Eicher Motors Limited v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, No. 25-cv-02937 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025) (Kness, J.).
Judge Kness denied plaintiff Eicher Motors’ motion for ex parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in this Schedule A trademark case, finding that the routine granting of preliminary injunctive relief without adversarial proceedings violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b).
The Court held that Schedule A cases rarely meet Rule 65(b)’s requirement for “specific facts” showing immediate and irreparable injury before the adverse party can be heard. The Court found that Schedule A complaints are typically drafted at a high level of generality without specifics as to each defendant, which is incompatible with Rule 65(b)’s specificity requirement.
Of particular interest, the Court rejected the common Schedule A practice of seeking prejudgment asset freezes, finding that plaintiffs typically seek statutory damages rather than equitable relief at the end of cases. This makes the initial asset freeze improper under Grupo Mexicano. The Court noted that Schedule A plaintiffs receive legal remedies instead of equitable ones which removed the justification for freezing assets.
The Court also expressed concern about the propriety of joining multiple defendants, noting that plaintiffs cannot simply allege that multiple defendants infringed the same trademark to meet Fed. R. Civ. P. 20’s requirements. The Court indicated it would welcome guidance from the Court of Appeals and would entertain a motion to certify the decision for interlocutory appeal.