Blujay Studios, Inc. V. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A Hereto

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Blujay Studios, Inc. Plaintiffs Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of All Remaining Defendants

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff seeks to sue 14 Defendants in this single action. But, as pled, Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege facts to support joinder. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single trademark infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). In this regard, Plaintiff alleges that joinder is proper because "the Defendant Internet Stores each sell plush toys that share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the counterfeit products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences." 1 at Para. 4. But this is a legal conclusion, which the Court need not accept. Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants operate in the same manner, which suggests they have a "logically relationship." Id. Para. 4. But the one does not necessarily follow the other; it is equally possible that each online retailer set up shop in the same or similar manner. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 188-89 (N.D. Ill. 2020). To the extent Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to allege facts to support the joinder of 14 Defendants in this single action, it may do so by 10/30/2026. If Plaintiff fails to comply, the Court will dismiss this case. If Plaintiff elects to amend its complaint, it should also consider its allegations relating to personal jurisdiction as to each Defendant; the mere maintenance of a website accessible in Illinois remains insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Am. Bridal & Prom Indus. Ass'n, Inc. v. The Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 192 F. Supp. 3d 924, 93435 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (simply alleging the existence of purported counterfeiting via an interactive website is not enough, by itself, to confer personal jurisdiction); Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) ("Having an interactive website. should not open a defendant up to personal jurisdiction in every spot on the planet where that interactive website is accessible."); Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 20-CV-5338, 2021 WL 825668, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (screenshot evidence showing that an order could be placed by an Illinoisan, "amounts to nothing more than maintaining an interactive website that is accessible in Illinois," and "that alone cannot confer personal jurisdiction."). The Court denies without prejudice the motion for leave to file certain documents under seal 7. Mailed notice.