1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Alpha-Pharma Healthcare Private Limited, No. CV-23-01542-PHX-ROS
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 MakeQR.co.in, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Alpha-Pharma Healthcare Private Limited seeks a preliminary injunction 16 requiring non-party GoDaddy.com, LLC, either transfer a domain name to Plaintiff or place 17 the domain name “on hold” to prevent it being transferred “for the pendency of this 18 litigation.” (Doc. 23 at 2). Plaintiff also requests the John Doe Defendants be ordered not 19 to register, operate, maintain, or administer any website or domain name “utilizing or 20 employing [Plaintiff’s] name and trademarks.” (Doc. 23 at 2). No defendant has appeared 21 in this case, meaning the request for preliminary injunction is not opposed. 22 On September 7, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a temporary 23 restraining order. In doing so the Court provided an overview of the background of 24 Plaintiff’s claims. In brief, Plaintiff manufactures and distributes pharmaceutical drugs. 25 Unidentified individuals are distributing counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s drugs. The 26 counterfeit drugs are distributed in packaging effectively identical to the packing Plaintiff 27 uses. Plaintiff’s packaging uses a QR code to direct consumers to a website where the 28 consumer can check the authenticity of the product. The packaging of the counterfeit drugs 1 also includes a QR code, but that code directs consumer to websites not affiliated with 2 Plaintiff. The packaging of the counterfeit drugs direct consumers to 3 and . 4 Based on the evidence presented in seeking a temporary restraining order, the Court 5 concluded Plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm 6 without injunctive relief, the balance of equities weighed in Plaintiff’s favor, and the public 7 interest supported issuance of an injunction. (Doc. 16 at 4). Nothing has changed since 8 that time. 9 The evidence in the record continues to show Plaintiff has a strong likelihood of 10 success on its unfair competition claims. Applied Info. Scis. Corp. v. eBAY, Inc., 511 F.3d 11 966, 969 (9th Cir. 2007) (“To prevail on its trademark infringement claim, [plaintiff] must 12 show that: (1) it has a valid, protectable trademark, and (2) that [defendant’s] use of the 13 mark is likely to cause confusion.”). Plaintiff has valid, protectable marks. And the 14 unidentified individual defendants are knowingly counterfeiting Plaintiff’s products to 15 confuse consumers. See Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Ent. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 16 1056 (9th Cir. 1999) (“In light of the virtual identity of marks, if they were used with 17 identical products or services likelihood of confusion would follow as a matter of course.”). 18 The two domain names are integral parts of the attempt to confuse consumers. Absent 19 additional factual developments, Plaintiff is likely to succeed on its claims. 20 Allowing the counterfeiting scheme to continue to operate would cause irreparable 21 harm to Plaintiff in the form of damage to its reputation and goodwill and the balance of 22 equities favors Plaintiff. See, e.g., adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc., 890 F.3d 747, 23 756 (9th Cir. 2018) (stating “loss of control over business reputation and damage to 24 goodwill [can] constitute irreparable harm”). Finally, the public interest weighs in favor 25 of an injunction to prevent ongoing counterfeiting. 26 Plaintiff requests the domain name either be transferred to Plaintiff 27 or put on hold pending resolution of this litigation. Placing the domain name on hold is 28 sufficient to prevent the feared harm. No bond is appropriate because no defendant will || suffer cognizable harm from the counterfeiting scheme being stopped. 2 Because no defendant has participated in this case, Plaintiff will be required to either || seek entry of default and default judgment against defendants or file a statement explaining 4|| why they cannot seek default judgment at this time. If Plaintiff will not seek default 5 || judgment at this time, Plaintiff must set forth what additional actions it must take and the 6 || proposed schedule for doing so. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. 9|| Pending further Order of this Court, nonparty GoDaddy.com, LLC, shall lock or take other || appropriate action regarding the domain name such that it cannot be 11 || transferred from its current owner to another owner or registrar. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the John Does 1-20 (the “Doe Defendants’), or 13} anyone acting on the Doe Defendants’ behalf, are enjoined and restrained from registering, 14]| operating, maintaining, and/or administering any website or domain name utilizing or 15 || employing Alpha-Pharma’s name and trademarks. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than October 16, 2023, Plaintiff shall either 17 || apply for entry of default or file a statement explaining how it plans to proceed. If Plaintiff applies for entry of default, it shall file a motion for entry of default judgment within ten || days of the Clerk of Court entering the defaults. 20 Dated this 2nd day of October, 2023. fo ~~ = 21 C . ES 22 Honorable Ros yn ©. Silver 3 Senior United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI