Bridlington Bud Ltd v. The Partnerships, Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedNovember 14, 2025
Docket1:25-cv-24011
StatusUnknown

This text of Bridlington Bud Ltd v. The Partnerships, Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Bridlington Bud 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
Bridlington Bud Ltd v. The Partnerships, Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, (S.D. Fla. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 25-cv-24011-DPG

BRIDLINGTON BUD LTD,

Plaintiff, v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS, UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A,

Defendants. /

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff BRIDLINGTON BUD LTD’s Request for Entry of Preliminary Injunction Order [ECF No. 7]. The Court entered the Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 13] and set a hearing to determine whether a preliminary injunction should be issued. The Court conducted a duly noticed Preliminary Injunction hearing on November 13, 2025. The Court has carefully considered the evidence submitted, and argument presented at the hearing, the record in this case, and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons stated on the record and set forth below, Plaintiff BRIDLINGTON BUD LTD’s request for preliminary injunctive relief is GRANTED. [ECF No. 21]. 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 DESIGNICE (referred herein phonetically as the “DESIGNICE” mark) under U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,658,994. See Exhibit 1, [ECF No. 7-1]; see also Decl. of Du, [ECF No. 7-3 ¶ 3]. The DESIGNICE mark is used in connection with jewelry, timepieces, and related ornamental items, including clocks under Class 14. 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 DESIGNICE mark. See Decl. of Du, [ECF No. 7-3 ¶¶ 9-12]. Plaintiff’s evidence shows that Defendants directly target business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Florida, through their fully interactive e-commerce platforms. See Decl. of Du, [ECF No. 7-3 ¶¶ 9-12]; [ECF No. 7-4].Plaintiff has not licensed or authorized these Defendants to use the DESIGNICE mark, and none of the Defendants are authorized retailers of genuine DESIGNICE Products. [ECF No. 7-3 ¶ 13]. 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. See Decl. of Palmer, [ECF No.

7-2, ¶ 2]. Plaintiff has determined that Defendants are promoting, advertising, offering for sale, and/or selling various clock products using the DESIGNICE mark, without authorization, via Internet-based e-commerce stores operating under the seller names identified on Schedule A. Id. 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. II. Legal Standard

To obtain a preliminary injunction, 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 entry of the relief would serve the public interest.” Schiavo ex. rel Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005). III. Discussion

The declarations and Infringing Evidence Plaintiff submitted, and the representations made during the Preliminary Injunction hearing, support the following conclusions of law: 1. 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 DESIGNICE mark, and that the products Defendants are selling and promoting for sale are copies of the Plaintiff’s products that bear and/or use copies of the DESIGNICE mark. 2. Because of the infringement of the DESIGNICE mark, Plaintiff is likely to suffer immediate and irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction is not granted. The following specific facts, as set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint, request for Preliminary Injunction, and declarations,

demonstrate that immediate and irreparable loss, damage, and injury will result to Plaintiff and to consumers: 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 Plaintiff’s trademarks will appear in the marketplace; that consumers are likely to be misled, confused, and disappointed by the quality of these products; and that Plaintiff may suffer loss of sales for their genuine products; and 3. The balance of potential harm to Defendants in restraining their trade in counterfeit and infringing branded goods if a preliminary injunction 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.

4. The public interest favors issuance of the preliminary injunction 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. 5. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), Plaintiff may be entitled to recover, as an equitable remedy, the illegal profits gained through Defendants’ distribution and sales of goods bearing and/or using counterfeits and infringements of the DESIGNICE mark. See Reebok Int’l, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enters., Inc., 970 F.2d 552, 559 (9th Cir. 1992) (“An accounting of profits under § 1117(a) is not synonymous with an award of monetary damages: ‘[a]n accounting for profits . . . is an equitable remedy subject to the principles of equity.’”) (quoting Fuller Brush Prods. Co. v.

Fuller Brush Co., 299 F.2d 772, 777 (7th Cir. 1962)). 6. Requesting equitable relief “invokes the district court’s inherent equitable powers to order preliminary relief, including an asset freeze, in order to assure the availability of permanent relief.” Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int'l Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 987 (11th Cir. 1995). 7. Considering the inherently deceptive nature of the counterfeiting business, and the likelihood that Defendants have violated federal trademark laws, Plaintiff has good reason to believe Defendants will hide or transfer their ill-gotten assets beyond the jurisdiction of this Court unless those assets are restrained. IV. Conclusions of Law Accordingly, upon due consideration of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Motions, and supporting evidentiary submissions, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, 28 U.S.C. § 1651

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

Related

Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo v. Michael Schiavo
403 F.3d 1223 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
Fuller Products Co. v. The Fuller Brush Company
299 F.2d 772 (Seventh Circuit, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bridlington Bud Ltd v. The Partnerships, Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridlington-bud-ltd-v-the-partnerships-unincorporated-associations-flsd-2025.