3 BEES & ME INC. v. Besportble

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 30, 2020
Docket1:20-cv-05150
StatusUnknown

This text of 3 BEES & ME INC. v. Besportble (3 BEES & ME INC. v. Besportble) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
3 BEES & ME INC. v. Besportble, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 3 BEES & ME INC., Plaintiff, -against- BESPORTBLE, BRITENWAY, BYONEBYE, CLISPEED, CYFIE, DEERBB, FUNPA, GLOSSRISE, HELY CANCY, HOUSE UR Civil Action No. 20-CV-5150 (LJL) HOME, LES YEU, LIBOBO TOYS, LIOOBO, LITTOLO, MARPPY, MARXIAO SHOP, NEPDOME, PANZISUN, RAINTOAD, ROOCHL, SEISSO, SQSYQZ, STONISHI, TOYANDONA, WAKAUTO, WE&ZHE, XISHEEP, AND 58BH, Defendants. [PROPOSED AMENDED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Upon the Declarations of Jill Kiplyn Gillenwater, dated June 30, 2020, and Oleg A. Mestechkin, dated July 8, 2020, along with exhibits and other evidence attached thereto, in support of Plaintiff’s ex parte application for: 1) a temporary restraining order; 2) an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue; 3) an order authorizing alternative service and 4) an order authorizing expedited discovery against Defendants and Amazon.com, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: FACTUAL FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Plaintiff 3 Bees & Me Inc. is in the business of developing, marketing, selling and distributing toys for children of all ages, including for toddlers, under the “3 Bees & Me” brand, a trademark registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). 2. Plaintiff began selling toys to consumers around September, 2015, through its fully interactive website, www.3beesandme.com and a storefront on the Amazon.com marketplace. 3. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of D 884,087 S, entitled “Bathtub Toy Fastener (the “’087 Patent”), which discloses a certain design for an apparatus to fasten bathtub toys, such as toy basketball hoops, to bathtub fixtures. 4. Plaintiff began selling bathtub basketball toys with fasteners embodying the design disclosed in the ‘087 Patent since September 17, 2017, on its website, www.3beesandme.com and since October 23, 2017 on its storefront on the Amazon.com marketplace. wa i sh i y » y

5. Plaintiff alleges that since February 2019, Defendants have been manufacturing, importing, exporting, advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, displaying, and selling through their Amazon Storefronts, the following bathtub toys which infringe the ‘087 Patent. (the "Infrin Products").

(1) BESPORTBLE (2) BRITENWAY (3) BYONEBYE “= ras

Defendants’ Infringing Designs (4) CLISPEED (5) CYFIE (6) DEERBB ~=, ~~ eS \ ae | | | CA (7) FUNPA (8) GLOSSRISE (9) Hous Ur HOME eT ee | | Co mG en Cy ‘ (10) LEs YEU © (11) LiBoBo Toys (12) LIOOBO

(13) LITTOLO (14) MARPPY (15) MARXIAO SHOP os (16) NEPDOME (17) PANZISUN (18) RAINTOAD a a st (19) ROOCHL (20) SEISSO (21) SQSYQZ | toe Qe! (23) TOYANDONA (24) WAKAUTO as eS) \ ae | CTF owl. (25) WE&ZHE XISHEE (27) 58BH i | | am ov WL ~ oy of 6. Defendants are not, nor have they ever been, authorized distributors or licensees of the’087 Patent. 7. Plaintiff has established at this stage that this Court has personal jurisdiction over

Defendants Byonebye, Marppy, Littolo, Britenway and Cyfie under Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 302 (a)(1) because these Defendants operate Amazon Storefronts through which customers in New York State can, and have purchased the infringing products. 8. Plaintiff has established a likelihood of success on its claim for patent infringement because it has shown that the accused products and disclosed designs are

“substantially the same” in that “an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing that the accused product is the same as the patented design.” Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 9. As a result of these Defendants’ infringements, Plaintiff is likely to suffer immediate and irreparable losses, damages and injuries before these Defendants can be heard in opposition, unless Plaintiffs’ Application for ex parte relief is granted, including loss of revenue that may never be recovered, loss of market share, price erosion, harm to reputation, and loss of significant marketing opportunities. 10. The balance of potential harm to these Defendants of being prevented from

continuing to profit from their illegal and infringing activities if a temporary restraining order is issued is far outweighed by the potential harm to Plaintiff, its business, and the goodwill and reputation built up in and associated with sales of its asserted dinosaur toys. 11. The public interest favors issuance of the temporary restraining order in order to protect Plaintiff’s interests in and to the ‘087 Patent, and to protect the public from being deceived and defrauded by these Defendants’ sales of inferior and infringing products. the Infringing Products. 12. If these Defendants are given notice of this ex parte Application, they are likely to secret, conceal, transfer or otherwise dispose of their infringing products and the records and documents relating to Defendants’ manufacturing, importing, exporting, advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, displaying, offering for sale and/or sale of the infringing products. Infringing Products. 13. Therefore, good cause exists for granting Plaintiff’s request for an Order enjoining these Defendants and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with these Defendants who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise. 14. It typically takes Amazon.com, a minimum of five (5) days to comply with

expedited requests for discovery. As such, the Court allows enough time for Plaintiff to serve Amazon.com with this Order, and for Amazon.com to comply with Paragraphs IV(B) and IV(C) of this Order, respectively, before requiring service on these Defendants. 15. If these Defendants are given notice of the Application, they are likely to destroy, move, hide or otherwise make inaccessible to Plaintiffs the records and documents relating to these Defendants’ manufacturing, importing, exporting, advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, displaying, offering for sale and/or sale of the infringing products. Therefore, Infringing Products. Plaintiff has good cause to be granted expedited discovery. 16. Service on these Defendants via electronic means is reasonably calculated to result in proper notice to these Defendants, comports with the requirements of due process, and will expedite notice to these Defendants and expedite the relief requested by Plaintiff. ORDER Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, Plaintiffs’ Application is hereby GRANTED as follows: I. Temporary Restraining Order. A. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, as sufficient cause has been shown, that Defendants Byonebye, Marppy, Littolo, Britenway and Cyfie are hereby restrained and enjoined from engaging in any of the following acts or omissions pending the hearing and determination of Plaintiff’s Application for a preliminary injunction as referenced in Paragraph (II)(A) below: 1. Manufacturing, importing, exporting, advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, displaying, offering for sale, or selling infringing products, exemplary images of which are annexed as Exhibit A; or otherwise dealing in the Infringing Products; 2. Secreting, concealing, destroying, altering, selling off, transferring or otherwise disposing of and/or dealing with: (i) infringing products and/or (ii) any computer files, data, business records, documents or any other records or evidence relating to their User Accounts, Internet Storefronts or Defendants’ Assets and the or otherwise dealing manufacture, importation, exportation, advertising, marketing, promotion, in the Infringing distribution, display, offering for sale and/or sale of infringing products; Products; 3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.
597 F.3d 1288 (Federal Circuit, 2010)
McKinney v. Roberts
8 P. 3 (California Supreme Court, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 BEES & ME INC. v. Besportble, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/3-bees-me-inc-v-besportble-nysd-2020.