Neman Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified in Schedule A
1:24-cv-05666
| N.D. Ill. | Dec 10, 2024Background
- Neman Brothers & Associates, Inc. (“Neman”) holds federal copyrights for textile designs and alleges that 20 defendants, including Ranphee, infringed its copyrights by selling unauthorized items online via Amazon, TEMU, and Walmart.
- The Court previously granted a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, allowing Neman to serve defendants via email/website and freezing defendants’ online financial accounts.
- Ranphee, based in China, challenged the service of process, personal jurisdiction, joinder, sufficiency of the claims, and sought to cap the asset freeze.
- Amazon provided evidence showing Ranphee sold approximately 600 infringing units to Illinois buyers.
- Ranphee has been actively corresponding with Neman in English throughout the litigation and filed motions to dismiss and to modify the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper Service/ Hague | Service by email is appropriate; address unknown or email allowed even if Hague applies | Hague Convention bars email service to Chinese defendants; address should have been found | Service by email is sufficient |
| Personal Jurisdiction | Ranphee sold hundreds of units to Illinois buyers, establishing minimum contacts | No sufficient Illinois contacts; only possible or de minimis sales | Sales to Illinois sufficient for jurisdiction |
| Permissive Joinder | Defendants’ conduct arises out of similar transactions using online platforms and practices | Only proximity of defendants alleged, not enough for joinder | Joinder is proper |
| Asset Restraint (Injunction) | Ranphee must supply detailed proof to reduce asset freeze; none provided | Asset freeze should be capped at $10k based on asserted low profits | Motion to cap asset restraint denied |
Key Cases Cited
- NBA Properties, Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614 (7th Cir. 2022) (one sale to forum state sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendant)
- NBA Properties, Inc. v. Schedule A, 549 F. Supp. 3d 790 (N.D. Ill. 2021) (electronic service acceptable under certain circumstances, even for Hague signatory countries)
- Bose Corp. v. Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 511 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (joinder is permissible where common conduct gives rise to claims)
- Monster Energy Co. v. Weensheng, 136 F. Supp. 3d 897 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (party seeking to exempt assets from freeze must supply documentary proof profits are not from infringement)