IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ABC CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 20-cv-02617 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff ABC Corporation (“Plaintiff”) brings the present action against the Partnerships 

and Unincorporated Associations identified on attached Schedule A (collectively, “Defendants”) 

and alleges as follows:1 

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action 

pursuant to the provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)-(b) 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and this Court may 

properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants since each of the Defendants directly 

targets business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through at 

1

 Since it is unknown when Plaintiff’s forthcoming Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order will be 

ruled on, Plaintiff’s name has been removed to prevent Defendants from getting advanced notice. 

Plaintiff is listed on the trademark certificates filed under seal as Exhibit 1 and Plaintiff will file an 

Amended Complaint under seal that identifies Plaintiff and provides additional allegations. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02617 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1
2 

least the fully interactive, e-commerce stores2

 operating under the seller aliases identified in 

attached Schedule A (collectively, the “Seller Aliases”). Specifically, Defendants have targeted 

sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States 

consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including 

Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars and, on information and belief, have sold products using 

infringing and counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s federally registered trademarks to residents of 

Illinois. Each of the Defendants is committing tortious acts in Illinois, is engaging in interstate 

commerce, and has wrongfully caused Plaintiff substantial injury in the State of Illinois. 

II. INTRODUCTION

3. This action has been filed by Plaintiff to combat e-commerce sellers who trade 

upon Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill by offering for sale and/or selling unauthorized and 

unlicensed products using infringing and counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s federally registered 

trademarks (the “Counterfeit Products”). Defendants create e-commerce stores which are 

advertising, offering for sale and selling infringing and Counterfeit Products. Many of the ecommerce stores operating under the Seller Aliases share unique identifiers, indicating that their 

counterfeiting operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions 

or occurrences and establishing a logical relationship between them. However, Defendants 

attempt to avoid and mitigate liability by operating under one or more Seller Aliases to conceal 

both their identities and the full scope of their operations. The e-commerce platforms used by 

Defendants – including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Wish.com – fail to adequately subject 

new sellers to verification and confirmation of their identities, allowing counterfeiters to use 

false or inaccurate names and addresses when registering their e-commerce stores. Further, these 

e-commerce platforms continue to be unable or unwilling to prevent the rampant and flagrant 

2

 The e-commerce store urls are listed on Schedule A hereto under the Online Marketplaces. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02617 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:2
3 

listing of counterfeit products on their platforms. Thus, Plaintiff is forced to file this action to 

discover the full scope of the infringement and attempt to stop Defendants’ counterfeiting of the 

registered Plaintiff’s trademarks, as well as to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing 

Counterfeit Products on U.S.-facing e-commerce platforms. Plaintiff has been and continues to 

be irreparably damaged through consumer confusion, dilution, and tarnishment of its valuable 

trademarks as a result of Defendants’ actions and seeks injunctive and monetary relief. 

III. THE PARTIES 

Plaintiff 

4. Plaintiff designs, manufactures and sells products, which prominently display the 

famous, internationally recognized, and federally registered Plaintiff’s trademarks (collectively, 

the “Plaintiff’s Products”). Plaintiff’s Products have become enormously popular and even 

iconic, driven by Plaintiff’s arduous quality standards and innovative design. Among the 

purchasing public, genuine Plaintiff’s Products are instantly recognizable as such. In the United 

States and around the world, Plaintiff’s brand has come to symbolize high quality, and Plaintiff’s 

Products are among the most recognizable of their kind in the world. 

5. Plaintiff incorporates a variety of distinctive marks in the design of its various 

Plaintiff’s Products. As a result of its long-standing use, Plaintiff owns common law trademark 

rights in its Plaintiff’s trademarks. Plaintiff has also registered its trademarks with the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, and Plaintiff’s Products typically include at least one of 

Plaintiff’s registered trademarks. Plaintiff uses its trademarks in connection with the marketing 

of Plaintiff’s Products, including the marks for which true and correct copies of the United States 

Registration Certificates are included in Exhibit 1 attached hereto (collectively referred to as the 

“Plaintiff’s Trademarks”).

Case: 1:20-cv-02617 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3
4 

6. The U.S. registrations for Plaintiff’s Trademarks are valid, subsisting, in full force 

and effect, and some are incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065. The registrations for the 

Plaintiff’s Trademarks constitute prima facie evidence of their validity and of Plaintiff’s 

exclusive right to use the Plaintiff’s Trademarks pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b). Plaintiff’s 

Trademarks have been used exclusively and continuously by Plaintiff for many years and have 

never been abandoned. 

7. Plaintiff’s Trademarks are exclusive to Plaintiff, and are displayed extensively on 

Plaintiff’s Products and in Plaintiff’s marketing and promotional materials. Typically, at least 

one of the Plaintiff’s Trademarks are included on Plaintiff’s Products. Plaintiff’s Products have 

been extensively promoted and advertised at great expense. In fact, Plaintiff has expended 

significant resources annually in advertising, promoting and marketing featuring the Plaintiff’s 

Trademarks. Because of these and other factors, Plaintiff’s name and the Plaintiff’s Trademarks 

have become famous throughout the United States. 

8. Plaintiff’s Trademarks are distinctive when applied to the Plaintiff’s Products, 

signifying to the purchaser that the products come from Plaintiff and are manufactured to 

Plaintiff’s quality standards. Whether Plaintiff manufactures the products itself or licenses 

others to do so, Plaintiff has ensured that products bearing its trademarks are manufactured to the 

highest quality standards. Plaintiff’s Trademarks have achieved tremendous fame and 

recognition, which has only added to the inherent distinctiveness of the marks. As such, the 

goodwill associated with the Plaintiff’s Trademarks is of incalculable and inestimable value to 

Plaintiff. 

9. Plaintiff operates a website where it promotes and sells genuine Plaintiff’s 

Products. Sales of Plaintiff’s Products via Plaintiff’s website represent a significant portion of 

Case: 1:20-cv-02617 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:4
5 

Plaintiff’s business. Plaintiff’s website features proprietary content, images and designs 

exclusive to Plaintiff. 

10. Plaintiff’s innovative marketing and product designs have enabled Plaintiff to 

achieve widespread recognition and fame and have made the Plaintiff’s Trademarks some of the 

most well-known marks in Plaintiff’s industry. The widespread fame, outstanding reputation, 

and significant goodwill associated with Plaintiff’s brand have made the Plaintiff’s Trademarks 

valuable assets of Plaintiff. 

11. Plaintiff has expended substantial time, money, and other resources in developing, 

advertising and otherwise promoting the Plaintiff’s Trademarks. As a result, products bearing 

the Plaintiff’s Trademarks are widely recognized and exclusively associated by consumers, the 

public, and the trade as being high-quality products sourced from Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Products 

have become among the most popular of their kind in the world. 

The Defendants 

12. Defendants are individuals and business entities of unknown makeup who, either 

individually or jointly, own and/or operate one or more of the e-commerce stores under at least 

the Seller Aliases identified on Schedule A and/or other seller aliases not yet known to Plaintiff. 

On information and belief, Defendants reside and/or operate in the People’s Republic of China or 

other foreign jurisdictions with weak trademark enforcement systems, or redistribute products 

from the same or similar sources in those locations. Defendants have the capacity to be sued 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). 

13. On information and belief, Defendants either individually or jointly, operate one 

or more e-commerce stores under the Seller Aliases listed in Schedule A attached hereto. Tactics 

used by Defendants to conceal their identities and the full scope of their operation make it 

Case: 1:20-cv-02617 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5
6 

virtually impossible for Plaintiff to learn Defendants’ true identities and the exact interworking 

of their counterfeit network. If Defendants provide additional credible information regarding 

their identities, Plaintiff will take appropriate steps to amend the Complaint. 

IV. DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT 

14. The success of Plaintiff’s brand has resulted in significant counterfeiting of 

Plaintiff’s Trademarks. In recent years, Plaintiff has identified many fully interactive, ecommerce stores offering counterfeit Plaintiff’s Products on online marketplace platforms such 

as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Wish.com, including the e-commerce stores operating under 

the Seller Aliases. The e-commerce stores, including those operating under the Seller Aliases are 

offering for sale and/or selling Counterfeit Products to consumers in this Judicial District and 

throughout the United States. E-commerce sales, including e-commerce stores like those of 

Defendants, have resulted in a sharp increase in the shipment of unauthorized products into the 

United States. Exhibit 2, Excerpts from Fiscal Year 2018 U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(“CBP”) Intellectual Property Seizure Statistics Report. Over 90% of all CBP intellectual 

property seizures were smaller international mail and express shipments, and over 85% of CBP 

seizures originated from mainland China and Hong Kong. Id. Counterfeit and pirated products 

account for billions in economic losses, resulting in tens of thousands of lost jobs for legitimate 

businesses and broader economic losses, including lost tax revenue. 

15. Online marketplace platforms like those used by Defendants do not adequately 

subject new sellers to verification and confirmation of their identities, allowing counterfeiters to 

“routinely use false or inaccurate names and addresses when registering with these e-commerce 

platforms.” Exhibit 3, Daniel C.K. Chow, Alibaba, Amazon, and Counterfeiting in the Age of 

the Internet, 40 NW. J. INT’L L. & BUS. 157, 186 (2020); see also report on “Combating 

Case: 1:20-cv-02617 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:6
7 

Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods” prepared by the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security’s Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans (Jan. 24, 2020), attached as Exhibit 4, and 

finding that on “at least some e-commerce platforms, little identifying information is necessary 

for a counterfeiter to begin selling” and recommending that “[s]ignificantly enhanced vetting of 

third-party sellers” is necessary. Counterfeiters hedge against the risk of being caught and 

having their websites taken down from an e-commerce platform by preemptively establishing 

multiple virtual store-fronts. Exhibit 4 at p. 22. Since platforms generally do not require a seller 

on a third-party marketplace to identify the underlying business entity, counterfeiters can have 

many different profiles that can appear unrelated even though they are commonly owned and 

operated. Exhibit 4 at p. 39. Further, “E-commerce platforms create bureaucratic or technical 

hurdles in helping brand owners to locate or identify sources of counterfeits and counterfeiters.” 

Exhibit 3 at 186-187. 

16. Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating ecommerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer 

shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars and, on 

information and belief, have sold Counterfeit Products to residents of Illinois. 

17. Defendants concurrently employ and benefit from substantially similar 

advertising and marketing strategies. For example, Defendants facilitate sales by designing the 

e-commerce stores operating under the Seller Aliases so that they appear to unknowing 

consumers to be authorized online retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers. E-commerce stores 

operating under the Seller Aliases appear sophisticated and accept payment in U.S. dollars via 

credit cards, Alipay, Western Union, PayPal, and/or Amazon Pay. E-commerce stores operating 

under the Seller Aliases often include content and images that make it very difficult for 

Case: 1:20-cv-02617 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:7
8 

consumers to distinguish such stores from an authorized retailer. Plaintiff has not licensed or 

authorized Defendants to use any of Plaintiff’s Trademarks, and none of the Defendants are 

authorized retailers of genuine Plaintiff’s Products. 

18. Many Defendants also deceive unknowing consumers by using the Plaintiff’s 

Trademarks without authorization within the content, text, and/or meta tags of their online 

marketplace listings in order to drive traffic away from Plaintiff’s authorized channels, but 

instead to their own infringing sites. Other e-commerce stores operating under Seller Aliases 

omit using Plaintiff’s Trademarks in the item title to evade enforcement efforts while using 

strategic item titles and descriptions that will trigger their listings when consumers are searching 

for Plaintiff’s Products. 

19. On information and belief, Defendants have engaged in fraudulent conduct when 

registering the Seller Aliases by providing false, misleading and/or incomplete information to 

online marketplace platforms. On information and belief, certain Defendants have anonymously 

registered and maintained Seller Aliases to prevent discovery of their true identities and the 

scope of their counterfeiting operations. 

20. On information and belief, Defendants regularly register or acquire new seller 

aliases for the purpose of offering for sale and selling Counterfeit Products. Such seller alias 

registration patterns are one of many common tactics used by the Defendants to conceal their 

identities and the full scope and interworking of their counterfeiting operations, and to avoid 

being shut down. 

21. Even though Defendants operate under multiple fictitious aliases, the e-commerce 

stores operating under the Seller Aliases often share unique identifiers, such as templates with 

common design elements that intentionally omit any contact information or other information for 

Case: 1:20-cv-02617 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:8
9 

identifying Defendants or other Seller Aliases they operate or use. E-commerce stores operating 

under the Seller Aliases include other notable common features, such as use of the same 

registration patterns accepted payment methods, check-out methods, keywords, illegitimate 

search engine optimization (SEO), advertising tactics, similarities in prices and quantities, the 

same incorrect grammar and misspellings, and/or the use of the same text and images. 

Additionally, Counterfeit Products for sale by the Seller Aliases bear similar irregularities and 

indicia of being counterfeit to one another, suggesting that many of the Counterfeit Products may 

be manufactured by and come from a common source and that many of Defendants are 

interrelated. 

22. On information and belief, Defendants are in constant communication with each 

other and regularly participate in QQ.com chat rooms and through websites such as 

sellerdefense.cn, kaidianyo.com and kuajingvs.com regarding tactics for operating multiple 

accounts, evading detection, pending litigation, and potential new lawsuits. 

23. Counterfeiters such as Defendants typically operate under multiple seller aliases 

and payment accounts so that they can continue operation in spite of Plaintiff’s enforcement 

efforts. On information and belief, Defendants maintain off-shore accounts and regularly move 

funds from their financial accounts to off-shore bank accounts outside the jurisdiction of this 

Court to avoid payment of any monetary judgment awarded to Plaintiff. Indeed, analysis of 

financial account transaction logs from previous similar cases indicates that off-shore 

counterfeiters regularly move funds from financial accounts to off-shore accounts outside the 

jurisdiction of this Court. 

24. On information and belief, Defendants are an interrelated group of counterfeiters 

working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for 

Case: 1:20-cv-02617 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:9
10 

sale, and sell Counterfeit Products in the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions 

or occurrences. Defendants, without any authorization or license from Plaintiff, have jointly and 

severally, knowingly and willfully used and continue to use the Plaintiff’s Trademarks in 

connection with the advertisement, distribution, offering for sale, and sale of Counterfeit 

Products into the United States and Illinois over the Internet. 

25. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s Trademarks in connection with the 

advertising, distribution, offering for sale, and sale of Counterfeit Products, including the sale of 

Counterfeit Products into the United States, including Illinois, is likely to cause and has caused 

confusion, mistake, and deception by and among consumers and is irreparably harming Plaintiff. 

COUNT I 

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND COUNTERFEITING (15 U.S.C. § 1114) 

26. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth 

in the preceding paragraphs. 

27. This is a trademark infringement action against Defendants based on their 

unauthorized use in commerce of counterfeit imitations of the federally registered Plaintiff’s 

Trademarks in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, and/or advertising of 

infringing goods. The Plaintiff’s Trademarks are highly distinctive marks. Consumers have 

come to expect the highest quality from Plaintiff’s Products offered, sold or marketed under the 

Plaintiff’s Trademarks. 

28. Defendants have sold, offered to sell, marketed, distributed and advertised, and 

are still selling, offering to sell, marketing, distributing and advertising products using 

counterfeit reproductions of the Plaintiff’s Trademarks without Plaintiff’s permission. 

29. Plaintiff is the owner or exclusive licensee of the Plaintiff’s Trademarks. 

Plaintiff’s United States Registrations for the Plaintiff’s Trademarks (Exhibit 1) are in full force 

Case: 1:20-cv-02617 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:10
11 

and effect. Upon information and belief, Defendants have knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights in the 

Plaintiff’s Trademarks, and are willfully infringing and intentionally using counterfeits of the 

Plaintiff’s Trademarks. Defendants’ willful, intentional and unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s 

Trademarks is likely to cause and is causing confusion, mistake, and deception as to the origin 

and quality of the Counterfeit Products among the general public. 

30. Defendants’ activities constitute willful trademark infringement and 

counterfeiting under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. 

31. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and if Defendants’ actions are not 

enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm to its reputation and the goodwill of its 

well-known Plaintiff’s Trademarks. 

32. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff have been directly and 

proximately caused by Defendants’ wrongful reproduction, use, advertisement, promotion, 

offering to sell, and sale of Counterfeit Products. 

COUNT II 

FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) 

33. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth 

in the preceding paragraphs. 

34. Defendants’ promotion, marketing, offering for sale, and sale of Counterfeit 

Products has created and is creating a likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception among the 

general public as to the affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiff or the origin, 

sponsorship, or approval of Defendants’ Counterfeit Products by Plaintiff. 

35. By using the Plaintiff’s Trademarks in connection with the sale of Counterfeit 

Products, Defendants create a false designation of origin and a misleading representation of fact 

as to the origin and sponsorship of the Counterfeit Products. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02617 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:11
12 

36. Defendants’ false designation of origin and misrepresentation of fact as to the 

origin and/or sponsorship of the Counterfeit Products to the general public involves the use of 

counterfeit marks and is a willful violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. 

37. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and, if Defendants’ actions are not 

enjoined, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm to its reputation and the goodwill of its 

brand. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: 

1) That Defendants, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, 

confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with 

them be temporarily, preliminarily, and permanently enjoined and restrained from: 

a. using Plaintiff’s Trademarks or any reproductions, counterfeit copies or colorable 

imitations thereof in any manner in connection with the distribution, marketing, 

advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product that is not a genuine Plaintiff’s 

Product or is not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the Plaintiff’s 

Trademarks; 

b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a genuine 

Plaintiff’s Product or any other product produced by Plaintiff, that is not Plaintiff’s or 

not produced under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff and 

approved by Plaintiff for sale under the Plaintiff’s Trademarks; 

c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defendants’ 

Counterfeit Products are those sold under the authorization, control or supervision of 

Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff; 

Case: 1:20-cv-02617 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:12
13 

d. further infringing the Plaintiff’s Trademarks and damaging Plaintiff’s goodwill; and 

e. manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or otherwise 

moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, 

products or inventory not manufactured by or for Plaintiff, nor authorized by Plaintiff 

to be sold or offered for sale, and which bear any of Plaintiff’s trademarks, including 

the Plaintiff’s Trademarks, or any reproductions, counterfeit copies or colorable 

imitations thereof; 

2) Entry of an Order that, upon Plaintiff’s request, those with notice of the injunction, including, 

without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as eBay, AliExpress, Amazon, and 

Wish.com (collectively, the “Third Party Providers”) shall disable and cease displaying any 

advertisements used by or associated with Defendants in connection with the sale of 

counterfeit and infringing goods using the Plaintiff’s Trademarks; 

3) That Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff all profits realized by Defendants by reason 

of Defendants’ unlawful acts herein alleged, and that the amount of damages for 

infringement of the Plaintiff’s Trademarks be increased by a sum not exceeding three times 

the amount thereof as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1117; 

4) In the alternative, that Plaintiff be awarded statutory damages for willful trademark 

counterfeiting pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) of $2,000,000 for each and every use of the 

Plaintiff’s Trademarks; 

5) That Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and 

6) Award any and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02617 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:13
14 

Dated this 29th day of April 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Justin R. Gaudio 

Amy C. Ziegler 

Justin R. Gaudio 

RiKaleigh C. Johnson 

 Jake M. Christensen 

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. 

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

312.360.0080 

312.360.9315 (facsimile) 

aziegler@gbc.law 

jgaudio@gbc.law 

rjohnson@gbc.law 

jchristensen@gbc.law 

 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Case: 1:20-cv-02617 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:14