Telebrands Corp. v. Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 16, 2022
Docket1:22-cv-00904
StatusUnknown

This text of Telebrands Corp. v. Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd. (Telebrands Corp. v. Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd.) 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
Telebrands Corp. v. Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd., (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

Jason M. Drangel (JD 7204) jdrangel@ipcounselors.com Ashly E. Sands (AS 7715) asands@ipcounselors.com Kerry B. Brownlee (KB 0823) kbrownlee@ipcounselors.com Danielle S. Futterman (DY 4228) dfutterman@ipcounselors.com EPSTEIN DRANGEL LLP 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2520 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 292-5390 Facsimile: (212) 292-5391 Attorneys for Plaintiff Telebrands Corp. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TELEBRANDS CORP., CIVIL ACTION NO. Plaintiff 22-cv-00904 -LGS AMENDED v. -[-P--R--O---P--O--S--E--D---]- FINAL DEFAULT SHENZHEN YITAI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. d/b/a JUDGMENT AND KESIDA d/b/a yitai-us, PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER Defendant GLOSSARY Term Definition Docket Entry Number Plaintiff or Telebrands Corp. N/A Telebrands Defendant Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a N/A Kesida d/b/a yitai-us Amazon Amazon.com, a Seattle, Washington-based, N/A online marketplace and e-commerce platform owned by Amazon.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation, that allows manufacturers and other third-party merchants, like Defendant, to advertise, distribute, offer for sale, sell and ship their retail products, which, upon information and belief, primarily originate from China, directly to consumers worldwide and specifically to consumers residing in the U.S., including New York Epstein Drangel Epstein Drangel LLP, counsel for Plaintiff N/A Complaint Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on February 2, Dkt. 1 2022 Application Plaintiff’s ex parte application for: 1) a Dkts. 9-13 temporary restraining order; 2) an order restraining Defendant’s Merchant Storefronts (as defined infra); 3) an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue; 4) an order authorizing alternative service; and 5) an order authorizing expedited discovery, filed on February 7, 2022 Iyer Dec. Declaration of Bala Iyer in Support of Dkt. 11 Plaintiff’s Application Drangel Dec. Declaration of Jason M. Drangel in Support of Dkt. 12 Plaintiff’s Application Term Definition Docket Entry Number TRO Temporary Restraining Order entered on Dkt. 16 February 8, 2022 PI Show Cause February 23, 2022 hearing to show cause why N/A Hearing a preliminary injunction should not issue PI Order February 23, 2022 Preliminary Injunction Dkt. 19 Order, which was docketed on February 24, 2022 Authentic Ruby Plaintiff's furniture leg cover that easily fits N/A Sliders Product snuggly over virtually any size furniture leg and allows users to easily move furniture over floors to prevent scratching, which features an ultra-tight, nano-weave material attached to a plastic housing with industrial-strength adhesive

Ruby Sliders U.S. Trademark Application No. 90/879,340 N/A Application for the trade dress, depicted as «am , for goods in Class 20 Ruby Sliders The trade dress covered by the Ruby Sliders N/A Trade Dress Application, depicted as «am and defined as “a red pad on a furniture slider that contrasts with the upper portion of the furniture slider” for goods in Class 20 Plaintiff’s Website | Plaintiff's fully interactive website located at N/A www.rubysliders.com Plaintiffs Plaintiffs storefront on Amazon through N/A Storefront which it sells the Authentic Rudy Sliders Product

ii

Term Definition Docket Entry Number Infringing Defendant’s products advertised, offered for N/A Products sale and/or sold by Defendant via, at a minimum, Defendant’s Merchant Storefront (as defined infra) on Amazon, which bear, use and/or are offered for sale and/or sold in connection with the Ruby Sliders Trade Dress and/or which bear, use and/or are offered for sale and/or sold in connection with marks and/or artwork that are confusingly similar to the Ruby Sliders Trade Dress and/or which are identical or confusingly similar to the Authentic Ruby Sliders Product Infringing Trade The Ruby Sliders Trade Dress, or N/A Dress designations that are identical to, substantially indistinguishable from, or confusingly similar to the Ruby Sliders Trade Dress, used by Defendant on or in connection with the advertisement, marketing, promotion, offering for sale and/or sale of Infringing Products User Account(s) Any and all websites and any and all accounts N/A with online marketplace platforms such as Amazon, as well as any and all as yet undiscovered accounts with additional online marketplace platforms held by or associated with Defendant, and/or its officers, employees, agents, servants and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them Term Definition Docket Entry Number Merchant Any and all User Accounts, including, N/A Storefront(s) without limitation, on Amazon, through which Defendant, and/or its officers, employees, agents, servants and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them operate storefronts to manufacture, import, export, advertise, market, promote, distribute, display, offer for sale, sell and/or otherwise deal in Infringing Products, which are held by or associated with Defendant, its respective officers, employees, agents, servants and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them Third Party Online marketplace platforms, including, N/A Service Providers without limitation, those owned and operated, directly or indirectly by Amazon, as well as any and all as yet undiscovered online marketplace platforms and/or entities through which Defendant, its respective officers, employees, agents, servants and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them manufacture, import, export, advertise, market, promote, distribute, offer for sale, sell and/or otherwise deal in Infringing Products, which are hereinafter identified as a result of any order entered in this action, or otherwise Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment TBD Application for and a Permanent Injunction Against Default Judgment Defendant filed on April 5, 2022 Brownlee Aff. Affidavit of Kerry B. Brownlee in Support of TBD P laintiff’s Application for Default Judgment This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, dated March 28, 2022, and Plaintiff’s request for the entry of a final judgment and permanent injunction by default against Defendant in light of its willful trade dress infringement and unfair competition arising out of Defendant’s unauthorized and prominent use of the Infringing Trade Dress on Defendant’s Merchant Storefront on Amazon and/or on or in connection with its advertisement,

marketing, promotion, offering for sale and/or sale of Infringing Products. The Court, having considered Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law and the Affidavit of Kerry B.Brownlee in support of Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment and a Permanent Injunction Against Defendant, the Certificate of Service of the Summons and Complaint, the Certificate of the Clerk of the Court stating that no answer has been filed in the instant action, and upon all other pleadings and papers on file in this action, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: I. Defendant’s Liability --1--)- --J-u-d--g-m---e-n--t -i-s- -g--r-a-n-t-e--d- -i-n- -f-a--v-o--r- o--f- -P-l-a--in--t-i-f-f- o--n- -a--ll- -c-l-a--im---s- -p-r-o--p-e--r-ly-- -p-l-e-d-- -a-g--a-i-n-s--t -D--e--f-e-n--d-a-n--t- -in-- -t-h-e--- -C- --o-m--p--l-a- i-n-t-.- The Complaint asserts a trade dress infringement claim and an unfair competition claim under the Lanham Act, 11 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The Complaint sufficiently pleads both claims to establish liability as a matter of law. See City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 137 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[A] district court is required to determine whether the plaintiff's allegations establish the defendant's liability as a matter of law.”).

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

Related

City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC
645 F.3d 114 (Second Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Telebrands Corp. v. Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/telebrands-corp-v-shenzhen-yitai-technology-co-ltd-nysd-2022.