Albion Brand Foundry Ltd v. The Partnerships, Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedJanuary 15, 2026
Docket1:25-cv-25593
StatusUnknown

This text of Albion Brand Foundry Ltd v. The Partnerships, Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Albion Brand Foundry Ltd v. The Partnerships, Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Albion Brand Foundry Ltd v. The Partnerships, Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, (S.D. Fla. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 25-cev-25593-FAM ALBION BRAND FOUNDRY LTD, Plaintiff, v. THE PARTNERSHIPS, UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order and Order Restraining Transfer of Assets (the “Application for Temporary Restraining Order” or “Application”) ECF No. [7]. The Court has carefully considered the Application for Temporary. Restraining Order, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Application is GRANTED. By the instant Application, Plaintiff moves ex parte pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.§ 1651(a), and this Court’s inherent authority, for entry of a temporary restraining order and an order restraining the financial accounts allegedly used by Defendants in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114. Because Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, the Court grants Plaintiff's Application for Temporary Restraining Order.

I. Factual Background The following factual background is taken from Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. [1], the Application, and supporting evidentiary submissions and exhibits. Plaintiff is the owner of the federally registered trademark CCOCC (referred herein phonetically as the “CCOCC” mark) under U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,314,523. See Exhibit 1, ECF No. [7-1]; see also Decl. of Zhang, ECF No. [7-3, 93]. The CCOCC mark is used in connection with office stationery, decals, paintings, stationery cases, writing instruments, hand towels of paper, money clips, and related products. Id. Defendants, through internet-based e-commerce stores operating under their seller aliases identified on Schedule A attached herewith, have advertised, promoted, offered for sale, or sold infringement products using the CCOCC mark. See Decl. of Zhang, ECF No. [7-3, J]9-12]. Based on the infringing evidence provided by Plaintiff ECF Nos. [7-4], “Each Defendant directly target[s] business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Florida, through their fully interactive e-commerce platforms.” See Decl. of Zhang, ECF No. [7-3, [99-12]. Further, Plaintiff has “not licensed or authorized these Defendants to use the CCOCC mark, and none of the Defendants are authorized retailers of genuine CCOCC Products.” Id. 413. Further, counsel for Plaintiff has “reviewed the images and product description displayed on the websites, including the domain name, the product listing, the product information, and detailed seller information of each seller identified on Schedule A and has determined “that Defendants are promoting, advertising, offering for sale, and/or selling identical hair pin products using the CCOCC mark, without authorization, via Internet-based e-commerce stores operating under the seller names identified on Schedule A.” See Decl. of Palmer ECF No. [7-2, Further, “(after reviewing the infringing evidence,” counsel for Plaintiff also believes that “it is apparent

that the activities of the sellers identified in Schedule A are consistent with the general patterns of online counterfeiting activities.” Id. 4. Il. Legal Standard In order to obtain a temporary restraining order, a party must demonstrate “(1) [there is] a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) that the entry of the relief would serve the public interest.” Schiavo ex. rel Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005). Additionally, a court may only issue a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party or its attorney if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition [and] (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1). An Ex Parte temporary restraining orders “should be restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). Ill. Discussion The declarations Plaintiff submitted in support of its Application support the following conclusions of law: Plaintiff has a strong probability of proving at trial that consumers are likely to be confused by Defendants’ advertisement, promotion, sale, offer for sale, and/or distribution of goods bearing and/or using counterfeits, reproductions, or colorable imitations of the CCOCC mark, and that the products Defendants are selling and promoting for sale are copies of the Plaintiffs products that

bear and/or use copies of the CCOCC mark, and that the infringement of the CCOCC mark, is likely to cause Plaintiff to suffer immediate and irreparable injury if a temporary restraining order is not granted. The following specific facts, as set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint, Application, and accompanying declarations, demonstrate that immediate and irreparable loss, damage, and injury will result to Plaintiff and to consumers before Defendants can be heard in opposition unless Plaintiff's request for ex parte relief is granted: a. Defendants own or control e-commerce stores operating under their stores aliases which advertise, promote, offer for sale, and sell products bearing and/or using counterfeit and infringing trademarks in violation of Plaintiff's rights; b. There is good cause to believe that more counterfeit and infringing products bearing and/or using Plaintiffs trademarks will appear in the C. There is good cause to believe that if Plaintiff proceeds on notice to Defendants of this Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Defendants can easily and quickly change the ownership or modify their e-commerce stores registration and account data and content, change payment accounts, redirect consumer traffic to other online stores, and transfer assets and ownership of the online stores, thereby thwarting Plaintiff’s ability to obtain meaningful relief. The balance of potential harm to Defendants in restraining their trade in counterfeit and infringing branded goods if a temporary restraining order is issued is far outweighed by the potential harm to Plaintiff, its reputation, and its goodwill as a manufacturer and distributor of quality products if such relief is not issued. The public interest favors issuance of the temporary restraining order to protect Plaintiff's trademark interests, to encourage respect for the law, to facilitate the invention and development

of innovative products, and to protect the public from being defrauded by the illegal sale of counterfeit goods. Under 15 U.S.C.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Albion Brand Foundry Ltd v. The Partnerships, Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albion-brand-foundry-ltd-v-the-partnerships-unincorporated-associations-flsd-2026.