Lindsey Adelman Studio LLC v. Lucretia Lighting PTY, LTD

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 17, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-09423·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USDC SDNY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCUMENT Case No: 1:21-cv-09423 ELECT RONICALLY FILED DOC#: LINDSEY ADELMAN STUDIO, LLC, a DATE FILED: 11/17/22) __ New York limited liability company, LINDSEY ADELMAN, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. LUCRETIA LIGHTING PTY. LTD., an Australian entity which operates the website www.lucretiashop.com.au, REPLICA LIGHTS, an Australian entity which operates the website www.replicalights.com.au, REPLICA-LIGHTS, a Russian entity which operates the website www.replica-lights.com, DELIGHTFUL, a Russian entity which operates the website www.delightful.su, LOFT & CONCEPT, a Russian entity which operates the website www.loft-concept.ru, JAS INDUSTRIES, LTD., an UK entity which operates the website www.jasboutique.co.uk, THE PLUM PLUM, a Kazakhstan entity which operates the website www.theplumplum.com, GREAT LIGHT COMPANY, a Russian entity which operates the website www.great-light.ru, VAKKER LIGHTING, a Chinese entity which operates the website www.vakkerlighting.com, MOOIELIGHT, a Chinese entity which operates the website www.mooielight.com, SVETMARKET, a Russian entity which operates the website www.svetmarket.ru, and John Does Nos. | - 55, Defendants. / Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue Plaintiffs, Lindsey Adelman Studio, LLC and Lindsey Adelman, individually have moved for a Temporary Restraining Order, Asset Restraining Order, and Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the Lanham Act, 15

U.S.C. 1051 et seq., and 15 U.S.C. 1116 against Defendants, LUCRETIA LIGHTING PTY. LTD., an Australian entity which operates the website www.lucretiashop.com.au (“Lucretia”), REPLICA LIGHTS, an Australian entity which operates the website www.replicalights.com.au (“Replica Lights”), REPLICA-LIGHTS, a Russian entity which operates the website www.replica- lights.com (“Replica-Lights”), DELIGHTFUL, a Russian entity which operates the website

www.delightful.su (“Delightful”), LOFT & CONCEPT, a Russian entity which operates the website www.loft-concept.ru (“Loft Concept”), JAS INDUSTRIES, LTD., an UK entity which operates the website www.jasboutique.co.uk (“Jas Boutique”), THE PLUM PLUM, a Kazakhstan entity which operates the website www.theplumplum.com (“Plum Plum”), GREAT LIGHT COMPANY, a Russian entity which operates the website www.great-light.ru (“Great Light”), VAKKER LIGHTING, a Chinese entity which operates the website www.vakkerlighting.com (“Vakker Lighting”), MOOIELIGHT, a Chinese entity which operates the website www.mooielight.com (“Mooie Light”), SVETMARKET, a Russian entity which operates the website www.svetmarket.ru (“Svetmarket”) and John Does Nos. 1 - 55 (collectively the

“Defendants”) The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue, the supporting Declarations and exhibits submitted therewith, grants Plaintiffs’ Motion, and makes the following findings and conclusions: Plaintiff Lindsey Adelman is an acclaimed designer of high quality lighting products. Adelman’s lighting design products are made, marketed, and sold through Lindsey Adelman Studio. Plaintiffs own federally registered trademarks for “LINDSEY ADELMAN STUDIO” and “BRANCHING BUBBLE”, which is a well-known chandelier and collection of lighting designs sold by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also sell and market their lighting products under unregistered trademarks that indicate origin from Plaintiffs which include the LINDSEY ADELMAN name, and other lighting design collections Agnes, Cherry Bomb, Branching Branching Disc, Burst, Catch, Kingdom, Drop System, and Clamp Light. These, together with Plaintiffs’ registered marks are collectively referred to as the “Lindsey Adelman marks”.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint, memorandum of law in support of temporary relief, supporting Declarations and exhibits thereto allege and present compelling evidence that Defendants are manufacturing, distributing, marketing, offering for sale, and or selling through the internet and various social media websites counterfeit reproductions and copies of Plaintiffs’ lighting design products bearing counterfeit and infringing copies of Plaintiffs’ federally protected registered and unregistered Lindsey Adelman marks in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1114 and 1125(a).1 Defendants also use authentic pictures of Plaintiffs’ products that were commissioned and developed by Plaintiffs for use by Plaintiffs in their lighting design business. In further violation

of Plaintiffs’ rights, Defendants have obtained copies of Plaintiffs’ authentic product photographs, and utilize those images in Defendants’ sale and marketing of inauthentic copies. Defendants present Plaintiffs’ products images as their own in the precise way that Plaintiffs present their authentic products; both in conjunction with the Lindsey Adelman marks.

1 Plaintiffs’ seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction under Counts I, II, III, IV and X of their Complaint asserting claims for: Infringement of Registered Trademark “LINDSEY ADELMAN STUDIO” (count I); Infringement of Registered Trademark “BRANCHING BUBBLE” (count II); False designation of Origin/Infringement of Unregistered Trademark “LINDSEY ADELMAN” (count III); False designation of Origin/Infringement of various Unregistered “LINDSEY ADELMAN marks” (count IV); and federal common law Unfair Competition/Passing Off (count X). Standard for Temporary Relief and Plaintiffs’ Entitlement to Same Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part that a temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the opposing party or that party's counsel where “it clearly appears from the specific facts shown by affidavit . . . that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that

party’s attorney can be heard in opposition.” Moreover, temporary restraining orders are available on an ex parte basis if the movant shows through an affidavit that there is a threat of intervening immediate, irreparable harm before the adverse party may be heard in opposition and the movant’s attorney certifies in writing why notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). “Within the Second Circuit, the standards for the entry of a TRO are the same as those that govern the entry of a preliminary injunction, and require the plaintiff to demonstrate: ‘(a) irreparable harm and (b) either (1) likelihood of success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits ... and a balance of hardships tipping towards the party requesting preliminary relief.’” Moose Toys Pty Ltd. v. Thriftway Hylan Blvd. Drug Corp., 15-CV-4483 DLI

MDG, 2015 WL 4772173, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)(citing Fequiere v. Tribeca Lending, 2015 WL 1412580, *2 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding, Inc., 696 F.3d 206, 215 (2d Cir.2012)); see also Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 74–75 (2d Cir. 2010).

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

Lindsey Adelman Studio LLC v. Lucretia Lighting PTY, LTD, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Lindsey Adelman Studio LLC v. Lucretia Lighting PTY, LTD (Lindsey Adelman Studio LLC v. Lucretia Lighting PTY, LTD) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Salinger v. Colting
607 F.3d 68 (Second Circuit, 2010)