IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES CELLULAR 

CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HOTLINE WIRELESS & MORE, INC. 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 1:12-cv-05017 

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, RULE TO SHOW 

CAUSE, AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Plaintiff United States Cellular Corporation (“U.S. Cellular”) hereby moves for three 

items of relief: (1) the entry of judgment against defendant Hotline Wireless & More, Inc. 

(“Hotline Wireless”); (2) issuance of an order for Hotline Wireless to show cause why it should 

not be held in contempt for its failure to comply with this Court’s June 27, 2012 temporary 

retraining order (the “TRO”) (Dkt. 13); and (3) a finding that this lawsuit is an “exceptional 

case” within the meaning of the Lanham Act so as to justify an award to U.S. Cellular of its 

attorneys’ fees incurred herein. In support of this motion, U.S. Cellular states as follows: 

1. On June 25, 2012, U.S. Cellular filed a verified complaint seeking, among other 

things, injunctive relief against Hotline Wireless’ unauthorized use of U.S. Cellular’s trademark. 

Hotline Wireless was served with summons and the verified complaint on June 25, 2012. A 

copy of the summons and an affidavit of service is attached as Exhibit A. Such service made 

Hotline Wireless’ responsive pleading due July 16, 2012. 

2. On June 27, 2012, the Court issued the TRO (Dkt. 13). U.S. Cellular served 

Hotline Wireless with the TRO on the same day. On July 3, 2012, U.S. Cellular sent Hotline 

Case: 1:12-cv-05017 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/23/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:64
 2 

Wireless a follow up letter pointing out that Hotline Wireless’ continued display of U.S. 

Cellular’s trademark is a direct violation of this Court’s order. As of July 18, 2012, Hotline 

Wireless continues to display two of the three signs containing U.S. Cellular’s trademark that 

were on display when the TRO was entered. (Declaration of Timothy Murphy at ¶ 3.) 

3. Because Hotline Wireless’ continued display of U.S. Cellular’s trademark is a 

violation of the TRO, Hotline Wireless should be ordered to show cause why it should not be 

held in contempt of court. A proposed order to show cause is attached as Exhibit B. 

4. Hotline Wireless has not filed a responsive pleading. On July 23, 2012, this Court 

entered an order of default against Hotline Wireless. (Dkt. 16.) 

5. This Court may grant a permanent injunction upon a showing by U.S. Cellular: 

"(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary 

damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of 

hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the 

public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction." eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, 

LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). 

6. In entering the TRO, the Court found: 

6. U.S. Cellular is highly likely to succeed on the merits of its 

claims for trademark infringement and false designation of origin. 

7. U.S. Cellular will suffer immediate and irreparable injury 

for which there is no adequate remedy at law unless Hotline 

Wireless, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and 

those persons acting in concert or participation or privity with any 

of the foregoing are enjoined by this Court from further 

unauthorized use of U.S. Cellular’s mark, in that such acts by 

Hotline Wireless (a) will cause confusion about the source of its 

merchandise and about whether it has any affiliation with U.S. 

Cellular and (b) will harm the good will and reputation of U.S. 

Cellular. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05017 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/23/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:65
 3 

8. U.S. Cellular’s harm if its motion is denied would far 

outweigh any harm to Hotline Wireless if the motion is granted, 

given that Hotline Wireless has no legitimate interest in the use of 

U.S. Cellular’s trademark. 

9. Finally, the factors identified in Paragraph 7 confirm that 

the public interest will be served by granting U.S. Cellular’s 

Motion For Temporary Restraining Order. 

(Dkt. 13 at ¶¶ 6-9.) 

7. Based upon the Verified Complaint and U.S. Cellular’s Motion For Temporary 

Restraining Order, U.S. Cellular has made a prima facie case of trademark infringement and 

false designation of origin and established an entitlement to permanent injunction. Hotline 

Wireless has presented no evidence to the contrary. A proposed judgment is attached as Exhibit 

C. 

8. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, upon establishing trademark infringement in a civil 

action, “The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing 

party.” Willful infringement justifies finding a case exceptional. BASF Corp. v. Old World 

Trading Co., Inc., 41 F.3d 1081, 1099 (7th Cir. 1994) (“The Lanham Act allows for fees in 

‘exceptional’ cases, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which encompasses cases in which the acts of 

infringement are malicious, fraudulent, deliberate or willful.”). 

9. Here, the uncontested evidence is that Hotline Wireless’ infringement has been 

willful, both before and after the issuance of the TRO. Accordingly, this Court should declare 

this case exceptional under § 1117 and award U.S. Cellular its costs, expenses, and attorneys’ 

fees. 

WHEREFORE, U.S. Cellular prays that this Court: 

Case: 1:12-cv-05017 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/23/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:66
 4 

a. Enter judgment in favor of U.S. Cellular and against Hotline Wireless in the form 

attached hereto as Exhibit C, and 

b. Order Hotline Wireless to show cause why it should not be held in contempt of 

court for failure to comply with this Court’s TRO. 

Date: July 23, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

UNITED STATES CELLULAR 

CORPORATION 

By: /s/ Robert D. Leighton 

 One of Its Attorneys 

Richard J. O’Brien 

Robert D. Leighton 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

One South Dearborn Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: (312) 853-7000 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-05017 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/23/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:67
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Robert D. Leighton, an attorney, hereby certifies that he effected service by placing the 

foregoing document with a messenger for hand delivery and mailing a copy of the same via First 

Class Mail to: 

Hotline Wireless & More, Inc. 

c/o Amer Hijazi, Registered Agent 

3938 W. Roosevelt Road 

Chicago, IL 60624 

On this 23rd day of July, 2012. 

/s/ Robert D. Leighton 

Robert D. Leighton 

CH1 6976528 

Case: 1:12-cv-05017 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/23/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:68