NYE Products to unknowing consumers. The Defendant Internet Stores share
`
`unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the counterfeit products offered for
`
`sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants’
`
`counterfeiting operation arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions
`
`or occurrences. Defendants attempt to avoid liability by concealing both their identities and the
`
`full scope and interworking of their counterfeiting operation. Plaintiff has filed this action to
`
`combat Defendants’ infringement and counterfeiting of Plaintiff’s registered trademarks as well
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 10 of 38 PageID #:51
`
`as to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing Counterfeit BILL NYE Products over the
`
`Internet.
`
`
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each Defendant targets
`
`Illinois residents and has offered to sell and, on information and belief, has sold and continues to
`
`sell Counterfeit BILL NYE Products to consumers within the United States, including the State
`
`of Illinois. Specifically, Defendants are reaching out to do business with Illinois residents by
`
`operating one or more commercial, interactive Internet Stores through which Illinois residents
`
`can purchase products being sold in connection with Plaintiff’s BILL NYE Trademarks.
`
`Defendants directly target unlawful business activities toward consumers in Illinois, cause harm
`
`to Plaintiff’s business within this Judicial District, and have caused and will continue to cause
`
`irreparable injury to Plaintiff. Defendants deceive the public by trading upon Plaintiff’s
`
`reputation and goodwill by using their commercial, interactive Internet Stores to sell and/or offer
`
`for sale unlicensed Counterfeit BILL NYE Products in connection with Plaintiff’s trademarks.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ ongoing unlawful activities should be restrained, and Plaintiff respectfully
`
`requests that this Court issue an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order. Specifically, Plaintiff
`
`seeks an order: (1) temporarily restraining Defendants’ continued manufacture, importation,
`
`distribution, offering for sale, and sale of Counterfeit BILL NYE Products; (2) temporarily
`
`transferring the Defendant Domain Names to Plaintiff so that the continued use of the domains in
`
`carrying out acts of infringement can be temporarily disabled; and (3) temporarily restraining
`
`Defendants’ assets to preserve Plaintiff’s right to an equitable accounting. Ancillary to and as
`
`part of the TRO, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court (4) authorize expedited discovery
`
`allowing Plaintiff to inspect and copy Defendants’ records relating to the manufacture,
`
`distribution, offering for sale, and sale of Counterfeit BILL NYE Products and Defendants’
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 11 of 38 PageID #:52
`
`financial accounts; and (5) authorize service by electronic mail and/or electronic publication at
`
`the Defendant Domain Names.
`
`
`
`In light of the covert nature of offshore counterfeiting activities and the vital need to
`
`establish an economic disincentive for trademark infringement, courts regularly issue such
`
`orders. See, e.g., Michael Kors, L.L.C. v. The Partnerships, et al., No. 13-cv-8612 (N.D. Ill. Dec.
`
`5, 2013) (unpublished) (Granting ex parte Temporary Restraining Order); Calvin Klein
`
`Trademark Trust, et al. v. The Partnerships, et al., No. 13-cv-8186 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2013)
`
`(unpublished) (same); Manolo Blahnik Int’l Ltd. v. The Partnerships, et al., No. 13-cv-7810
`
`(N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2013) (unpublished) (same); NBA Properties, Inc., et al. v. The Partnerships,
`
`et al., No. 13-cv-7181 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2013) (unpublished) (same); Beats Electronics, LLC v.
`
`The Partnerships, et al., No. 13-cv-6724 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25, 2014) (unpublished) (same);
`
`Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. v. The Partnerships, et al., No. 13-cv-6297 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 10,
`
`2013) (unpublished) (same); Chrome Hearts LLC v. The Partnerships, et al., No. 13-cv-4784
`
`(N.D. Ill. July 10, 2013) (unpublished) (same); Luxottica USA LLC v. The Partnerships, et al.,
`
`No. 13-cv-4429 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2013) (unpublished) (same); Oakley, Inc. v. Does 1-100, No.
`
`12-cv-9864 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2012) (unpublished) (same); True Religion Apparel, Inc. v. Does
`
`1-100, No. 12-cv-9894 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2012) (unpublished) (same); Tory Burch LLC v. Zhong
`
`Feng, et al., No. 1:12-cv09066 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2012) (unpublished) (same); Coach, Inc., et al.
`
`v. Does 1-100, No. 1:12-cv-8963 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2012) (unpublished) (same); Deckers
`
`Outdoor Corp. v. Does 1-1,281, No. 1:12-cv-01973 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2012) (unpublished)
`
`(same); Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. 4cheapbags.com, No. 1:12-cv-21088 (S. D. Fla.
`
`June 6, 2012) (unpublished) (same); Tory Burch, LLC v. Yong Sheng Int’l Trade Co., Ltd., No.
`
`1:10-cv-09336-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2011) (unpublished) (same); see also, In re Vuitton et
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 12 of 38 PageID #:53
`
`Fils, S.A., 606 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1979) (holding that ex parte temporary restraining orders are
`
`indispensable to the commencement of an action when they are the sole method of preserving a
`
`state of affairs in which the court can provide effective final relief).
`
`Plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations, which must be accepted as true, and evidence
`
`submitted through declarations, establishes that issuing a temporary restraining order against
`
`Defendants is necessary and proper. Plaintiff can demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on
`
`the merits. Plaintiff is the owner of Trademark Registration No. 1,794,982 for “THE SCIENCE
`
`GUY” word mark in classes 16 and 25 and has common law rights in the “BILL NYE” name and
`
`mark (collectively “BILL NYE Trademarks”). Defendants’ use of Plaintiff’s Trademarks to sell
`
`Counterfeit BILL NYE Products is causing consumer confusion.
`
`
`
`
`
`In addition, Defendants have harmed and continue to irreparably harm Plaintiff through
`
`diminished goodwill and damage to Plaintiff’s reputation. Monetary damages are inadequate to
`
`compensate Plaintiff for these damages. This makes injunctive relief particularly appropriate in
`
`this matter.
`
`
`
`Issuance of an injunction is also in the public interest because it will prevent confusion
`
`among the public and prevent unknowing consumers from being deceived into purchasing
`
`Counterfeit BILL NYE Products.
`
`
`
`In addition, an order authorizing the transfer of the Defendant Domain Names to
`
`Plaintiff’s control so that the continued use of the domains in carrying out acts of infringement
`
`can be temporarily disabled is warranted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) which authorizes this
`
`Court “to grant injunctions … to prevent the violation of any right of the registrant of a mark….”
`
`Moreover, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2)(C), this Court has the power to bind
`
`any third parties, such as domain name registries and financial institutions, who are in active
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 13 of 38 PageID #:54
`
`concert with the Defendants or who aid and abet Defendants and are given actual notice of the
`
`order. Similarly, a prejudgment asset freeze is also proper since Plaintiff seeks an equitable
`
`remedy in the accounting of Defendants’ profits pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). Finally, an
`
`order authorizing service of process by email and/or electronic publication is proper since as a
`
`result of Defendants’ intentional efforts to conceal their identities and operate their business
`
`online. Serving Defendants electronically is the best method for notifying them of this action and
`
`providing them the opportunity to defend and present their objections.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A. Plaintiff’s Trademarks and Products
`
`Plaintiff is in the business of developing, marketing, selling and distributing BILL NYE
`
`brands of products. See Declaration of William S. Nye (the “Nye Declaration”) at ¶¶ 3-4. Plaintiff
`
`has expended substantial time, money and other resources promoting BILL NYE brand products.
`
`Id. at ¶8.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of the BILL NYE Trademarks. Id. at ⁋5. The U.S. registrations for
`
`the BILL NYE Trademarks are valid, subsisting, and in full force and effect. Id. A true and correct
`
`copy of the federal trademark registration certificate for the BILL NYE Trademark is attached to the
`
`Nye Declaration as Exhibit 1.
`
`
`
`The BILL NYE Trademarks are distinctive and identify the merchandise as goods from
`
`Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 6. The registrations for the BILL NYE Trademarks constitute prima facie evidence
`
`of their validity and of Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use the BILL NYE Trademarks pursuant to 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1057(b). The BILL NYE Trademarks qualify as famous marks, as that term is used in 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1), and have been continuously used and never abandoned. Id. at ¶ 7. Plaintiff has
`
`expended substantial time, money, and other resources in developing, advertising, and otherwise
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-05788 Document #: 11 Filed: 10/21/22 Page 14 of 38 PageID #:55
`
`promoting the BILL NYE Trademarks. Id. at ¶ 8. As a result, products bearing the BILL NYE
`
`Trademarks are widely recognized and exclusively associated by consumers, the public, and the
`
`trade as being products sourced from Plaintiff. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Defendants’ Unlawful Activities
`
`The success of the BILL NYE brand has resulted in those products being counterfeited.
`
`Id. at ¶ 9. Plaintiff has identified numerous domain names linked to fully interactive websites
`
`and marketplace listings on platforms such as Context Logic, Inc. (“Wish”), including the
`
`Defendants Internet Stores, which were offering for sale, selling, and importing Counterfeit
`
`BILL NYE Products to consumers in this Judicial District and throughout the United States. Id.
`
`Internet websites like the Defendants’ Internet Stores are estimated to receive tens of millions of
`
`visits per year and to generate over $135 billion in annual online sales. Declaration of Michael A.
`
`Hierl (the “Hierl” Declaration) at ¶ 2. According to an intellectual property rights seizures
`
`statistics report issued by Homeland Security, the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP)
`
`of goods seized by the U.S. government during 2017 exceeded $1.2 billion. Id. at ¶ 3. Internet
`
`websites like the Defendants’ Internet Stores are also estimated to contribute to tens of thousands
`
`of lost jobs for legitimate busin