Millimages S.A. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A

SEALED TEMPORARY Restraining Order. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 10/30/2026. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining order 7, electronic service of process 9, and expedited discovery 10. Plaintiff's motion 7 for a temporary restraining order including an injunction and asset restraint is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to the temporary injunction and denied without prejudice as to an asset restraint because the complaint does not seek profits from infringing activity. See CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Redisi, 309 F.3d 988, 996 (7th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process 9 is denied without prejudice. The results of searches using online mapping services (e.g., Google Maps, Baidu Maps, etc.) are insufficient to establish that an address "is not known" for purposes of jurisdiction under the Hague Convention. True, the Seventh Circuit has in the past taken judicial notice of "distance estimates" based on "images available on Google Maps." See Cloe v. City of Indianapolis, 712 F.3d 1171, 1177 n.3 (7th Cir. 2013). And some courts have taken judicial notice of whether an address is residential or commercial according to Google Maps. See, e.g., Atl. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Bayport Constr. Corp., 2026 WL 1295814, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2026). But while it may be proper to use online mapping services to identify the locations of addresses and geographical features, information about what entities or people occupy certain addresses is categorically different information. And some courts have found that online mapping services are "not conclusive as to the entities that occupy particular addresses." See Daniel v. Musleh Fitness Inc., 2024 WL 983751, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 7, 2024); see also GS Holistic, LLC v. Ashes Plus Nine, 2024 WL 2193362, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2024) (finding that taking judicial notice of distance using Google Maps "is different. from taking judicial notice of information available in Google Maps as to what businesses may be associated with any given address"). The Court acknowledges that the results of searches using online mapping services can be evidence of whether a party's address "is not known" for purposes of the Hague Convention. But such evidence cannot be conclusive on that issue without additional evidence of reliability, completeness, and potential for inaccuracies. This is particularly so when searching business addresses located outside the United States, and when the address in question is not written in the Latin alphabet, which is the alphabet of the Court's language of English, but is written in a logographic language (like Mandarin), with which the Court lacks familiarity and facility. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that the address is unknown such that the Hague Convention does not apply. Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery 10 is granted. Plaintiff should submit revised proposed orders that are in accordance with this minute order. Mailed notice.