Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 9, 2021
Docket1:21-cv-06419
StatusUnknown

This text of Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. (Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK : PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES : INTERNATIONAL, INC., : Civil Action No. 21 Civ. 6419 (VM) Plaintiff, : v. : FILED UNDER SEAL PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.. : Defendant. : : [PROPOSED] EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AN ASSET FREEZE, EXPEDITED DISCOVERY ORDER, ORDER GRANTING ALTERNATIVE SERVICE, AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiff Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. (“Playboy”) filed a complaint to stop the Defendants from stealing the contents of Playboy’s Website, counterfeiting the Playboy trademarks and PLAYBOY© Copyrights, forging documents and registering fraudulent entities in furtherance of their unlawful acts. Playboy filed its complaint under: (1) the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a), 1116) (Counts I and III); (2) the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 101, et seq. 502)(Count II), and (3) trademark and unfair competition under New York common law (Count IV). Playboy moved, under seal, for emergency ex parte relief in the form of: 1. A temporary restraining order, which should be granted1 if Playboy establishes: a. A likelihood of success on the merits; b. Irreparable harm without the entry of a temporary restraining order; 1See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Seijas v. Republic of Argentina, 352 Fed. App’x. 519, 521 (2d Cir. 2009). c. That the balance of hardships tips in Playboy’s favor; and d. That the public interest would be served by the entry of a temporary restraining order 2. An account and asset freeze order (seizure order), which should be granted if Playboy establishes the elements set forth in the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d);

3. An expedited discovery order; 4. An order granting alternative service by email or other electronic means; and 5. An order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted (“Ex Parte Motion”). Having reviewed Playboy’s Complaint, the Ex Parte Motion and all supporting declarations and exhibits thereto, THE COURT HEREBY FINDS THAT: Jurisdiction and Venue 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Playboy’s claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1338, and 15 U.S.C. § 1121.

2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants2 because: a. The Court will be considering matters related to Defendants’ registration of Fraudulent Entities and addresses in this district and within New York state;

2 Defined as Playboy Enterprises, Inc.; PLBY Group, Inc.; Junhan Huang, aka John Huang; Mountain Crest Acquisition Corp., Playboy Enterprises (Asia) Limited; Wong’s Capital Holding Group Limited; Playboy (China) Brand Management Center; Playboy Tobacco Group Limited; Huahua Rabbit (Xiamen) Health Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; Haihan Fashion (Shanghai) Enterprises Development Co., Ltd., Bunny Owner Group; Bunnygirl Certification Institute; Bunny Girl Foundation; Bunny Girl Union; Bunny Hunter LLC; International Model Certification Association; Playboy Enterprises International, Inc.; Pleasure International Corp.; Wong’s Bank Group; Wong’s Foundation; Wong’s International Bank; Wong’s Syndicate; World Future Leader University; World Industrial Capital Organization, Fu Manhua, Ming Cai, Lingling Zhang, and John Fu. b. The Defendants are operating the Counterfeit Websites accessible and interactive to users in this district and within New York state; and c. Playboy’s Complaint and moving papers demonstrate that Defendants undertook the unlawful counterfeiting scheme with knowledge that they would cause consumers and Playboy harm through the Counterfeit Websites accessible to

consumers in New York as Playboy does business in New York and has done business in New York for dozens of years. See Complaint ¶¶ 15-23; Brief I.S.O. Ex Parte Motion (“Brief”), pp 8-10. 3. Venue is proper in this judicial district in the Southern District of New York (see 28 U.S.C. § 1391) because: a. A substantial part of the conduct and the property at issue is located in this jurisdiction. Defendants’ have registered Fraudulent Entities with addresses located in this judicial district in furtherance of their counterfeiting scheme. b. Additionally, the Complaint alleges facts to show that Defendants are subject to

personal jurisdiction in this judicial district, and no other district appears more appropriately suited to resolve this dispute. 4. The Complaint pleads sufficient facts and states claims against Defendants for: a. Trademark counterfeiting, unfair competition, and false designation of origin, in violation of the Lanham Act, Sections 32 and 43(a) (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a) (Counts I and III); b. Copyright infringement, in violation of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.) (Count II); and c. Trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of New York common law (Count IV). Likelihood of Success on the Merits of Playboy’s Claims in the Complaint 5. Playboy is likely to succeed on the merits of these claims because Playboy has shown that:

a. It owns the registered Playboy Marks3 and associated common-law rights (Complaint ¶¶ 142-157, Ex. 4; Declaration of Jennifer McCarthy (“McCarthy Decl.”), ¶¶ 12-30. b. Defendants’ fraudulent scheme involves counterfeiting those exact trademarks for the exact online retail store services and goods as Playboy, thereby confusing customers (Compl. ¶¶ 163-94, Ex.7; McCarthy Decl. ¶¶ 12-30) (See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(a)); c. Playboy owns the registered copyrights in the PLAYBOY© Copyrights4 (Complaint ¶¶ 158-62, Ex. 5; McCarthy Decl. ¶¶ 63-67).

d. In creating the Counterfeit Websites Defendants directly copied and infringed Playboy’s copyrighted content, including but not limited to the PLAYBOY© Copyrights (Compl. ¶¶ 194-200, Ex. 8; McCarthy Decl.¶ 68-71) (See 17 U.S.C. § 106); Playboy also has established a likelihood of success on the merits of its New York common law trademark infringement and unfair competition claims because the elements of

3Defined as the PLAYBOY® Trademarks, RABBIT HEAD DESIGN® Trademarks, BUNNY STORE® Trademark, PLBY® Trademark, and PLEASURE FOR ALL® Trademarks collectively, along with their common low rights, as defined in Playboy’s Complaint. 4 Defined as U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. VA 2-144-651, and VA 2-174-035. those mirror the elements of Lanham Act trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, and Playboy is likely to succeed on the merits of its Lanham Act claims. Avon Prods. V. S.C. Johnson & Son, 984 F. Supp. 768, 800 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Marvel Enters., 220 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); Franklin v. X Gear 101, LLC, 17 Civ.

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

Related

Avon Products, Inc. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc
984 F. Supp. 768 (S.D. New York, 1997)
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc.
220 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D. New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/playboy-enterprises-international-inc-v-playboy-enterprises-inc-nysd-2021.