UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT 

TECHNOLOGY CO.; and UNICORN 

GLOBAL, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GYROOR-US; GYROOR; URBANMAX;

FENGCHI-US; HGSM STOREFRONT;

GAODESHANG-US; JIANGYOU-US; and

GYROSHOES,

Defendants.

No. 20 C 4806

Judge Thomas M. Durkin

ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for an order to show cause why the eight Gyroorassociated defendants should not be held in contempt for violation of the preliminary 

injunction order. R. 326. Plaintiffs first allege that the Gyroor defendants have 

evaded the preliminary injunction by contining to sell the enjoined products through 

a continuing succession of “pop-up” Gyroor-associated Amazon storefronts that are 

not expressly listed in the preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs also allege that the 

Gyroor defendants have removed money from their Amazon accounts that were 

frozen by the preliminary injunction order. 

I. Product Sales

A. Defendants Other Than Gyroor-US

Seven of the Gyroor defendants (all but Gyroor-US) do not dispute that they 

are associated with the new Amazon storefronts Plaintiffs have identified. They 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 444 Filed: 10/06/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:11924
2

argue, however, that they should not be held in contempt because: (1) they did not 

receive proper notice of the preliminary injunction order; and (2) the products they 

sell are “different” from those subject to the preliminary injunction because they have 

been assigned different Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (“ASINs”) or are 

based on different patents. 

The Court has already rejected the first argument about insufficient notice 

several times in this case. See R. 284; R. 359; R. 399; see also R. 199. That argument 

cannot serve to excuse the alleged conduct at issue here.

The second argument about different ASINs also fails because Plaintiffs have 

submitted a declaration explaining how the products with different ASINs are 

connected to the products covered by the preliminary injunction. See R. 328 (“Yuan 

Declaration”). The preliminary injunction was entered in part on the basis of an 

expert declaration stating that Defendants’ products likely infringe Plaintiffs’ 

patents. That expert declaration addressed products with certain ASINs. Plaintiffs 

have shown through the analysis in the Yuan Declaration that the products at issue 

on this motion are the same products addressed by the expert declaration supporting 

the preliminary injunction. Defendants have failed to rebut the analysis in the Yuan 

Declaration.

Defendants’ argument about the products at issue being based on different 

patents goes to the merits of the case. In another order issued today, see R. 443, the 

Court dismissed Gyroor-US’s affirmative defense of noninfringement based on a 

patent for which Gyroor-US is a licensee and denied Gyroor-US’s motion for summary 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 444 Filed: 10/06/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:11925
3

judgment based on the same argument. But even if Defendants are able to eventually 

demonstrate that they do not infringe Plaintiffs’ patents or that Plaintiffs’ patents 

are invalid, these are merits questions that will be answered later in the proceedings. 

Until then, if Defendants concede that the products at issue fall into the description 

of the preliminary injunction order, which it seems that they do since they have not 

submitted any argument or evidence to the contrary, then Defendants must not sell 

those products while the injunction is in place.

Therefore, because the seven Gyroor defendants do not dispute that they are 

affiliated with the store fronts addressed by Plaintiffs’ motion, and because they have 

failed to show that the products are different from those covered by the preliminary 

injunction, the seven Gyroor defendants are held in contempt for violating of the 

preliminary injunction.

B. Gyroor-US

Unlike the seven other defendants, Gyroor-US argues through a declaration 

submitted by its owner that it “has no control over the [Amazon storefronts Plaintiffs 

have identified], and it is not affiliated, in active concert of [sic] participation with the 

sellers identified by Plaintiffs.” See R. 370-1. This declaration, however, does not 

dispute that Gyroor-US is affiliated with the seven other defendants who themselves 

do not dispute that they are affiliated with the Amazon store fronts at issue on this 

motion. The Court infers from this omission alone that Gyroor-US is affiliated with 

the new Amazon store fronts.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 444 Filed: 10/06/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:11926
4

Moreover, Gyroor-US’s owner’s declaration is conclusory and not supported by 

any additional evidence. Gyroor-US should be in possession of evidence that can 

support its owner’s statements. Gyroor-US should have records of product sales and 

its affiliated e-commerce storefronts that could help determine whether Gyroor-US is 

responsible for the sales that have occurred during the period of the preliminary 

injunction. 

The evidence submitted by Plaintiffs demonstrates by a preponderance 

standard that Gyroor-US is responsible for the continued infringing sales. When 

confronted by this evidence, instead of marshaling relevant opposing evidence that 

should be within its control, Gyroor-US simply filed a conclusory declaration by its 

owner. The Court presumes that this failure is either because Gyroor-US does not 

take this case seriously, or because the evidence would show that Gyroor-US is 

responsible for the infringing sales as Plaintiffs allege. Either way, Gyroor-US’s 

conduct is contemptuous for violating the preliminary injunction.

II. Account Funds

The seven defendants other than Gyroor-US did not respond to the evidence 

Plaintiffs submitted showing decreases in their Amazon account balances. GyroorUS responded with a declaration from its owner stating that the funds “were deducted 

by Amazon.com to pay warehouse storage costs and refund for returned profits.” R. 

370 at 5.

In both cases—the seven defendants’ failure to respond and Gyroor-US’s 

conclusory response—Defendants have failed to submit evidence explaining the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 444 Filed: 10/06/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:11927
5

decreases in their Amazon account balances. The Court assumes that Amazon issues 

statements to its account holders explaining any deductions. Defendants should 

submit these statements in a filing for the Court to examine.

Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion for an order to show cause [326] is granted. 

Gyroor-US and the seven other defendants are ordered to submit by October 21, 2021

an accounting of all infringing product sales that have occurred since entry of the 

preliminary injunction on November 24, 2020. At a minimum, the Court expects the 

accounting to show the sales identified in Plaintiffs’ motion. Upon review of the 

accounting, the Court will order Gyroor-US and the seven other defendants to escrow

all revenues from these sales with the Clerk of Court. Failure to submit this 

accounting will result in a sanction of $1,000 per day for which the eight defendants 

will be jointly and severally liable.

Gyroor-US and the seven other defendants are also ordered to submit to the 

Court by October 21, 2021 statements of their Amazon accounts showing the reasons 

for the deductions Plaintiffs have identified. Failure to submit these statements will 

result in an order that the eight defendants pay Plaintiffs the $179,378.08 that has 

been deducted from the accounts, an amount for which the eight defendants will be 

jointly and severally liable.

Lastly, Defendants must pay Plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees and costs 

associated with this motion.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 444 Filed: 10/06/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:11928
6

ENTERED:

______________________________

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

United States District Judge

Dated: October 6, 2021

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 444 Filed: 10/06/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:11929