Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:1887
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`HONG KONG LEYUZHEN TECHNOLOGY
`CO. LIMITED,
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No.: 1:24-cv-2939
`
`THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS,
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES,
`PARTNERSHIPS, AND
`UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
`IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A TO THE
`COMPLAINT,
`
` Defendants.
`
`Honorable Judge Matthew F. Kennelly
`
`Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant BIRW (“Defendants”), through their undersigned counsel, and in answer to
`
`the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff, state as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1. This action has been filed by Plaintiff to combat online copyright infringers who trade
`
`upon Plaintiff’s reputation, goodwill and valuable copyrights consisting of images and 3-
`
`D artwork embodied in Plaintiff’s brand product line, Rotita (the “Asserted Brand”) of
`
`women’s apparel (the “Asserted Brand Copyrights”). Plaintiff publishes Asserted Brand
`
`Copyrights on an online storefront located at the company’s website associated with its
`
`Asserted Brand. Defendants infringe the Asserted Brand Copyrights by publishing the
`
`1
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`HONG KONG LEYUZHEN TECHNOLOGY
`CO. LIMITED,
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No.: 1:24-cv-2939
`
`THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS,
`LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES,
`PARTNERSHIPS, AND
`UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
`IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A TO THE
`COMPLAINT,
`
` Defendants.
`
`Honorable Judge Matthew F. Kennelly
`
`Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant BIRW (“Defendants”), through their undersigned counsel, and in answer to
`
`the Complaint filed by the Plaintiff, state as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1. This action has been filed by Plaintiff to combat online copyright infringers who trade
`
`upon Plaintiff’s reputation, goodwill and valuable copyrights consisting of images and 3-
`
`D artwork embodied in Plaintiff’s brand product line, Rotita (the “Asserted Brand”) of
`
`women’s apparel (the “Asserted Brand Copyrights”). Plaintiff publishes Asserted Brand
`
`Copyrights on an online storefront located at the company’s website associated with its
`
`Asserted Brand. Defendants infringe the Asserted Brand Copyrights by publishing the
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:1888
`
`copyrighted images and 3-D artwork on numerous fully interactive commercial internet
`
`stores (“Defendants’ Online Stores”) on the online Amazon platform identified on
`
`Schedule “A” (the “Online Platform”), and are using, without authorization, the Asserted
`
`Brand Copyrights and derivates thereof, to sell and/or offer for sale “knock-off” products
`
`of inferior quality and at bargain basement prices.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 1.
`
`2. Defendants likewise advertise, market, and/or sell their knockoff products embodying
`
`Plaintiff’s Asserted Brand Copyrights by reference to the same photographs and 3-D
`
`artwork as genuine Asserted Brand products, which causes further confusion and
`
`deception in the marketplace. Unique identifiers common to Defendants’ internet stores,
`
`such as design elements and similarities in Defendant’s unlawful use of the Asserted
`
`Brand Copyrights, establish a logical relationship between them and suggest that
`
`Defendants’ illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
`
`transactions or occurrences. 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 operation.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 2.
`
`3. Plaintiff is forced to file this action to combat Defendants’ counterfeiting of Plaintiff’s
`
`copyrights, as well as to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing knockoff
`
`products over the Internet. Plaintiff has been and continues to be irreparably damaged
`
`through consumer confusion, dilution, and tarnishment of the Asserted Brand’s reputation
`
`and goodwill because of Defendants’ actions, and therefore seeks injunctive and
`
`monetary relief.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:1889
`
`ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in paragraph 3, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant
`
`to the provisions of the Federal Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1338(a)–(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant admits that the Complaint purports to state a claim arising under
`
`the Copyright Act, and that such a claim, if proper, would arise within this Court’s
`
`subject matter jurisdiction.
`
`5. This Court has jurisdiction over the unfair deceptive trade practices claim 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.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 5.
`
`6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and this Court may properly
`
`exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants, since each of the Defendants directly
`
`targets consumers in the United States, including those within the State of Illinois,
`
`through at least the fully interactive commercial internet stores accessible through
`
`Defendants’ Online Stores as identified in Schedule “A”, which is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 2.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 6 except that venue is proper in
`
`this judicial district, and Defendant operates an Internet store that is accessible by
`
`residents of Illinois.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:1890
`
`
`
`7. Specifically, Defendants are reaching out to do business with Illinois residents by
`
`operating one or more commercial, interactive internet stores through which residents can
`
`purchase inferior products that are advertised for sale using, without authorization, the
`
`Asserted Brand Copyrights. Each of the Defendants has targeted sales from Illinois
`
`residents by operating online stores that offer shipping to the United States, including to
`
`the State of Illinois, accept payment in United States currency, and, on information and
`
`belief, has used photographs and 3-D artwork protected by the Asserted Brand
`
`Copyrights to sell competing products of lesser quality to residents of the State of Illinois.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 7 except that Defendant
`
`operates an Internet store that is accessible by residents of Illinois.
`
`8. Each of the Defendants is committing tortious acts in the State of Illinois, is engaging in
`
`interstate commerce, and has wrongfully caused Plaintiff substantial injury in the State of
`
`Illinois. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and 1400(a)
`
`because Defendants have committed acts of copyright infringement in this judicial
`
`district and do substantial business in the judicial district.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 8 except that venue is proper in
`
`this judicial district, and Defendant operates an Internet store that is accessible by
`
`residents of Illinois.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`9. Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the People’s Republic of China and
`
`is the owner of numerous federal copyright registrations issued by the United States
`
`Copyright Office that constitute the Asserted Brand Copyrights. Attached hereto as
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:1891
`
`Exhibit 1 is a table summarizing true and correct federal copyright registration
`
`information regarding the Asserted Brand Copyrights.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in paragraph 9, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`10. Plaintiff founded the Asserted Brand in 2009, which is dedicated to women’s fashion
`
`apparel and serves consumers in the United States and throughout the world.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in paragraph 10, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`11. Between 2021 and 2022, Plaintiff designed, caused to subsist in material form, and first
`
`published the original protected Asserted Brand Copyrights on its website located at the
`
`company’s designated website employing the Asserted Brand in its URL and over the
`
`years has worked hard to establish success and recognition for high quality women’s
`
`apparel internationally and in the U.S.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 11.
`
`12. Plaintiff has expended substantial time, money, and other resources in developing,
`
`advertising, and otherwise promoting its Asserted Brand and, specifically, the Asserted
`
`Brand Copyrights. As a result, the Asserted Brand is widely recognized and exclusively
`
`associated by consumers, the public, and the trade as being quality products.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in paragraph 12, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`13. Plaintiff owns all rights, including without limitation, the rights to reproduce the
`
`Asserted Brand Copyrights in copies, to prepare derivative works based upon the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:1892
`
`copyrighted works, and to distribute copies of the copyrighted works to the public by sale
`
`or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending, the protected works.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 13.
`
`14. Plaintiff has neither licensed nor authorized Defendants to use the Asserted Brand
`
`Copyrights and none of the Defendants are authorized retailers of Plaintiff’s genuine
`
`Asserted Brand products.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant has not entered any licensing agreement nor any other agreement
`
`with Plaintiff.
`
`15. Upon information and belief, Defendants are individuals and business entities who, upon
`
`information and belief, reside mainly in the People’s Republic of China or Hong Kong.
`
`Defendants conduct business throughout the United States, including within the State of
`
`Illinois and in this judicial district, through the operation of Defendants’ Online Stores
`
`identified in Schedule “A”, and has offered to sell and, on information and belief, has
`
`sold and continues to sell counterfeit Asserted Brand products to consumers within the
`
`United States, including in the State of Illinois and in this judicial district, utilizing,
`
`without authorization, the Asserted Brand Copyrights.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 15 except that Defendant
`
`resides in China, and Defendant operates an Internet store that is accessible by residents
`
`of Illinois.
`
`16. Defendants go to great lengths to conceal their identities and the full scope of their
`
`operations making it virtually impossible for Plaintiff to learn Defendants’ true identities
`
`and the exact interworking of their network.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 16.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:1893
`
`DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
`
`17. The success of Plaintiff’s Asserted Brand has resulted in counterfeiting and intentional
`
`copying of the company’s products, and the sale and offering for sale of said products
`
`through the unauthorized use of the Asserted Brand Copyrights. Upon information and
`
`belief, Defendants conduct their illegal operations through commercial, online stores on
`
`the Online Platform. Each Defendant targets consumers in the United States, including in
`
`the State of Illinois, and sells and offers for sale counterfeit products through the
`
`unauthorized use of photographs and 3-D artwork protected by Asserted Brand
`
`Copyrights.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 17 except that Defendant
`
`operates an Internet store that is accessible by residents of Illinois.
`
`18. In similar cases involving multiple counterfeiters, defendants operating internet stores
`
`intentionally conceal their identities and the full scope of their counterfeiting operations
`
`to deter plaintiffs and Courts from learning their true identities and the full extent of their
`
`illegal counterfeiting operations.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in paragraph 18, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`19. In this case, through the unauthorized use of the Asserted Brand Copyrights on
`
`Defendants’ Online Stores, Defendants are directly and personally contributing to,
`
`inducing and engaging in the infringement of the Asserted Brand Copyrights as alleged,
`
`often times as partners, co-conspirators and/or suppliers. Upon information and belief,
`
`Defendants are an interrelated group of counterfeiters working in active concert to
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:1894
`
`knowingly and willfully use without authorization the Asserted Brand Copyrights, to
`
`manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell competing inferior products.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 19.
`
`20. Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant hereto, Defendants have had full
`
`knowledge of Plaintiff’s ownership of the Asserted Brand Copyrights including its
`
`exclusive right to use and license the Asserted Brand and the goodwill associated
`
`therewith.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 20.
`
`21. Plaintiff has identified numerous stores on the Online Platform, including Defendants’
`
`Online Stores, which are offering for sale, selling, and importing knockoff products to
`
`consumers in this judicial district and throughout the United States by using, without
`
`authorization, the Asserted Brand Copyrights. Infringers on e-commerce platforms such
`
`as Defendants’ Online Stores are estimated to receive tens of millions of visits per year
`
`and to generate over $135 billion in annual online sales. According to an intellectual
`
`property rights seizures statistics report issued by the United States Department of
`
`Homeland Security, the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (“MSRP”) of goods seized
`
`by the U.S. government in fiscal year 2020 was over $1.3 billion. Internet websites like
`
`Defendants’ Online Stores are also estimated to contribute to tens of thousands of lost
`
`jobs for legitimate businesses and broader economic damages such as lost tax revenue
`
`every year.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in paragraph 21, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:1895
`
`22. On information and belief, Defendants set up seller accounts on the Online Platform
`
`using, without authorization, the Asserted Brand Copyrights so that they appear to
`
`unknowing consumers to be authorized online retailers of genuine Asserted Brand
`
`products. Defendants’ Online Stores accept payment in United States currency via credit
`
`cards and PayPal.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 22.
`
`23. On information and belief, Defendants deceive unknowing consumers by using Plaintiff’s
`
`Asserted Brand Copyrights on Defendants’ Online Stores without authorization to attract
`
`customers, and to sell counterfeit products resembling Asserted Brand products.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 23.
`
`24. Defendants, in similar type of counterfeit cases, deceive unknowing consumers by using
`
`the infringed intellectual property as originally used in connection with the sale of
`
`genuine products, within the content, text, and/or meta tags of their websites to attract
`
`various search engines crawling the Internet looking for websites relevant to consumer
`
`product searches. Additionally, counterfeiters in similar type cases, use other
`
`unauthorized search engine optimization (“SEO”) tactics and social media spamming so
`
`that the Defendants internet store listings show up at or near the top of relevant search
`
`results and misdirect consumers searching for genuine products. Further, counterfeiters
`
`utilize similar illegitimate SEO tactics to propel new domain names to the top of search
`
`results after others are shut down.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in paragraph 24, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:1896
`
`25. Here, a search for the Asserted Brand women’s dresses on the Online Platform resulted in
`
`the unauthorized display of the Asserted Brand Copyrights being used to promote
`
`competing, inferior products. As such, Plaintiff also seeks to disable Defendants’ Online
`
`Stores that are the means by which the Defendants use, without authorization, the
`
`Asserted Brand Copyrights to continue to sell knockoff products to consumers in the
`
`State of Illinois and in this judicial district.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in paragraph 25, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`26. On information and belief, Defendants conceal their identities by using multiple fictitious
`
`names and addresses to register and operate a massive network of internet stores. It is
`
`common practice for counterfeiters to register accounts with incomplete information,
`
`randomly typed letters, or omitted cities or states; use privacy services that conceal the
`
`owners’ identity and contact information; and regularly create new websites and online
`
`marketplace accounts on various platforms including Defendants’ Online Stores listed in
`
`Schedule “A”, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “2”. Such internet store registration
`
`patterns are one of many common tactics counterfeiters use to conceal their identities, the
`
`full scope and interworking of their massive counterfeiting operation, and to avoid being
`
`shut down.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 26.
`
`27. Upon receiving notice of a lawsuit, counterfeiters in similar cases will often register new
`
`domain names or online marketplace accounts under new aliases.1 Counterfeiters also
`
`typically ship products in small quantities via international mail to minimize detection by
`
`U.S. Customs and Border Protection. A 2021 U.S. Customs and Border Protection
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:1897
`
`(“CBP”) report on seizure statistics indicated that e-commerce sales accounted for 13.3%
`
`of total retail sales with second quarter of 2021 retail e-commerce sales estimated at
`
`$222.5 billion.2 In FY 2021, there were 213 million express mail shipments and 94
`
`million international mail shipments. Id. Nearly 90 percent of all intellectual property
`
`seizures occur in the international mail and express environments. Id. at 27. The
`
`“overwhelming volume of small packages also makes CBP’s ability to identify and
`
`interdict high risk packages difficult.” Id. at 23.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in paragraph 27, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`28. Further, counterfeiters often operate multiple credit card merchant accounts and third-
`
`party accounts behind layers of payment gateways so that they can continue operating in
`
`spite of enforcement efforts. Upon information and belief, Defendants maintain off-shore
`
`bank accounts and regularly move funds from their Online Platform accounts to off-shore
`
`bank accounts outside the jurisdiction of this Court particularly since it is believed that
`
`Defendants reside in the People’s Republic of China or Hong Kong.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in paragraph 28, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`29. Defendants’ unlawful use of Plaintiff’s Asserted Brand Copyrights to promote knockoff
`
`products for sale on Defendants’ Online Stores, bear similarities and indicia of
`
`interrelatedness, suggesting they are manufactured by and come from a common source.
`
`Notable features common to Defendants’ Online Stores include lack of contact
`
`information, same or similar products for sale, identically or similarly priced items and
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:1898
`
`sales discounts, shared hosting service, similar name servers, and their common
`
`infringement of Plaintiff’s Asserted Brand Copyrights.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in paragraph 29, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`30. Defendants’ use of Plaintiff’s Asserted Brand Copyrights in connection with the
`
`advertising, marketing, distribution, offering for sale and the sale of competing products
`
`of inferior quality is likely to cause and has caused confusion, mistake and deception by
`
`and among consumers and is irreparably harming the Asserted Brand. Defendants have
`
`manufactured, imported, distributed, offered for sale and sold their inferior products
`
`using the Asserted Brand Copyrights and will continue to do so.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 30.
`
`31. Defendants, without authorization or license from Plaintiff, knowingly and willfully used
`
`and continue to use the Asserted Brand Copyrights in connection with the advertisement,
`
`offer for sale and the sale of counterfeit or knockoff Asserted Brand products through,
`
`inter alia, their Online Stores identified in Schedule “A”.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant has not entered into a licensing deal or other agreement with
`
`Plaintiff, and Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 31.
`
`32. Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue to infringe the Asserted Brand
`
`Copyrights for the purpose of selling inferior knockoff products unless preliminarily and
`
`permanently enjoined.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 32.
`
`33. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the Asserted Brand Copyrights in connection with the
`
`advertising, distribution, offering for sale, and the sale of poor-quality products in the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:1899
`
`United States and specifically into the State of Illinois, is likely to cause and has caused
`
`confusion, mistake, and deception by and among consumers and is irreparably harming
`
`Plaintiff’s Asserted Brand.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 33.
`
`34. Unless enjoined, Defendants infringing conduct will continue to cause irreparable harm.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 34.
`
`COUNT I
`
`COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.)
`
`[Against Defendants Designated in Schedule A]
`
`35. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference herein its allegations contained
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 34, above.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant incorporates its answers set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`36. Plaintiff’s Asserted Brand Copyrights have significant value and have been produced and
`
`created at considerable expense.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in paragraph 36, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`37. Plaintiff owns all exclusive rights, including without limitation the rights to reproduce the
`
`Asserted Brand Copyrights in copies, to prepare derivative works based upon the
`
`copyrighted work, and to distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale
`
`or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending, the copyright protected
`
`works.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:1900
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 37 as identical prior art before
`
`Plaintiff’s alleged first publication dates suggests no ownership rights.
`
`38. Defendants have sold, offered to sell, marketed, distributed, and advertised, and are still
`
`selling, offering to sell, marketing, distributing, and advertising products using the
`
`Asserted Brand Copyrights without Plaintiff’s permission.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant has not entered into a licensing deal or other agreement with
`
`Plaintiff, and Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 38.
`
`39. Upon information and belief, Defendants have directly copied the Asserted Brand
`
`Copyrights to advertise, promote, offer for sale, and sell competing products of low
`
`quality and at a fraction of the price.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 39.
`
`40. As examples, Defendants deceive unknowing consumers by using, without authorization,
`
`the Asserted Brand Copyrights on Defendants’ Online Stores to attract customers as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:1901
`
`ANSWER: Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegations in paragraph 40, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`41. Defendants’ unauthorized exploitation of Asserted Brand Copyrights to advertise, offer
`
`for sale and sell inferior products on Defendants’ Online Stores constitutes copyright
`
`infringement.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 41.
`
`42. On information and belief, Defendants’ infringing acts were willful, deliberate, and
`
`committed with prior notice and knowledge of the Asserted Brand Copyrights.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 42.
`
`43. Each Defendant either knew, or should have reasonably known, that the Asserted Brand
`
`Copyrights are copyright protected, and that their unauthorized display and use of the
`
`representations infringed on the Asserted Brand Copyrights. Further, each Defendant
`
`continues to infringe upon Plaintiff’s rights in and to the Asserted Brand Copyrights.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 43.
`
`44. As a direct and proximate result of their unauthorized and infringing conduct, Defendants
`
`have obtained and continue to realize direct and indirect profits and other benefits
`
`rightfully belonging to Plaintiff, and that Defendants would not otherwise have realized
`
`but for their infringement of Plaintiff’s Asserted Brand Copyrights.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 44.
`
`45. The foregoing acts of infringement constitute a collective enterprise of shared,
`
`overlapping facts and have been willful, intentional, and in disregard of and with
`
`indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 45.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:1902
`
`46. Accordingly, Plaintiff seek an award of damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant admits that Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to seek damages
`
`pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504.
`
`47. In addition to actual damages, Plaintiff is entitled to receive the profits made by
`
`Defendants from their wrongful acts, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Each Defendant
`
`should be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived by each
`
`Defendant from their acts of infringement.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 47.
`
`48. In the alternative, Plaintiff is entitled to, and may elect to choose statutory damages
`
`pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), which should be enhanced by 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2)
`
`because of Defendants’ willful copyright infringement.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 48.
`
`49. Plaintiff is entitled to, and may elect to choose injunctive relief under 17 U.S.C. § 502,
`
`enjoining any use or exploitation by Defendants of their infringing work and for an order
`
`under 17 U.S.C. § 503 that any of Defendants’ infringing products be impounded and
`
`destroyed.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 49.
`
`50. Plaintiff seeks and is also entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit
`
`pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 50.
`
`51. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and, if Defendants’ actions are not enjoined,
`
`Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm to the reputation and goodwill of their
`
`well-known Asserted Brand.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:1903
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 51.
`
`52. The conduct of each Defendant is causing and, unless enjoined and restrained by this
`
`Court, will continue to cause Plaintiff great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be
`
`compensated or measured monetarily. As such, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§502 and 503, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief prohibiting
`
`each Defendant from further infringing the Asserted Brand Copyrights and ordering that
`
`each Defendant destroy all unauthorized copies. Defendants’ copies, plates, and other
`
`embodiments of the copyrighted works from which copies can be reproduced, if any,
`
`should be impounded and forfeited to Plaintiff as instruments of infringement, and all
`
`infringing copies created by Defendants should be impounded and forfeited to Plaintiff,
`
`under 17 U.S.C §503.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 52.
`
`
`
`COUNT II
`
`FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN (15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a))
`
`[Against Defendants Designated in Schedule A]
`
`53. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference herein its allegations contained
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 34, above.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant incorporates its answers set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`54. Defendants’ use of material protected by Plaintiff’s Asserted Copyrights for the
`
`promotion, marketing, offering for sale, and the sale of knockoff Asserted Products has
`
`created and is creating a likelihood of confusion, mistake, and deception among the
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:1904
`
`general public as to false affiliation, connection, or association with Plaintiff’s Asserted
`
`Brand or the false origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants’ inferior products under
`
`Plaintiff’s Asserted Brand.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 54.
`
`55. By using Plaintiff’s Asserted Brand Copyrights in connection with Defendants’ sale of
`
`knockoff products, Defendants create a false designation of origin and a misleading
`
`representation of fact as to the origin and sponsorship of Defendants’ inferior quality
`
`products.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 55.
`
`56. Defendants’ conduct constitutes willful false designation of origin and misrepresentation
`
`of fact as to the origin and/or sponsorship of its knockoff products to the general public
`
`under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 56.
`
`57. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and, if Defendants’ actions are not enjoined,
`
`Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm to the company’s reputation and the
`
`goodwill of the Asserted Brand.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 57.
`
`COUNT III
`
`VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
`
`(815 ILCS § 510/1, et seq.)
`
`[Against Defendants Designated in Schedule A]
`
`58. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference herein its allegations contained
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 34, above.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case: 1:24-cv-02939 Document #: 102 Filed: 06/24/24 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:1905
`
`ANSWER: Defendant incorporates its answers set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`59. Defendants have engaged in acts violating Illinois law including, but not limited to,
`
`passing off their knockoff products as those of Plaintiff’s Asserted Brand products
`
`through the unauthorized use of the Asserted Brand Copyrights, thereby causing a
`
`likelihood of 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 Asserted Brand products, falsely 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.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 59.
`
`60. The foregoing acts of Defendants constitute a willful violation of the Illinois Uniform
`
`Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS § 510/1, et seq.
`
`ANSWER: Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 60.
`
`61. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and Defendants’ conduct has caused Plaintiff to
`
`suffer damage to its Asserted Brand’s reputation and goodwill. Unless enjoined by the
`
`Court, P
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
