ELI ZHADANOV and INTERLINK PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. XIAMEN HUANGYUDU COSMETICS CO., LTD. and HUIAN COUNTY MUBING E-COMMERCE CO., LTD.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 23, 2026
Docket1:26-cv-01027
StatusUnknown

This text of ELI ZHADANOV and INTERLINK PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. XIAMEN HUANGYUDU COSMETICS CO., LTD. and HUIAN COUNTY MUBING E-COMMERCE CO., LTD. (ELI ZHADANOV and INTERLINK PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. XIAMEN HUANGYUDU COSMETICS CO., LTD. and HUIAN COUNTY MUBING E-COMMERCE CO., LTD.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
ELI ZHADANOV and INTERLINK PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. XIAMEN HUANGYUDU COSMETICS CO., LTD. and HUIAN COUNTY MUBING E-COMMERCE CO., LTD., (E.D.N.Y. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------x

ELI ZHADANOV and INTERLINK PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC, MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiffs, 26-CV-1027(EK)(PCG)

-against-

XIAMEN HUANGYUDU COSMETICS CO., LTD. and HUIAN COUNTY MUBING E-COMMERCE CO., LTD.,

Defendants.

-----------------------------------x ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs are a company that develops and sells shower and bath products and the company’s president; they sue two Chinese companies that sell showerheads on Amazon that allegedly infringe the plaintiffs’ patents. Compl. ¶¶ 2-3, 9- 15, 22-30. Plaintiff Interlink complained to Amazon of the possible infringement and submitted a complaint through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express program in December 2025; defendants rejected the offer to participate and instead filed declaratory-judgment actions against Interlink that remain pending in the Western District of Washington. Id. ¶¶ 35-37. Plaintiffs have also requested a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), directing the defendants to refrain from (1) making false or misleading statements regarding the specific showerheads at issue; (2) selling any products under Amazon Standard Identification Numbers where the defendants made allegedly false or misleading statements related to the specific showerheads at issue; and (3) distributing in commerce any units

of products containing any misleading or inaccurate statements about the flow rate or legal compliance of the products. Id. at 25. The TRO request is ex parte: plaintiffs have provided no written or oral notice to the defendants or their attorneys. For the reasons set forth below, this request is denied. When a movant seeks an ex parte TRO, it must, among other things, certify in writing “any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B); FEI Hong Kong Co. v. GlobalFoundries, Inc., No. 20-CV-2342, 2020 WL 1444956, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2020) (denying TRO as plaintiff had “not provided any reasons why notice was unnecessary or impractical”); Gullas v. 37-31 73rd St. Owners Corp., No. 12-CV-2301, 2012 WL 1655520, at *1

(E.D.N.Y. May 10, 2012) (denying TRO as plaintiffs had “neither shown that Defendant was given notice of this motion nor made any showing as to why notice should not be required”). This failure alone renders ex parte relief inappropriate. E.g., Pro. Merch. Advance Cap., LLC v. C Care Servs., LLC, No. 13-CV-6562, 2013 WL 12109397, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2013) (“Plaintiff’s attorney has not submitted anything about efforts to give notice or reasons why notice should not be required. That omission alone is fatal to the application . . . .”). Plaintiffs have also not separately moved for this

preliminary relief; the request for a TRO appears only in the complaint. It is thus not properly before this Court. Allens Creek / Corbetts Glen Pres. Grp., Inc. v. Caldera, 88 F. Supp. 2d 77, 83 (W.D.N.Y. 2000), aff’d sub nom. Allens Creek / Corbetts Glen Pres. Grp., Inc. v. West, 2 F. App’x 162 (2d Cir. 2001) (collecting cases and explaining that “[i]f a party seeks immediate relief, Rule 65 . . . requires the filing of a motion”). For the reasons set forth above, the request for a TRO is denied. If plaintiffs wishes to pursue a preliminary injunction, they should file a motion in compliance with Rule 65 and serve that motion on the defendants. In light of the

plaintiffs’ representations regarding the pending action in the Western District of Washington, plaintiffs are further ordered to show cause no later than March 2, 2026, why this action should not be transferred to the Western District of Washington, to avoid duplicative litigation.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eric Komitee ERIC KOMITEE United State

s District Judge

D ated: February 23, 2026 Brooklyn, New Yor k

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
ELI ZHADANOV and INTERLINK PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. XIAMEN HUANGYUDU COSMETICS CO., LTD. and HUIAN COUNTY MUBING E-COMMERCE CO., LTD., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eli-zhadanov-and-interlink-products-international-inc-v-xiamen-huangyudu-nyed-2026.