1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TRADEMARK HOLDER IDENTIFIED IN 

EXHIBIT 1, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, 

PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON 

SCHEDULE A HERETO, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT 

The trademark holder identified in Exhibit 11 (“Plaintiff”), brings this action against the 

Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated 

Associations identified in Schedule A attached hereto (collectively, “Defendants”). In support of 

this Complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows: 

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., and pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1338(a)–(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

1

 Plaintiff’s corporate name and address is identified on the trademark certificate attached as 

Exhibit 1. Concurrent with this Complaint, Plaintiff is filing a Motion for Leave to File Exhibits 

Under Seal requesting that papers identifying Plaintiff and its registered trademarks be 

temporarily sealed pending the outcome of a forthcoming Motion for Temporary Restraining 

Order. As noted in the Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal, Plaintiff requests to 

temporarily seal its name to mitigate the risk that Defendants will transfer assets or destroy 

evidence upon learning of Plaintiff’s identity and trademarks. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1
2

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims in this action that arise under the laws 

of the State of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because the state law claims are so 

related to the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from 

a common nucleus of operative facts. 

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

properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants, as each of the Defendants directly 

targets consumers in the United States, including in Illinois and in this District, through acts of 

trademark infringement and counterfeiting, as described herein. 

4. Specifically, Defendants, under the cover of aliases, operate Internet enterprises, 

online marketplaces, profiles, stores and/or accounts (collectively, “Defendant Internet Stores”), 

through which consumers in Illinois and in this District can purchase products bearing, and/or 

that are sold using, counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s trademarks. Schedule A identifies the 

aliases Defendant’s use (“Defendant Aliases”) and URLs associated with each Defendant 

Internet Store. 

5. Each of the Defendants has targeted and sought sales from Illinois residents by 

operating online stores that offer shipping to the United States, including to addresses in Illinois 

and in this District, accepting payments in U.S. dollars and, on information and belief, selling 

products bearing, and/or that are sold using, 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 Illinois. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:2
3

INTRODUCTION 

6. Plaintiff files this action against online counterfeiters who, without consent, 

improperly trade on Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill by using unauthorized and counterfeit 

versions of Plaintiff’s trademarks (the “Asserted Trademarks”) to sell, offer for sale, distribute, or 

advertise infringing products (“Unauthorized Products”). 

7. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted Plaintiff registrations 

for the Asserted Trademarks (the “Registrations”). The Registrations are valid, subsisting, and in 

full force and effect. True and correct copies of federal trademark registration certificates for the 

Asserted Trademarks are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 - 3. 

8. Defendants have created the Defendant Internet Stores, operate under one or more 

Defendant Aliases, and are advertising, offering for sale and selling Unauthorized Products to 

unsuspecting consumers. Defendant Internet Stores operating under the Defendant Aliases share 

unique identifiers, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that 

Defendants’ counterfeiting actions arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of 

transactions or occurrences. 

9. Defendants attempt to avoid liability by going to great lengths to conceal both their 

identities and the full scope and interworking of their illegal counterfeiting actions. Plaintiff files 

this action to address Defendants’ counterfeiting of the Asserted Trademarks and to protect 

unknowing consumers from purchasing unauthorized counterfeit products over the Internet. 

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. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3
4

THE PLAINTIFF 

10. Plaintiff is a corporation having a principal place of business at the address listed 

in the trademark certificate attached as Exhibit 1. 

11. Plaintiff is in the business of developing, marketing, selling and distributing 

products bearing the Asserted Trademarks. Products that Plaintiff sells under the Asserted 

Trademarks include those identified in the trademark certificates attached as Exhibits 1 - 3. 

12. As a result of Plaintiff’s substantial expenditures of time, money, and other 

resources developing, advertising, and otherwise promoting quality products in association with 

the Asserted Trademarks, products associated with the Asserted Trademarks are recognized and 

exclusively associated by consumers, the public, and the trade as being products sourced from 

Plaintiff. 

13. The Asserted Trademarks are distinctive and identify the merchandise as goods 

from Plaintiff. The Registrations constitute prima facie evidence of their validity and of 

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

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

advertising, and otherwise promoting the Asserted Trademarks. As a result, authorized products 

bearing the Asserted Trademarks are widely recognized and exclusively associated by 

consumers, the public, and the trade as being products sourced from Plaintiff. 

15. The Asserted Trademarks have become famous, as that term is used in 15 U.S.C. 

§1125 (c)(1), and have been continuously used and never abandoned. 

THE DEFENDANTS 

16. Defendants are individuals and business entities who, on information and belief, 

reside outside the United States. Defendants conduct business throughout the United States, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:4
5

including within Illinois and in this District, through the operation of online enterprises such as 

the Defendant Internet Stores. 

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

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

sale, and sell products using infringing and counterfeit versions of the Asserted Trademarks in 

the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Tactics used by 

Defendants to conceal their identities and the full scope of their counterfeiting operations and 

relatedness make it virtually impossible for Plaintiff to learn Defendants’ true identities and the 

precise interworking of their counterfeit network. 

THE DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT 

18. Plaintiff has identified numerous marketplace profiles associated with the 

Defendant Internet Stores on third-party platforms, such as eBay, Wish and Dhgate. See 

Schedule A. Defendants use the Defendant Aliases and the Defendant Internet Stores to 

advertise, offer for sale, sell, and import Unauthorized Products to consumers in this District and 

throughout the United States. 

19. According to an intellectual property rights seizures statistics report issued by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) 

of goods seized by the U.S. government in fiscal year 2018 was nearly $1.4 billion, up from over 

$1.2 billion in 2017. See Exhibit 4 (U.S. Customs and Border Protection Fiscal Year 2018 

Seizure Statistics). 

20. CBP reports that over 90% of its intellectual property seizures correspond to 

smaller international mail and express shipments, such as those used by Defendants. See Exhibit 

4 at p. 15. Counterfeit and pirated products account for billions in economic losses, resulting in 

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5
6

tens of thousands of lost jobs for legitimate businesses and broader economic losses, including 

lost tax revenue. 

21. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) reports in a January 2020 

publication on counterfeiting that commonly owned and/or interrelated enterprises have many 

online marketplace profiles that appear unrelated: 

Platforms generally do not require a seller on a third-party marketplace to identify the 

underlying business entity, nor to link one seller profile to other profiles owned by that 

same business, or by related businesses and owners. In addition, the party that appears as 

the seller on the invoice and the business or profile that appears on the platform to be the 

seller, may not always be the same. This lack of transparency allows one business to have 

many different profiles that can appear unrelated. 

Exhibit 5 at p. 39 (Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods). 

22. Defendants go to great lengths to operate anonymously and often use multiple 

Defendant Aliases to register and operate their networks of Defendant Internet Stores. Such 

Defendant Internet Store registration patterns are one of many common tactics Defendants use to 

conceal their identities, the full scope and interworking of their massive counterfeiting operation, 

and to avoid being shut down. 

23. Further, counterfeiters, such as Defendants, also consult and post information to 

“seller-defense” websites developed and maintained to provide counterfeiters early notice of 

recently filed lawsuits, so assets and evidence can be transferred, hidden or destroyed before a 

temporary asset restraint is instituted. Exhibit 6 provides screen-captures of an exemplary 

“seller-defense” website recently identified by Plaintiff. 

24. Even though Defendants operate under multiple fictitious names, there are numerous 

similarities among the Defendant Internet Stores. For example, some of the Defendant Internet 

Stores use identical or equivalent language to sell Unauthorized Products. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:6
7

25. In addition, the Unauthorized Products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores bear 

similarities and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the Unauthorized Products 

were manufactured by and come from a common source and that, upon information and belief, 

Defendants are interrelated. 

26. On information and belief, Defendants communicate with each other and regularly 

participate in chat rooms and online forums regarding tactics for operating multiple accounts, 

evading detection, pending litigation, and potential new lawsuits. 

27. The Defendant Internet Stores also include other notable common features, 

including common payment methods, lack of contact information, identically or similarlyappearing products, identical or similarly priced items and volume sales discounts, and the use of 

the same text and images. 

28. Defendants further perpetuate the illusion of legitimacy by offering indicia of 

authenticity that consumers have come to associate with authorized retailers, including Visa®, 

MasterCard®, and PayPal® logos. Plaintiff has not licensed or authorized Defendants to use its 

Asserted Trademarks, and none of the Defendants are authorized retailers of genuine products. 

29. Further, counterfeiters, such as Defendants, typically operate multiple credit card 

merchant accounts and payment service accounts behind layers of payment gateways so that they 

can continue operation in spite of anti-counterfeiting enforcement efforts. Upon information and 

belief, counterfeiters, such as Defendants, maintain off-shore bank accounts and regularly move 

funds to evade enforcement of judgment. 

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

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:7
8

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

occurrences. 

31. Defendants, without any authorization or license from Plaintiff, have knowingly 

and willfully used and continue to use the Asserted Trademarks in connection with the 

advertisement, distribution, offering for sale, and sale of Unauthorized Products into the United 

States and Illinois over the Internet. Each Defendant Internet Store offers shipping to the United 

States, including to Illinois, and, on information and belief, each Defendant has offered to sell 

Unauthorized Products into the United States, including to Illinois. 

32. Defendants’ unauthorized use and counterfeiting of the Asserted Trademarks in 

connection with the advertising, distribution, offering for sale, and sale of Unauthorized 

Products, including the sale of Unauthorized Products into 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) 

33. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference herein its allegations contained in 

the above paragraphs of this Complaint. 

34. Plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the Asserted Trademarks. Plaintiff’s 

Registrations for the Asserted Trademarks (attached as Exhibits 1 - 3) are in full force and effect. 

35. The marks used by Defendants in their promotion, advertising, marketing, offers 

for sale, and sale of the Unauthorized Products are identical with, or substantially 

indistinguishable from, the registered Asserted Trademarks. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:8
9

36. Defendants have engaged in unauthorized uses in commerce of counterfeit 

imitations of the registered Asserted Trademarks in connection with the sales, offers for sale, 

distribution, and/or advertising of infringing goods. 

37. The Asserted Trademarks are highly distinctive marks. Consumers have come to 

expect the highest quality from Plaintiff’s products provided under the Asserted Trademarks. 

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

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

with the Asserted Trademarks without Plaintiff’s authorization or permission. 

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

the Asserted Trademarks, and are willfully infringing and intentionally using counterfeits of the 

Asserted Trademarks despite such knowledge. 

40. Defendants’ willful, intentional and unauthorized use of the Asserted Trademarks 

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

the counterfeit goods among the general public. 

41. Defendants’ activities constitute willful trademark infringement and 

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

42. 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 Asserted Trademarks. 

43. 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 Unauthorized Products. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:9
10

COUNT II 

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

44. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference herein its allegations contained in 

the above paragraphs of this Complaint. 

45. Defendants’ promotion, advertising, marketing, offering for sale, and sale of 

Unauthorized 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’ Unauthorized Products by Plaintiff. 

46. By using the Asserted Trademarks in connection with the sale of Unauthorized 

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

as to the origin and sponsorship of the Unauthorized Products. 

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

origin and/or sponsorship of the Unauthorized Products to the general public is a willful violation 

of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. 

48. 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. 

COUNT III 

VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 

(815 ILCS § 510, et seq.) 

49. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference herein its allegations contained in 

the above paragraphs of this Complaint. 

50. Defendants have engaged in acts violating Illinois law including, but not limited 

to, passing off their Unauthorized Products as those of Plaintiff, causing a likelihood of 

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:10
11

confusion and/or misunderstanding as to the source of their goods, causing a likelihood of 

confusion and/or misunderstanding as to an affiliation, connection, or association with genuine 

products, representing that their products have Plaintiff’s approval when they do not, and 

engaging in other conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding among 

the public. 

51. The foregoing Defendants’ acts constitute a willful violation of the Illinois 

Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS § 510, et seq. 

52. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and Defendants’ conduct has caused 

Plaintiff to suffer damage to its reputation and goodwill. Unless enjoined by the Court, Plaintiff 

will suffer future irreparable harm as a direct result of Defendants’ unlawful activities. 

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 the Asserted 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 product or not authorized by 

Plaintiff to be sold in connection with Plaintiff’s Trademarks; 

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

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 Plaintiff’s Asserted Trademarks; 

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:11
12

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

are those sold under the authorization, control or supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, 

approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff; and 

d. further infringing Plaintiff’s Asserted 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 or any reproductions, 

counterfeit copies or colorable imitations thereof. 

2) Plaintiff further requests that Defendants, within fourteen (14) days after service of 

judgment with notice of entry thereof upon them, be required to file with the Court and serve upon 

Plaintiff a written report under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants 

have complied with paragraph 1, a through e, above. 

3) Plaintiff further seeks entry of an order that, upon Plaintiff’s request, any third party 

receiving notice who is providing, or has provided, services to any of the Defendants, or in 

connection with any of the ecommerce Internet stores operating under the Defendant Aliases, or 

other aliases operated by Defendants, including, without limitation, any online marketplace 

platforms, such as iOffer, eBay, Amazon, Wish.com, and Dhgate, or third party payment 

processors, such as PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”), DHPay, Wish.com, and Amazon Pay (collectively 

and hereinafter (“Third Party Providers”), shall: 

a. disable and cease providing services for any accounts through which Defendants 

engage in the sale of Unauthorized Products using the Asserted Trademarks, 

including any accounts associated with the Defendants listed on Schedule A; 

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:12
13

b. disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with 

Defendants in connection with the sale of Unauthorized Products using the Asserted 

Trademarks; and 

c. cooperate in Plaintiff’s enforcement of any judgment in Plaintiff’s favor as provided 

by the Court. 

4) Plaintiff further requests 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 Asserted Trademarks be increased by a sum not 

exceeding three times the amount thereof as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1117. 

5) Alternatively, Plaintiff requests an award of statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1117(c)(2) of $2,000,000 for each and every use of the Asserted Trademarks. 

6) Plaintiff also seeks an award of its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

7) Plaintiff also seeks an award of any and all other relief that this Court deems just and 

proper. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:13
14

DATED: August 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Matthew A. Werber 

Matthew A. Werber (Ill. # 6287658) 

mwerber@nixonpeabody.com 

Ariel Roth (Ill. # 6327096) 

aroth@nixonpeabody.com

NIXON PEABODY LLP 

70 W. Madison St., Suite 3500 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Tel: (312) 977-4400 

Fax: (312) 977-4405 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

Case: 1:20-cv-04559 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:14