The court denied plaintiff’s, CELINE SA, request for damages against defaulting defendants stating the “Plaintiff’s requested relief here is entirely baseless” were the plaintiff sought $500,000 in statutory damages per defendant but did not provide any “meaningful description of the circumstances of infringement.” Further, “Plaintiff provides no information about the duration of Defendants’ infringing activity, Defendants’ profits made in connection with the infringing activity, Defendants’ estimated sales volume, Plaintiff’s lost revenue, or the value or reputation of the Celine Trademarks.”
Also, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, when plaintiff failed to update it with information received through expedited discovery. The court said “Plaintiff’s decision to seemingly force this case through the litigation process, in the hopes of receiving a handsome payout, is improper and the Court will not reward Plaintiff for these actions.”
Below is one of the trademarks asserted by the plaintiff for the goods of traveling bags, luggage, and more.
Some judges are taking a critical look at Schedule A cases and finding support for them lacking.
Case: Celine SA. v. P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified in Schedule A, No. 1:25-cv-08829, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174504, (N.D. Ill. Sep. 8, 2025)