Tushbaby, Inc. v. The Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

District Court, S.D. Florida·Decided October 8, 2024·No. 1:24-cv-20941·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:24-cv-20941-LEIBOWITZ/GOODMAN

TUSHBABY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COZYONE SHOP,

Defendant.

TUSHBABY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOMCOZY MATERNITY ESSENTIAL,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PREVENTING ASSET TRANSFER, EXPEDITED DISCOVERY ORDER, AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order Preventing Asset Transfer, Expedited Discovery, and Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction (the “Application) [ECF No. 51], filed on September 27, 2024. The Court has carefully reviewed the Application and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. By the instant Application, Plaintiff Tushbaby, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), moves ex parte, for entry of a temporary restraining order against Defendants CozyOne Shop and Momcozy Maternity Essential (collectively “Defendants”), and an entry of an order restraining the financial accounts used by Defendants, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125, 17 U.S.C. § 502, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 51] is GRANTED.

I. Factual Background Plaintiff is the owner of the trade dress covered by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Registration No. 7,489,071 (“TUSHBABY Trade Dress” or “Plaintiff’s Trade Dress”) and copyright registrations covered by U.S. Copyright Office Registration Nos. VA 2-360-715, VA 2-360-714, VA 2- 360-713, VAu 1-511-350, VAu 1-511-372, and VA 2-395-564 (collectively, the “TUSHBABY Copyrights” or “Plaintiff’s Copyrights”), which are valid, and in full force and effect. See Declaration of Tamara Rant (“Rant Decl.”) ¶ 6. Defendants, through various Amazon storefronts operating under Amazon Seller Identifications AY259EXNHX4TP and A3IKW5RKYL1IYC (the “Seller IDs”), respectively, have advertised, promoted, offered for sale, or sold goods bearing and/or using what the Plaintiff has determined to be, infringements, reproductions, or colorable imitations of the TUSHBABY Copyrights and/or TUSHBABY Trade Dress. See Rant Decl. ¶¶ 10–17. Defendants are not now, nor have they ever been, authorized or licenses to use or reproduce

TUSHBABY Copyrights and/or TUSHBABY Trade Dress. See Rant Decl. ¶ 17. Plaintiff investigated the promotion and sale of products bearing infringements of Plaintiff’s Trade Dress and Copyrights by Defendants. See Rant Decl. ¶¶ 10–20. Plaintiff accessed each of the e-commerce stores operating under Defendants’ Seller IDs, initiated the ordering process for the purchase of products bearing infringements of the TUSHBABY Copyrights and/or TUSHBABY Trade Dress at issue in this action from each of the Seller IDs, and completed a checkout page requesting each product to be shipped to an address in the Southern District of Florida. See Rant Decl. ¶¶ 12. Plaintiff conducted a review and visually inspected the item, for which orders were initiated by Plaintiff’s third-party investigator via the Seller IDs, and determined the products were non-genuine, unauthorized versions of Plaintiff’s products. See Rant Decl. at ¶¶ 15–17. II. Legal Standard In order to obtain a temporary restraining order, 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 Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l. Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 985 (11th Cir. 1995) (applying the test to a preliminary injunction in a Lanham Act case). Additionally, a court may only issue a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party or its attorney if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition [and] (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Ex parte temporary restraining orders “should be restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). III. Conclusions of Law The declarations Plaintiff submitted in support of its Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order support the following conclusions of law: A. Plaintiff has a strong probability of proving at trial that consumers are likely to be confused by Defendants’ advertisement, promotion, sale, offer for sale, and/or distribution of goods bearing and/or using infringements, reproductions, or colorable imitations of TUSHBABY Copyrights and/or TUSHBABY Trade Dress, and that the products Defendants are selling and promoting for sale are copies of Plaintiff’s respective products that bear and/or use copies of TUSHBABY Copyrights and/or TUSHBABY Trade Dress. B. Because of the infringement of TUSHBABY Copyrights and/or TUSHBABY Trade Dress, Plaintiff is likely to suffer immediate and irreparable injury if a temporary restraining order is

not granted. The following specific facts, as set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Application for Temporary Restraining Order, and accompanying declarations, demonstrate that immediate and irreparable loss, damage, and injury will result to Plaintiff and to consumers before Defendants can be heard in opposition unless Plaintiff’s request for ex parte relief is granted: 1. Defendants own or control e-commerce storefronts on Amazon.com operating under their respective Seller IDs which advertise, promote, offer for sale, and sell products bearing and/or using infringing copyrights and/or trade dress in violation of Plaintiff’s respective rights; 2. There is good cause to believe that more infringing products bearing and/or using Plaintiff’s Copyrights and/or Trade Dress 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

3.

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

Tushbaby, Inc. v. The Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, (S.D. Fla. 2024).

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

Related