UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT 

TECHNOLOGY CO.; and UNICORN 

GLOBAL, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

No. 20 C 4806

Judge Thomas M. Durkin

ORDER

Third-party respondent Yanjin-US has filed a motion, R. 535, to vacate the 

preliminary injunction order of October 13, 2021, R. 456. The Court entered that 

order after directing Plaintiffs to re-file a motion for a preliminary injunction to 

provide Defendants an opportunity to oppose the motion and raise any objections they 

failed to raise when the motion was initially filed. See R. 359; R. 385. After the Court 

granted the renewed motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a proposed order to the 

Court by email, see R. 536-1, which the Court then entered.

The proposed order contained a chart of “seller aliases” that Plaintiffs allege 

Defendants use to sell the allegedly infringing products. The Court believed that this 

list corresponded to the “Store and Website” list that was included as a supporting 

exhibit with Plaintiffs’ motion papers. See R. 383 at 2-3 (¶ 5). That list attached 

website screen shots showing the allegedly infringing products being sold on the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 558 Filed: 06/16/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:14024
2

websites or electronic storefronts in question, thus providing a sufficient factual basis 

to freeze funds associated with those websites and electronic storefronts. See id. But 

review shows that Yanjin-US was included in the chart in the proposed order even 

though it was not mentioned in the motion papers. Thus, Yanjin-US should not have 

been referenced in the preliminary injunction order entered on October 13, 2021, R. 

456.

Yanjin-US retained counsel who contacted Plaintiffs’ counsel in February 2022 

with the intention to settle the dispute. See R. 536-5 at 2. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested 

additional information to facilitate settlement. See id. at 3. The exchange of 

information revealed that Yanjin-US never sold any of the allegedly infringing 

products and should not have been included in the preliminary injunction order. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel ultimately contacted Amazon’s counsel by email on April 4, 2022 

and stated, “It is our position that [Yanjin-US] should not have its assets retrained.” 

R. 536-3 at 2. Yanjin-US’s counsel also sought a release from Plaintiffs. However, in 

an email dated April 25, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel wrote the following to Yanjin-US’s 

counsel:

Our client has declined to move forward with a release for 

your client. At this time, our client has asserted no claims 

against your identified client, we never requested that your 

client’s assets be restrained, and we have advised Amazon 

that we believe the preliminary injunction does not call for 

such a restraint. Therefore, at this point, our client does 

not see the purpose in pursuing a release and we do not see 

what role remains for our client. We recommend reaching 

out directly to Amazon or Amazon’s counsel at [Davis 

Wright Tremaine] for redress.

R. 536-4 at 4.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 558 Filed: 06/16/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:14025
3

Yanjin-US filed this motion on May 16, 2022. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to 

respond by June 1, 2022, but in the meantime, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to 

withdraw, and the Court stayed all deadlines while that issue was addressed. On 

June 15, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw. Plaintiffs 

have retained new counsel. But resolution of this motion should not wait.

The emails in the record show that Plaintiffs’ inclusion of Yanjin-US in the 

October 2021 preliminary injunction proposed order was an error. Whether this was 

intentional or not, Yanjin-US has presumably been damaged by the injunction and 

the freezing of its assets. And the emails show that Yanjin-US has expended

resources attempting to correct Plaintiffs’ error and have the injunction lifted.

Therefore, Yanjin’s motion [535] is granted to the extent that the preliminary 

injunction entered against it on October 13, 2022, R. 456, is dissolved. Further, the 

Court orders a response from Plaintiffs by July 14, 2022 as to whether Yanjin-US 

should be awarded damages and attorney’s fees. Yanjin-US may file a reply by July 

28, 2022.

ENTERED:

______________________________

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

United States District Judge

Dated: June 16, 2022

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 558 Filed: 06/16/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:14026