Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. www.Playboyrabbitars.app

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedNovember 13, 2021
Docket1:21-cv-08932
StatusUnknown

This text of Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. www.Playboyrabbitars.app (Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. www.Playboyrabbitars.app) 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. www.Playboyrabbitars.app, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED: __11/13/21

PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES : 21 Civ. 08932 (VM) INTERNATIONAL, INC., ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION — against — WWW.PLAYBOYRABBITARS.APP; WWW.PLAYBOYRABBIT.COM; VOZGEN- ZOLO and JOHN DOES : OWNERS/OPERATORS OF THE COUNTERFEIT WEBSITES. □ Defendants.

Plaintiff Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. (“Playboy”)! filed a complaint to stop the Defendants from counterfeiting the Playboy Marks in connection with the unauthorized sale of fake Playboy Rabbitars non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) on www.playboyrabbitars.app and www.playboyrabbit.com (the “Counterfeit Websites”). The domain URLs for the Counterfeit Websites subsume identical versions of the Playboy trademark and are almost identical to Playboy’s actual website selling authentic Rabbitar NFT’s www.playboyrabbitars.com (the “Authentic Website”). Playboy filed its complaint under: (1) the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a), 1116) (Counts I and II); and (2) trademark and unfair competition under New York common law (Count III). Simultaneously, Playboy moved under seal for emergency ex parte relief, which was granted by the Court on November 2, 2021 (“Ex Parte Order”). The Court then held a hearing

All undefined terms herein are defined as in Plaintiffs Complaint.

on November 12, 2021, regarding Playboy’s request for a preliminary injunction. Upon Playboy’s Complaint and its accompanying exhibits, the Declarations of Jennifer McCarthy, Sid Nasr, and Marcella Ballard and the exhibits thereto, and all other documents submitted in this action, the Court hereby GRANTS Playboy’s request for a preliminary injunction and confirms

the seizure order within the Ex Parte Order as follows: 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 the Defendants2 because: a. The Defendants are operating the Counterfeit Websites accessible and interactive to users in this district and within New York state; and b. Playboy’s Complaint and moving papers demonstrate that the Defendants undertook the unlawful counterfeiting scheme intentionally with knowledge that

the Counterfeit Websites would cause consumers and Playboy harm in New York as Playboy does business in New York and has done business in New York for dozens of years. See Complaint ¶¶ 10-15; Memorandum of Law in Support of Ex Parte Motion (“Memo of Law”), pp. 9-10. 3. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because:

2 The John Doe Defendants are the owner/operator of the Counterfeit Websites, which is currently unknown to Playboy, and not available through the ICANN WHOIS Database. 2 c. A substantial part of the conduct and the property at issue is located in this jurisdiction and the Complaint alleges facts to show that the 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: d. 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 II); and e. Trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of New York common law (Count III). Preliminary Injunction Factors The Court finds that Playboy has established each of the factors required for a preliminary injunction: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm; (3) the balance of hardships tips in Playboy’s favor; and (4) a preliminary injunction serves the public

interest. See 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); Bulman v. 2BKCO, Inc., 882 F. Supp. 2d 551, 557 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). Each factor is addressed below in turn. 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, and

3 Defined as the PLAYBOY® Trademarks, and RABBIT HEAD DESIGN® Trademarks, collectively, along with their common low rights, as defined in Playboy’s Complaint. 3 uses them in interstate commerce, including but not limited to, in connection with the Authentic Website (Complaint ¶¶ 30-42, Ex. 2); Declaration of Jennifer McCarthy (“McCarthy Decl.”), ¶¶ 16-28; b. Playboy has demonstrated prior use of the common-law RABBITARS Mark in

connection with NFTs (Complaint ¶¶ 36-37, Ex. 2); McCarthy Decl., ¶¶ 23-24, 27); and c. Defendants’ fraudulent scheme involves counterfeiting those exact trademarks for online retail store services, and NFT services as Playboy, thereby confusing customers including consumers in this judicial district. (Compl. ¶¶ 58-77, Ex. 5-6; McCarthy Decl. ¶¶ 29-37) (See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1125(a)); 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 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. 6452 (GBD) (GWG) 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122658 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2018). Irreparable Harm 6. Playboy also has established that it will suffer immediate, irreparable harm if this Court denies Playboy’s request for a preliminary injunction. Specifically, it has shown that it has a strong reputation and goodwill under the Playboy Marks (and other source identifiers), which was established due to Playboy’s lengthy and (until now) exclusive use of those marks in connection with Playboy’s authentic goods and services. See McCarthy Decl. ¶¶ 42-49.

4 7. The Defendants have exploited Playboy’s reputation and goodwill, using it to trick the public, and consumers into thinking that the Defendants, the Counterfeit Websites, and Defendants’ www.discord.com usernames are affiliated with, or authorized by, Playboy when they are not. See McCarthy Decl. ¶¶ 43-45; Nasr Decl. ¶¶ 20-22.

8. Playboy has shown that consumers access Defendants’ Counterfeit Websites because they think Defendants’ Counterfeit Websites are Playboy-affiliated.

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)
Bulman v. 2BKCO, Inc.
882 F. Supp. 2d 551 (S.D. New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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