`
`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