1Additional facts and procedural history relevant to the second issue raised by Old
Orchard, which pertains to a discovery request, shall be set forth below in conjunction with the
discussion of that issue.
documents pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 201(1) (210 Ill. 2d R. 201(1)) on the grounds that it
was overbroad. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Old Orchard’s complaint alleged the following relevant facts.1 Old Orchard is a limited
partnership and the beneficial owner of a large shopping mall in Skokie, Illinois. Harry Rosen is
a Canadian corporation headquartered in Toronto, which operates 16 high-end menswear stores
across Canada under the name “Harry Rosen.” In the late 1980s, Harry Rosen created a wholly
owned subsidiary, Harry Rosen USA (HRUSA), a Delaware corporation, which opened a Harry
Rosen store in the United States. Although Harry Rosen later decided to close its American
store, it continued to transact its business in the United States through HRUSA.
In the late 1990s, Harry Rosen decided to operate Hugo Boss clothing boutiques in the
American market. For this venture, Harry Rosen created another corporate entity, Specialty
Stores, Inc., also a Delaware corporation. Specialty Stores was a wholly owned subsidiary of
HRUSA and also the parent holding company for nine wholly owned subsidiary-affiliated
companies, each of which would own and operate a Hugo Boss boutique (collectively, the SSI
subsidiaries). SSI Old Orchard, Inc. (SSIOO), which owned and operated the Hugo Boss
boutique at Old Orchard mall, was one of these SSI subsidiaries.
Each of the SSI subsidiaries entered into licensing agreements with Hugo Boss Licensing,
Inc. The license agreements, one of which Old Orchard attached to its complaint, provided the
following. The license granted each SSI subsidiary the right to operate a Hugo Boss store, a
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.