CHICAGO (LN) — U.S. District Judge Elaine E. Bucklo on Friday denied a motion to dismiss filed by 14 defendants in Laika LLC’s copyright infringement lawsuit, ruling that the group’s coordinated sales of counterfeit “Coraline” posters on Temu create common questions of law and fact that justify joinder under Federal Rule 20.
Laika, the studio behind the stop-motion film “Coraline,” sued approximately 961 defendants for allegedly manufacturing and selling counterfeit products infringing its copyrights and trademarks. While nearly all defendants have either defaulted or been voluntarily dismissed, 14 defendants—including Dream Poster Gallery, First Choice Poster, and Home of Posters—appeared and moved to dismiss the case against them, arguing misjoinder.
The moving defendants argued that Laika failed to allege they were related to one another, asserting that each defendant’s sale involved distinct transactions, suppliers, and customers. They contended that proving infringement would require individualized evidence, including separate account records and product listings, making the claims unsuitable for joint litigation.
Bucklo rejected the argument, noting that Laika had plausibly alleged the defendants were an “interrelated group of counterfeiters” who appeared “nearly simultaneous[ly]” on the Temu platform. The judge found that the similarity of the products and the timing of their appearance pointed to a common scheme or series of related transactions.
“There is a question of law common to all the moving defendants (does selling a poster featuring Coraline, from Coraline, with ‘Coraline’ emblazoned across it Coraline, infringe Laika’s copyright for Coraline?),” Bucklo wrote.
The judge also highlighted that the defendants’ behavior itself suggested coordination, noting they had jointly hired counsel and mounted a unified defense. Bucklo cited Laika’s argument that keeping the defendants joined would benefit judicial economy, a point the defendants failed to rebut because they did not file a reply brief.
“Rather than filing a reply to those arguments according to the schedule I laid out two months ago, the moving defendants fell silent and thus turned in a forfeit,” Bucklo wrote, quoting the Seventh Circuit’s admonition that “an unresponsive response is no response.”
Bucklo also ruled that dismissal would be inappropriate because it would prejudice Laika by lifting a preliminary injunction already in place. The judge had previously found Laika likely to succeed on the merits at the temporary restraining order stage and noted that allowing the injunction to dissolve could inflict “gratuitous harm” on the plaintiff.
The court denied the motion to dismiss but left open the possibility of severing the defendants’ cases if necessary, noting that Rule 21 allows the court to sever claims on just terms.
Bucklo is a George W. Bush appointee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.