Tracking Northern District of Illinois IP Cases
Innovation Industries, LLC v. The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A, No. 25 C 3157, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2026) (Bucklo, J.).
Judge Bucklo granted summary judgment to Innovation Industries, LLC on its copyright infringement claims against three Amazon sellers, UMagic, Perbelee, and Sumnify, who had been marketing knockoff hummingbird feeder heaters using…
NS, Inc. v. The Partnerships, No. 25 CV 00596, (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2025) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman, in this Schedule A case, granted in part and denied in part plaintiff NewAge Supply’s motion for default judgment against five defaulting defendants accused of selling counterfeit products bearing plaintiff’s PROFITNESS trademarks. While finding defendants liable for…
Mob Entertainment, Inc. v. The Partnerships, No. 25 C 01581 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2025) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman granted in part and denied in part plaintiff Mob Entertainment’s motion for default judgment in this Schedule A case involving the video game Poppy Playtime. The Court’s decision highlights the importance of providing sufficient evidence…
Amorepacific Corp. v. Juanhe Co. Ltd., No. 24 CV 12417 (N.D. Ill. July 15, 2025) (Jenkins, J.).
Judge Jenkins granted plaintiff Amorepacific’s summary judgment motion against defendant Juanhe for trademark infringement and false designation of origin involving the LANEIGE beauty brand.
The Court found no genuine dispute that Juanhe used the LANEIGE mark without authorization…
Southall v. Force Partners, LLC, No. 20 C 3223, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2021) (Chang, J.).
Judge Chang granted in part defendant Force Partners’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in this copyright infringement and Digital Millenium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) claims involving a picture of the inside of a restaurant…
River Light V, L.P. v. Zhangyali, No. 15 C 5918, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2016) (Shah, J.).
Judge Shah granted plaintiffs (collectively “Tory Burch”) summary judgment and awarded statutory damages of $100,000, a permanent injunction and attorney’s fees in an amount to be determined in this Lanham Act dispute involving counterfeit Tory…
Bulgari, S.P.A. V. Zou Xiaohong, No. 15 C 5148, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2015) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman granted in part plaintiff Bulgari’s motion for summary judgment of trademark infringement, a permanent injunction and its attorney’s fees and costs regarding Bulgari’s BVLGARI marks used in relation to counterfeit rings.
It was undisputed…
Luxottica USA LLC v. The Partnerships & Unincorporated Assocs., No. 14 C 9061, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 18, 2015) (Leinenweber, J.).
Judge Leinenweber granted plaintiff Luxottica’s motion for summary judgment, statutory damages, permanent injunction and attorney’s fees in this Lanham Act false designation of origin dispute regarding online sales of counterfeit Ray-Ban eyewear.…
Kinsey v. Jambow, Ltd., No. 14 C 2236, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2014) (St. Eve, J.).
Judge St. Eve granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment in this music copyright case involving three reggae songs. The Court awarded plaintiffs $22,500 in statutory damages, a permanent injunction and their reasonable attorney’s fees.…
Healix Infusion Therapy, Inc. v. HHI Infusion Servs., Inc., No. 10 C 3772, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2011) (Zagel, J.).
Judge Zagel granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff Healix Infusion Therapy’s (“Healix”) complaint, which included copyright infringement, trademark infringement and tortious interference claims, all related to the parties’ competition for medical infusion services, as follows:
Copyright
The Court dismissed Healix’s claims for statutory damages on its copyright claims. The record showed that Healix filed for its copyright registrations after defendants began the alleged infringements, and more than three months after first publication. As a result, statutory damages were not recoverable. Healix could only receive actual damages. Furthermore, the Court denied Healix’s request to amend its pleadings to include a demand for actual damages because Healix had already filed four complaints in the case and never sought actual damages.
Trademark
Although sparse, Healix’s trademark claims were sufficiently plead. Defendants argued that Healix had not pled use in commerce. But it was sufficient that Healix pled that Defendants displayed Healix’s marks to the public and that Defendants allegedly copied Healix’s marks with intent to use them in selling Defendants services to the consuming public.
Tortious Interference
The Court took Defendants’ motion to dismiss Healix’s tortious interference claim under advisement, in favor of a fully briefed summary judgment motion on the issue that more fully set out the relevant facts.
The Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss defendant Metro Infectious Disease Consultants (“Metro”). Defendants argued that Metro was never specifically accused to have committed any acts in the complaint. Instead, Healix defined as a single entity three defendants, including Metro. But the Court held that it was sufficient in this instance for Healix to group Metro with two other defendants and make all allegations against Metro as part of the defined entity.
…
Continue Reading Allegations of Defendant’s Acts as a Group Sufficient to Plead Copyright and Trademark Infringement
