WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
7 NO. 2:21-cv-1456-BJR AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; and STREAMLIGHT, INC., a Delaware 8 corporation, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ (1) RENEWED MOTION FOR 9 Plaintiffs, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; AND (2) SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR 10 v. EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
11 Individuals and entities doing business as the following Amazon Selling Accounts: MASSEAGS; CFD HELPING HANDS; 12 JARRETT’S FENCE, LLC; JERILYN SMITH, LLC; MEALIGHT; MTT TECH; DOREEN 13 CAMPBELL-ISAACS LLC; SOONS; DIFAG; FANRIN; SKABUL; TENUAL; GEMLIGHTS; 14 and DOES 1-10,
Defendants. 15
16 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 17 This matter comes before the Court on two Motions brought by Plaintiffs Amazon.com, 18 Inc. and Streamlight, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”): (1) the Renewed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 19 (Dkt. No. 25); and (2) the Supplemental Motion for Expedited Discovery (Dkt. No. 32). After 20 requesting and receiving authorization for alternative service, Plaintiffs served the Complaint and 21 these Motions on Defendants through Defendants’ last-known email addresses. See Order 22 Granting Pls’ Ex Parte Mot. Alt. Serv., Dkt. No. 15; Commerson Decl. ¶¶ 12, 14. None of the 23
INJUNCTION AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
25 2 the instant motions. Having reviewed allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiffs’ briefs, and 3 supporting evidence submitted by Plaintiffs, including the Declarations of Scott Commerson and 4 Raymond L. Sharrah, and having held a hearing by videoconference, the Court finds and rules as 5 follows. 6 Plaintiff Streamlight manufactures and sells “professional-grade, rail-mounted tactical 7 lights.” Compl., Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 4. This lawsuit involves Lanham Act and Washington Consumer 8 Protection Act (“CPA”) claims arising out of Defendants’ alleged sale of counterfeit products 9 bearing Streamlight’s trademarks, through Defendants’ selling accounts on the Amazon.com 10 website. See generally Compl. Plaintiffs further allege that in conjunction with the sale of 11 products bearing the unauthorized Streamlight trademarks, Defendants have “used QR codes
12 designed to misdirect customers to fake authentication websites and misled customers into 13 believing that they purchased authentic Streamlight products when they had not.” Id., ¶ 6. 14 Plaintiffs now seek a preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants and “other persons who are in 15 active concert or participation” with Defendants—in particular, the third parties associated with 16 Defendants’ fake authentication websites, registrar NameCheap.com, Inc., and domain registry 17 Verisign, Inc.—from continuing to infringe the Streamlight registered trademarks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 65(d)(2); see Commerson Decl., ¶ 8; Adams Decl., ¶ 9. 19 In its second motion, Plaintiffs seek an order authorizing pre-Federal Rule 26(f) discovery, 20 and in particular the service of subpoenas on third-party service providers Payoneer Inc.; LL Pay 21 U.S., LLC; World First UK Limited; PingPong Global Solutions Inc.; Google LLC; and
22 Microsoft Corporation, which Plaintiffs allege “are all linked to Defendants’ counterfeiting 23 scheme.” Supp. Mot. at 1. Plaintiffs submit that the purpose of these subpoenas is to ascertain
INJUNCTION AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
25 3 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689– 4 90 (2008). To demonstrate entitlement to a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate “that 5 he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 6 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 7 public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1126 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. 8 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). 9 The Court first concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated a likelihood of 10 success on the merits of their Lanham Act and CPA claims, as set forth in their Complaint. See 11 Compl., ¶¶ 83-89 (Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1114); ¶¶ 90-98 (False Designation of
12 Origin and False Advertising – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); ¶¶ 99-105 (False Designation of Origin and 13 False Advertising – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); and ¶¶ 106-110 (Violation of Washington Consumer 14 Protection Act, RCW 19.86.010 et seq.). Plaintiffs allege that from November 2020 through 15 September 2021, “Defendants advertised, marketed, offered, and sold” counterfeit versions of 16 Streamlight products through Defendants’ Amazon selling accounts. Compl., ¶ 6. In support of 17 their claims, Plaintiffs aver that they conducted test purchases of products through Defendants’ 18 Amazon selling accounts, examined those products, and verified that those products failed to meet 19 the “manufacturing specifications for components of the authentic products,” but bore the 20 (unauthorized) Streamlight trademarks. See Compl., ¶¶ 46-74; Sharrah Decl., ¶¶ 9-12. Plaintiffs 21 also claim that Defendants’ counterfeit products directed purchasers to fake authentication
22 websites through QR codes on those products, and Plaintiffs have included in their Complaint an 23 image of such a QR code and screenshots of the fake websites to which it leads. See Compl., ¶¶
INJUNCTION AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
25 2 disputed these allegations. Plaintiffs’ plausible allegations, which are undisputed, support the 3 elements of their claims, thus demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits of those claims. 4 The Court also concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to a presumption of the likelihood that 5 they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. Plaintiffs seeking an injunction 6 based on claims for False Designation of Origin and False Advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 7 “shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm . . . upon a finding of likelihood 8 of success on the merits.” 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). As noted above, the Court concludes that 9 Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their Lanham Act claims, and Defendants, having 10 failed to appear, have not rebutted this statutory presumption. This element of entitlement to 11 injunctive relief is therefore also met.
12 Further, the Court finds that under the facts alleged herein, which stand undisputed, the 13 balance of equities weighs in favor of granting the injunction. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ 14 actions “have willfully deceived Amazon and its customers, jeopardized the trust that customers 15 place in the Amazon store, tarnished Amazon’s brand and reputation, and harmed Amazon and its 16 customers.” Compl., ¶ 104. Plaintiffs further allege that “Defendants’ infringement constitutes 17 harm to Streamlight and Streamlight’s reputation and goodwill.” Id., ¶ 89. Defendants, in contrast, 18 will suffer no inequity by being enjoined from continuing to infringe Streamlight’s trademarks. 19 See WpIX, Inc. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
7 NO. 2:21-cv-1456-BJR AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; and STREAMLIGHT, INC., a Delaware 8 corporation, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ (1) RENEWED MOTION FOR 9 Plaintiffs, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; AND (2) SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR 10 v. EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
11 Individuals and entities doing business as the following Amazon Selling Accounts: MASSEAGS; CFD HELPING HANDS; 12 JARRETT’S FENCE, LLC; JERILYN SMITH, LLC; MEALIGHT; MTT TECH; DOREEN 13 CAMPBELL-ISAACS LLC; SOONS; DIFAG; FANRIN; SKABUL; TENUAL; GEMLIGHTS; 14 and DOES 1-10,
Defendants. 15
16 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 17 This matter comes before the Court on two Motions brought by Plaintiffs Amazon.com, 18 Inc. and Streamlight, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”): (1) the Renewed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 19 (Dkt. No. 25); and (2) the Supplemental Motion for Expedited Discovery (Dkt. No. 32). After 20 requesting and receiving authorization for alternative service, Plaintiffs served the Complaint and 21 these Motions on Defendants through Defendants’ last-known email addresses. See Order 22 Granting Pls’ Ex Parte Mot. Alt. Serv., Dkt. No. 15; Commerson Decl. ¶¶ 12, 14. None of the 23
INJUNCTION AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
25 2 the instant motions. Having reviewed allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiffs’ briefs, and 3 supporting evidence submitted by Plaintiffs, including the Declarations of Scott Commerson and 4 Raymond L. Sharrah, and having held a hearing by videoconference, the Court finds and rules as 5 follows. 6 Plaintiff Streamlight manufactures and sells “professional-grade, rail-mounted tactical 7 lights.” Compl., Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 4. This lawsuit involves Lanham Act and Washington Consumer 8 Protection Act (“CPA”) claims arising out of Defendants’ alleged sale of counterfeit products 9 bearing Streamlight’s trademarks, through Defendants’ selling accounts on the Amazon.com 10 website. See generally Compl. Plaintiffs further allege that in conjunction with the sale of 11 products bearing the unauthorized Streamlight trademarks, Defendants have “used QR codes
12 designed to misdirect customers to fake authentication websites and misled customers into 13 believing that they purchased authentic Streamlight products when they had not.” Id., ¶ 6. 14 Plaintiffs now seek a preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants and “other persons who are in 15 active concert or participation” with Defendants—in particular, the third parties associated with 16 Defendants’ fake authentication websites, registrar NameCheap.com, Inc., and domain registry 17 Verisign, Inc.—from continuing to infringe the Streamlight registered trademarks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18 65(d)(2); see Commerson Decl., ¶ 8; Adams Decl., ¶ 9. 19 In its second motion, Plaintiffs seek an order authorizing pre-Federal Rule 26(f) discovery, 20 and in particular the service of subpoenas on third-party service providers Payoneer Inc.; LL Pay 21 U.S., LLC; World First UK Limited; PingPong Global Solutions Inc.; Google LLC; and
22 Microsoft Corporation, which Plaintiffs allege “are all linked to Defendants’ counterfeiting 23 scheme.” Supp. Mot. at 1. Plaintiffs submit that the purpose of these subpoenas is to ascertain
INJUNCTION AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
25 3 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689– 4 90 (2008). To demonstrate entitlement to a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate “that 5 he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 6 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 7 public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1126 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. 8 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). 9 The Court first concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated a likelihood of 10 success on the merits of their Lanham Act and CPA claims, as set forth in their Complaint. See 11 Compl., ¶¶ 83-89 (Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1114); ¶¶ 90-98 (False Designation of
12 Origin and False Advertising – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); ¶¶ 99-105 (False Designation of Origin and 13 False Advertising – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)); and ¶¶ 106-110 (Violation of Washington Consumer 14 Protection Act, RCW 19.86.010 et seq.). Plaintiffs allege that from November 2020 through 15 September 2021, “Defendants advertised, marketed, offered, and sold” counterfeit versions of 16 Streamlight products through Defendants’ Amazon selling accounts. Compl., ¶ 6. In support of 17 their claims, Plaintiffs aver that they conducted test purchases of products through Defendants’ 18 Amazon selling accounts, examined those products, and verified that those products failed to meet 19 the “manufacturing specifications for components of the authentic products,” but bore the 20 (unauthorized) Streamlight trademarks. See Compl., ¶¶ 46-74; Sharrah Decl., ¶¶ 9-12. Plaintiffs 21 also claim that Defendants’ counterfeit products directed purchasers to fake authentication
22 websites through QR codes on those products, and Plaintiffs have included in their Complaint an 23 image of such a QR code and screenshots of the fake websites to which it leads. See Compl., ¶¶
INJUNCTION AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
25 2 disputed these allegations. Plaintiffs’ plausible allegations, which are undisputed, support the 3 elements of their claims, thus demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits of those claims. 4 The Court also concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to a presumption of the likelihood that 5 they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. Plaintiffs seeking an injunction 6 based on claims for False Designation of Origin and False Advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 7 “shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm . . . upon a finding of likelihood 8 of success on the merits.” 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). As noted above, the Court concludes that 9 Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their Lanham Act claims, and Defendants, having 10 failed to appear, have not rebutted this statutory presumption. This element of entitlement to 11 injunctive relief is therefore also met.
12 Further, the Court finds that under the facts alleged herein, which stand undisputed, the 13 balance of equities weighs in favor of granting the injunction. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ 14 actions “have willfully deceived Amazon and its customers, jeopardized the trust that customers 15 place in the Amazon store, tarnished Amazon’s brand and reputation, and harmed Amazon and its 16 customers.” Compl., ¶ 104. Plaintiffs further allege that “Defendants’ infringement constitutes 17 harm to Streamlight and Streamlight’s reputation and goodwill.” Id., ¶ 89. Defendants, in contrast, 18 will suffer no inequity by being enjoined from continuing to infringe Streamlight’s trademarks. 19 See WpIX, Inc. v. lvl, Inc., 691 F.3d 275, 287 (2d Cir. 2012) (“[I]t is axiomatic that an infringer ... 20 cannot complain about the loss of ability to offer its infringing products.”) (quotation marks 21 omitted). The balance of these equities easily favors granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief.
22 Finally, it cannot be disputed that enjoining the continued sale of counterfeit products 23 would be in the public interest. “An injunction that prevents consumer confusion in trademark
INJUNCTION AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
25 2 Appx 633, 636 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Internet Specialties W., Inc. v. Milon–DiGiorgio Enters., 3 Inc., 559 F.3d 985, 993 (9th Cir.2009)). Plaintiffs have alleged—and Defendants have not 4 disputed—that the counterfeit Streamlight products, and the continued operation of the fake 5 authentication websites, threaten to cause customer confusion. An injunction restraining the 6 continued sale and marketing of such products is therefore in the public interest. 7 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is granted as set 8 forth infra, § IV. 9 III. SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
10 Plaintiffs have filed a Supplemental Motion for Expedited Discovery, seeking 11 authorization to serve subpoenas on third parties, prior to any Federal Rule 26(f) conference 12 having taken place, for the purpose of obtaining information about the “true identities” of the 13 Defendants. Plaintiffs’ motion and supporting declarations outline their attempts to identify, 14 locate, and serve Defendants in this matter. Despite these efforts, Plaintiffs have been unable to 15 ascertain the true identities of these parties, or their locations. 16 By this motion, Plaintiffs seek leave to serve subpoenas on Payoneer Inc.; LL Pay U.S., 17 LLC; World First UK Limited; and PingPong Global Solutions Inc., which Plaintiffs claim are the 18 payment service providers linked to Defendants’ selling accounts on Amazon. According to 19 Plaintiffs, these providers may be in possession of the names of the bank account holders, as well 20 as the deposits and withdrawals associated with those selling accounts. Plaintiffs also request 21 permission to serve subpoenas on Google LLC and Microsoft Corporation, which operate email
22 services of the addresses that Defendants used to register their selling accounts with Amazon. 23 Under Federal Rule 26(d), parties may not seek “discovery from any source before the
INJUNCTION AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
25 2 stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Such authorization is appropriate where 3 “good cause” exists. As this Court has observed under similar circumstances, early discovery is 4 “routinely allow[ed] . . . for the limited purpose of identifying defendants on whom process could 5 not otherwise be served,” and “good cause” for pre-Rule 26(f) discovery exists “where a plaintiff 6 has exhausted its means to identify the defendant through publicly-available information and has 7 no other way to identify the bad actors involved in the scheme.” Amazon.com, Inc. v. Yong, No. 8 21-170RSM, 2021 WL 1237863, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 2, 2021) (citations omitted) 9 (authorizing discovery seeking “information only from those bank accounts, virtual payment 10 processor Payoneer, and email accounts associated with the Amazon seller accounts for the 11 purpose of identifying the individuals connected to those accounts”). Such are the circumstances
12 here. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for Expediated Discovery is therefore granted. 14 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED as 15 follows: 16 (1) Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any 17 person who is in active concert or participation with such persons, who receive actual 18 notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise, are hereby restrained (a) 19 from infringing Streamlight Inc.’s registered trademarks by advertising, marketing, 20 offering, selling, or distributing products bearing these trademarks; and (b) from 21 operating websites that use Streamlight’s registered trademarks in any manner,
22 including without limitation on www.olt5.com (“Offending Domain”). 23 (2) The domain name registries, internet service providers, hosts, and/or the individual
INJUNCTION AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
25 2 Offending Domain, including but not limited to NameCheap, Inc. and Verisign, Inc. 3 shall, within seven (7) days of notice of this Order, temporarily disable these domain 4 names, or any subset of these domain names specified by Plaintiffs, through a registry 5 hold or otherwise, and make them inactive and non-transferable pending further order 6 from this Court, unless Plaintiffs request that particular domain names be released 7 from such restraints. 8 (3) This Preliminary Injunction shall remain in effect for the pendency of this litigation, 9 unless otherwise dissolved by the Court. 10 In addition, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ ex parte Supplemental Motion for Expedited 11 Discovery. Plaintiffs are granted leave, prior to any Rule 26(f) conference, to serve Rule 45
12 subpoenas narrowly tailored to obtain information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 13 of the identities and locations of Defendants involved in the alleged counterfeiting scheme from 14 Payoneer Inc.; LL Pay U.S., LLC; World First UK Limited; PingPong Global Solutions Inc.; 15 Google LLC; and Microsoft Corporation. 16 DATED this 19th day of December, 2022. 17 A 18 19 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge 20 b 21 22 23
INJUNCTION AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY