Smart Study Co. Ltd. v. Ababyking Store et al
Case Number: 1:2021cv01783
Filed: March 30, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1051 Trademark Infringement
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
December 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 67 CLERK'S DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against CLARE-TECH-ONLINE; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against CRAFPLAY; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against DISPLAY IT; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against DONGXIAO; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against ECSTATICPARTY; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against ELSANIKO; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against GLORY PARTERNER; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against HABBIPET; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. a gainst JINBAORUI; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against KANGGY; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against KOBIT DIRECT; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against KUANCHENGQUXINFAFAXIANSHENGXIA N; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against LEJIAWANG ; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against LIANQIANMAOYIY; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against PARTY WELL; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against QIYNAO; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against RONGFUCHANG; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against SHAMI; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against SUMMERDAYS; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against TIME-KILLER; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against TOYS POUCH; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against WHHOKNB; in favor of Smart Stu dy Co. LTD. against XIANHEYUANXINGONGMAOYOUXIANGO NGSI-25; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against XINGRONGSHENG; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against YAMATCH DIRECT; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against YAWDYA; in favor of Smart Study Co . LTD. against YUJIAXINGGONGSI; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against YUYOUJIA; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against ZHAO2888; in favor of Smart Study Co. LTD. against ZITADA in the amount of $2,250,000.00. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJU DGED, AND DECREED, That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated December 20, 2022, judgment is granted in favor of plaintiff on all claims properly pled against the defaulting defendants in the complaint. Plaintiff is awarded Seven ty-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) in statutory damages against each defaulting defendant pursuant to Section 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) of the Lanham Act and/or 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) of the Copyright Act, in the amount of $2,250,000.00 , as well as post-judgment interest at the statutory rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Any failure by the defaulting defendants to comply with the terms of the Order shall be deemed contempt of Court, subjecting the defaulting defendan ts to contempt remedies to be determined by the Court, including fines and seizure of property. The Court releases the Ten Thousand U.S. Dollar ($10,000.00) security bond that plaintiff submitted in connection with this action to counsel for plaintiff, Epstein Drangel, LLP, 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1250, New York, NY 10165. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the action and the parties in order to construe and enforce the Order. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 12/21/2022) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
December 20, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 66 ORDER granting 58 Motion for Default Judgment. ORDERED that judgment is granted in favor of plaintiff on all claims properly pled against the defaulting defendants in the complaint; it is further ORDERED that plaintiff is awarded Seventy-Five Th ousand Dollars ($75,000.00) in statutory damages against each defaulting defendant pursuant to Section 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) of the Lanham Act and/or 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) of the Copyright Act, as well as post-judgment interest at the stat utory rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a); it is further ORDERED that the defaulting defendants and their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert with or under the direction of the defaulting defend ants (regardless of whether located in the United States or abroad), who receive actual notice of this Order are permanently enjoined and restrained from, as further set forth herein. ORDERED that sufficient cause has been shown, the 30-day automat ic stay on enforcing plaintiff's judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a) is hereby dissolved; it is further ORDERED that the defaulting defendants may, upon proper showing and two (2) business days written notice to the Cour t and plaintiff's counsel, appear and move for dissolution or modification of the provisions of this Order concerning the restriction or restraint of the defaulting defendants' frozen assets, additional assets, or additional financial accou nts; it is further ORDERED that any failure by the defaulting defendants to comply with the terms of this Order shall be deemed contempt of Court, subjecting the defaulting defendants to contempt remedies to be determined by the Court, including fine s and seizure of property; it is further ORDERED that the Court releases the Ten Thousand U.S. Dollar ($10,000.00) security bond that plaintiff submitted in connection with this action to counsel for plaintiff, Epstein Drangel, LLP, 60 East 4 2nd Street, Suite 1250, New York, NY 10165; it is further ORDERED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction over the action and the parties in order to construe and enforce this Order. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 12/20/2022) (mml) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
April 26, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER striking 26 Motion to Dismiss. WHEREAS, on April 26, 2021, notwithstanding the provisions of the Court's Individual Practices 2(B) and in violation thereof, defendant Elsaniko filed a motion to sever and dismiss plaintiff's compl aint against it (see ECF No. 26); it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court strike from the docket ECF No. 26 and terminate the pending motion; and it is further ORDERED that, if Elsaniko wishes to file a motion to sever and dismiss the complaint, it must comply with the Court's Individual Practices. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 4/26/2021) (mml)
March 30, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 6 AMENDED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER: The injunctive relief previously granted in the TRO shall remain in place through the pendency of this litigation, and issuing this Order is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Section 34 of th e Lanham Act. Accordingly, Defendants are hereby restrained and enjoined from engaging in any of the following acts or omissions pending the final hearing and determination of this action or until further order of the Court: as set forth herein. The $10,000.00 bond posted by Plaintiff shall remain with the Court until a final disposition of this case or until this Order is terminated. This Order shall remain in effect during the pendency of this action, or until further order of the Court. Any Defendants that are subject to this Order may appear and move to dissolve or modify the Order on two (2) days' notice to Plaintiff or on shorter notice as set by the Court. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald on 3/30/2021) (ama)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Smart Study Co. Ltd. v. Ababyking Store et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?