United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Robert Blakey United States District Judge.
Harley-Davidson moved for summary judgment against the
Defendant identified by and operating the eBay store bg27cyf
for alleged trademark infringement. . Plaintiff seeks at
least $150, 000 in statutory damages, a permanent injunction
prohibiting Defendant from selling and offering for sale
counterfeit Harley-Davidson products, and an award of
reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§ 1117. Id. For the reasons explained below,
this Court grants summary judgment to Plaintiff, awards
Plaintiff $150, 000 in statutory damages, enters a permanent
injunction against Defendant, and awards reasonable attorney
fees and costs to Plaintiff.
opinion also addresses three other motions: Defendant's
motion to lift the asset freeze that this Court entered in
November 2016 ; Plaintiff's motion to compel
discovery and/or strike Defendant's motion to lift the
asset freeze ; and Defendant's motion to strike one
of Plaintiff's declarations . For the reasons
explained below, this Court denies Defendant's motion to
lift the asset freeze, denies Plaintiff's motion to
compel and/or strike as moot, and denies Defendant's
motion to strike as moot.
Local Rule 56.1 and Evidentiary Rules
Defendant's response to Plaintiff's statement of
facts, Defendant denies facts by responding with legal
arguments and conclusions. See, e.g.,  at 3.
Similarly, Defendant's statement of additional facts
contains conclusory legal arguments. See, e.g.,
id. at 5 (“A reasonable purchaser would
realize that one could not expect to receive legitimate
Harley-Davidson front axle nut cover caps for $12.13 price
[sic] charged by Defendant.”). Legal arguments and
conclusions do not belong in Local Rule 56.1 statements.
See Phillips v. Quality Terminal Servs., LLC, 855
F.Supp.2d 764, 771 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (“Including legal
arguments in a 56.1 statement is wholly improper, redundant,
unpersuasive, and irksome; in short, it advances neither the
interests of the parties nor of the court.”). Thus,
this Court does not consider the improper “facts”
in Defendant's statement, and this Court deems admitted
any of Plaintiff's facts that Defendant denies
with improper legal arguments, Defendant also seeks to
support its statement of facts with an undated declaration
from bg27cyf's manager. . Declarations may
substitute for affidavits and constitute evidence if
they comply with the requirements of 27 U.S.C. § 1746.
Sheikh v. Grant Reg'l Health Ctr., 769 F.3d 549,
551 (7th Cir. 2014). Section 1746 requires a dated signature.
Accordingly, this Court does not consider the undated
declaration as evidence. See Rivera v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 140 F.Supp.3d 722, 729 (N.D. Ill. 2015).
holds a federal trademark registration for the
Harley-Davidson “Bar & Shield Logo.” 
¶ 1. The Bar & Shield Logo registration has
incontestable status under 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
advertised, offered for sale, and sold-through the eBay store
identified as bg27cyf-motorcycle axle nut covers featuring
counterfeit versions of the Bar & Shield Logo.
Id. ¶ 2. Defendant advertised and sold products
to consumers in the United States, including Illinois
consumers. Id. ¶ 5. Plaintiff did not authorize
the use of its Bar & Shield Logo on the axle nut covers
that Defendant sold. Id. Plaintiff also did not
authorize Defendant to use the Bar & Shield Logo in
connection with any other products in Defendant's eBay
store. Id. ¶ 4.
should grant summary judgment when the moving party shows
that no genuine dispute exists as to any material fact and
the evidence weighs so heavily in the moving party's
favor that the moving party “must prevail as a matter
of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 252 (1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. A
genuine dispute as to a material fact exists when, based upon
the evidence, a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving
party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. To show a genuine
dispute as to a material fact, the non-moving party must
point to “particular materials in the record, ”
and cannot rely upon the pleadings or speculation.
Olendzki v. Rossi, 765 F.3d 742, 746 (7th Cir.
must evaluate evidence in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party and must refrain from making credibility
determinations or weighing evidence. Rasho v. Elyea,
856 F.3d 469, 477 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Anderson,
477 U.S. at 255). The moving party bears the burden of
establishing the lack of genuine disputes as to any material
fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
Plaintiff's Motion ...