Home/S.D. Florida/Peleg Design Ltd. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

Peleg Design Ltd. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

District Court, S.D. Florida·Decided November 8, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-24672·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 23-CV-24672-GAYLES

PELEG DESIGN LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS, AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A,

Defendants. _______________________________________/

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 26]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record and is otherwise fully advised. By the instant Motion, Plaintiff PELEG DESIGN LTD. (“Plaintiff” or “Peleg Design”) moves for entry of a preliminary injunction against Defendants, the Individuals, Business Entities, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A hereto (collectively “Defendants”), and an entry of an order restraining the financial accounts used by Defendants, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502, 17 U.S.C. § 504, 35 U.S.C. § 283, 35 U.S.C. § 284, 35 U.S.C. § 289, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. I. Factual Background Plaintiff is the owner of the following patent and copyright registrations, which are valid, subsisting, in full force and effect, and registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office, respectively: Design Patent No. US D929,796 S (the “PELEG Patent”) and U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 2-364-260 (the “PELEG Copyright”). Defendants, through the various Internet based e-commerce stores operating under the

seller identities identified on Schedule A hereto (the “Defendant Internet Stores”), have advertised, promoted, offered for sale, sold, or imported goods displaying and/or embodying what the Plaintiff has determined to be infringements, reproductions, or colorable imitations of the PELEG Copyright and PELEG Patent (the “Infringing Products”). See Declaration of Shahar Peleg (“Peleg Decl.”), ¶¶ 9–17. Defendants are not now, nor have they ever been, authorized or licensed to use, reproduce, or make reproductions, or colorable imitations of the PELEG Copyright or PELEG Patent. See Peleg Decl., ¶ 17. Plaintiff investigated the promotion and sale of infringing versions of the Plaintiff’s copyright protected and patented products by the Defendants. See Peleg Decl., ¶¶ 12–15. Plaintiff

accessed each of the e-commerce stores operating under the Defendant Internet Stores, initiated the ordering process for the purchase of a product from each of the Defendant Internet Stores displaying and/or embodying the PELEG Copyright and/or the PELEG Patent at issue in this action, and completed a checkout page requesting each product to be shipped to an address in the Southern District of Florida. See id. Plaintiff conducted a review and visually inspected the PELEG copyrighted and patented items and the items for which orders were initiated by Plaintiff’s third- party investigator via the Defendant Internet Stores, and determined the products were non- genuine, unauthorized versions of the Plaintiff’s products. See id. II. Legal Standard In order 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 the entry of the relief would serve the public interest.” Schiavo ex. rel Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005); see also eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 1839, 164 L. Ed. 2d 641 (2006). III. Conclusions of Law The declarations Plaintiff submitted in support of its Motion support the following conclusions of law: A. Plaintiff has submitted sufficient documentation that Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import into the United States for subsequent sale or use products embodying and/or displaying reproductions, or colorable imitations of Plaintiff’s PELEG Copyright, and that the products Defendants are selling and promoting for sale are copies of Plaintiff’s respective

products that bear and/or display copies of Plaintiff’s copyright. B. Plaintiff has also submitted sufficient documentation that Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import into the United States for subsequent sale or use products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the PELEG Patent. The documentation submitted by Plaintiff shows that an ordinary observer would be deceived into thinking that the Infringing Products were the same as one or more claims of the PELEG Patent. C. Because of the infringement of Plaintiff’s PELEG Copyright and PELEG Patent, 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 Second Amended Complaint, Motion, and accompanying declarations, demonstrate that immediate and irreparable loss, damage, and injury will occur absent injunctive relief: i. Defendants own or control e-commerce stores and commercial Internet websites operating under their respective seller identification names and domain names which

advertise, promote, offer for sale, and sell products bearing, displaying, and/or embodying Plaintiff’s copyright and/or patent, in violation of Plaintiff’s respective rights; ii. There is good cause to believe that more infringing products bearing, displaying, and/or embodying Plaintiff’s copyright and/or patent will appear in the marketplace; that consumers are likely to be misled, confused, and/or disappointed by the quality of these products; and that Plaintiff may suffer loss of sales for its genuine products; and iii. There is good cause to believe that if Plaintiff proceeds on notice to Defendants on this Motion, Defendants can easily and quickly change the ownership or modify domain registration, e-commerce store, and private messaging account data and content, change payment accounts, redirect consumer traffic to other seller identification names, private messaging

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

Peleg Design Ltd. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, (S.D. Fla. 2024).

Peleg Design Ltd. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (Peleg Design Ltd. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo v. Michael Schiavo
403 F.3d 1223 (Eleventh Circuit, 2005)
Federal Trade Commission v. U.S. Oil & Gas Corporation, Eagle Oil & Gas Corporation, the Stratford Company, Gurdon Wolfson, Martin Rotberg, Harold Cooperman, Irving Sand, Milt Sand, Mike Bennett A/K/A Felix Dunbar, J. Leonard Diamond, Richard S. Wolfson, Mark Simpson, Harvey Ganz, Federal Trade Commission v. U.S. Oil & Gas Corporation, Eagle Oil & Gas Corp., the Stratford Company, J. Leonard Diamond, Richard S. Wolfson, Mark Simpson, Harvey Ganz, Gurdon Wolfson, Martin Rotberg, Harold Cooperman, Irving Sand, Milt Sand, Mike Bennett A/K/A Felix Dunbar, Federal Trade Commission v. United States Oil and Gas Corp., Gurdon Wolfson
748 F.2d 1431 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)
Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.
547 U.S. 388 (Supreme Court, 2006)