Stussy, Inc. v. The Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 26 C 2870, (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2026) (Kendall, C.J.).

Chief Judge Kendall denied defendant NIOKIT’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in this Schedule A trademark counterfeiting action. Stussy, the well-known streetwear brand, alleged that NIOKIT sold rugs on Amazon bearing a counterfeit version of Stussy’s federally registered “stylized billiard 8 ball” mark. Stussy’s investigator purchased one allegedly infringing rug from NIOKIT via Amazon. NIOKIT accepted the order and shipped the rug to Stussy’s attorney’s office in Chicago. Stussy obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order, then moved for a preliminary injunction (PI). NIOKIT moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction rather than opposing the PI motion (which was granted as unopposed).

Of particular interest, the Court held:

  • Purposeful Direction: NIOKIT structured its own online Amazon storefront to accept and ship orders to Illinois. That Stussy’s investigator placed the order did not matter. The focus is on NIOKIT’s conduct in filling the order and shipping to Illinois, not the customer’s motivation for buying. The Court found that NIOKIT “wants to have its cake and eat it too,” the benefit of a nationwide business model without any of the jurisdictional exposure.
  • NBA Properties Controls: The Court found the case “virtually identical” to NBA Properties, Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614 (7th Cir. 2022), and rejected NIOKIT’s reliance on Third and Eighth Circuit authority as non-binding. The Court also rejected the “stream of commerce” framing. This was a direct-to-consumer sale, not a stream-of-commerce case.
  • No Bright-Line “More Than One Sale” Rule: The Court rejected any requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate more than a single sale to establish jurisdiction. Because the claim arose directly from the sale and shipment into Illinois, relatedness was satisfied.
  • Fair Play and Substantial Justice: NIOKIT’s complaints about its frozen Amazon account came too late. NIOKIT chose not to contest the PI motion. Illinois and Stussy both have strong interests in policing counterfeit goods sold to Illinois consumers. Because personal jurisdiction was proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1) and the general due-process analysis, the Court did not reach the parties’ Rule 4(k)(2) arguments.