ABC v. DEF
Case Number: 1:2021cv05860
Filed: August 3, 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
January 4, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 143 ORDER: At the January 4, 2024 conference, Plaintiff's counsel affirmatively attested on the record that Plaintiff will not serve these two defendants pursuant to the Hague Convention. Thus, no extensions of time for service of process are warr anted. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(m). Given this representation by Plaintiff's counsel, and for the reasons explained in the Court's prior order, Dkt. No. 100, adopted by reference into the Court's oral opinion delivered at the October 25, 2023 show-cause hearing, see Dkt. No. 127, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants changgeshangmaoyouxiangongsi and shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi are dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve under Rule 4(f). Plaintiff's coun sel is instructed to serve this order on Defendants and to retain proof of service. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Changgeshangmaoyouxiangongsi and Shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi terminated. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/4/2024) (rro)
December 13, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 138 ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to submit a status letter to the Court updating it on Plaintiff's proposal regarding next steps by no later than January 2, 2024. Plaintiff's counsel is instructed to serve this order on Defendants and to retain proof of service. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 12/13/2023) (rro)
November 16, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 134 FINAL PARTIAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER: is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: Judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiff on all claims properly pled against Defaulting Defendants in the Complaint, partial judgment being appropriate given that Rule 54(b)'s three-part test is satisfied, see Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor, 425 F.3d 158, 164-65 (2d Cir. 2005), including that the Court finds there is no just reason for delay; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that because it would serve both the compensatory and punitive purposes of the Lanham Act's prohibitions on willful infringement, and because Plaintiff has sufficiently set forth the basis for the statutory damages award requested in its Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Default Judgment, the Court finds such an award to be reasonable and Plaintiff is awarded Fifty Thousand Dollars($50,000.000) in statutory damages against the following forty -nine (49) Defaulting Defendants: as set forth herein. ("Defaulting Defendants' Individual Damages Award) pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) of the Lanham Act for a total of Two Million Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,450,000 .00), plus post-judgment interest. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that Defaulting Defendants,their respective officers, agents, servants, employees and all persons acting in concert with or under the direction of Defaulting Defendants ( regardless of whether located in the United States or abroad), who receive actual notice of this Order are permanently enjoined and restrained from: as set forth herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as sufficient cause has been shown, the 30 day automatic stay on enforcing Plaintiff's judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62(a) is hereby dissolved. Any failure by Defaulting Defendants to comply with the terms of this Order shall be deemed contempt of Court, subjecting Defaulting Defendants to c ontempt remedies to be determined by the Court, including fines and seizure of property; and This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the parties in order to construe and enforce this Order. SO ORDERED., Blue Vivi, Bonuswen, Citiho my, DAFA International, Dazzparty, FAming, GeGeonly, HAITing$, HAPPY PARTY-001, Haocheng-Trade, Heartland GO, Huibi-US, Joysail, Jyoker-US1, Kangxinsheng1, LADYBEETLE, LICHE Cupcake Stand, Mary Good Shop, NA-AMZ001, Nagiwart, Nuoting, QT-US, Qin gshu, SALIMHIB-US, SAM CLAYTONddg, SMSCHHX, Sensiamz Backdrop, Sujiumaisusu, Telike, Theguard, Tongmumy, Une Petite Mouette, Veterans Club, WEN MIKE, WONDERFUL MEMORIES, WOW GIFT, Xuanningshangwu, Xuiyui7i, YAMMO202, Yicheny US, Yongchunchengqingmaoyiyouxiangongsi, YooFly, Zingon US, lvyun, Acuteye-US, and Beijingkangxintangshangmaoyouxiangongsi terminated. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/16/2023) (ama)
November 9, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 130 ORDER: On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a supplemental memorandum of law, arguing for the entry of partial judgment against the forty-nine defaulting defendants, and indicating an intent "to file an interlocutory appeal on the Court� 39;s decision to deny Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment as to the Remaining Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292." Dkt. No. 129 at 5. If Plaintiff wishes for the Court to enter partial judgment against the forty-nine default ing defendants, Plaintiff should file a proposed order of partial judgment on which the Court can act. The Court will hold a status conference with respect to this matter by telephone on November 16, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. The parties are directed to th e Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, which are available on the Court's website. Rule 2 of the Court's Individual Rules contains the dial-in number for the conference and other relevant instructions. The parties are specifically directed to comply with Rule 2(C) of the Court's Individual Rules. Plaintiff's counsel is instructed to serve this order on Defendants and retain proof of service. SO ORDERED. ( Telephone Conference set for 11/16/2023 at 02:00 PM before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/9/2023) (vfr)
September 25, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 125 ORDER granting 124 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application granted. Plaintiff's application to adjourn the order to show cause hearing is granted. The order to show cause hearing is adjourned to October 25, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. Plai ntiff is directed to serve this order on Defendants and to file proof of service. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 124. Show Cause Hearing set for 10/25/2023 at 02:00 PM before Judge Gregory H. Woods. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/25/2023) (rro)
July 18, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 111 ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's response to the Court's order to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed. Dkt. No. 110. The Court finds that Plaintiff's response provides a sufficient basis for the Court to not dismiss this case at this time. Plaintiff is directed to submit a proposal concerning next steps in this action no later than July 25, 2023. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/18/2023) (rro)
August 19, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 103 ORDER: On August 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of interlocutory appeal in this case. Dkt. No. 102. The issues involve substantial concerns regarding the treaty obligations of the United States and the People's Republic of China. As a re sult, the Court stays this action pending resolution by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As explained in the Court's July 21, 2022 opinion, Dkt. No. 100, the lack of adversarial briefing regarding the propriety of email service on defendants located in Chinathe issue central to the resolution of this casecan present a significant obstacle to a court's analysis. In its own evaluation of that issue, this Court benefited from the disinterested legal advice of a legal scholar. The appointment of amicus counsel might also serve a valuable role in informing further analysis of the issues, given the lack of an adversary in this matter, as might the viewpoints of the state actors whose treaties and laws are at issue here. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 8/19/2022) (ks)
August 17, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 101 ORDER: Accordingly, no later than September 1, 2022, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed. Should Plaintiff choose to submit a brief in support of its response to this order to show cause, that brief should not exceed ten double-spaced pages without prior leave of the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 8/17/2022) (ks)
July 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 100 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: It does not escape the Court that many requests by plaintiffs to serve a defendant in China by email are unopposed, as was the case here and in Sulzer. Indeed, Plaintiff's counsel's firm has filed approxim ately forty such requests in this district in 2022 alone, the majority of which appear to be wholly unopposed. See, e.g., Kelly Toys Holdings, Llc V. Children 777 Store et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-1857, Dkt No. 17 at 1719 (requesting to serve defend ants in China by email); The Pinkfong Company Inc. v. 7 Day Store et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-4133, Dkt. No. 17 at 1719 (same, using identical language); Mattel Inc. v. Agogo Store et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-2388, Dkt. No. 11 at 1719 (same, again using identical language). Thus, courts are unlikely to be alerted to authority that casts doubt on the propriety of their request for email service. In this case, it was not until YLILLY's reply brief shed light on the issue that the Court had an y notice that email service might not be permissible on defendants located in China. The Court acknowledges that the inability to serve defendants in China by email could present obstacles to bringing copyright and trademark enforcement actions ag ainst defendants who operate online storefronts from that country. The Court understands that service via the procedures outlined in the Hague Convention can be lengthy, and that there is little ability to monitor the progress of a request for ser vice to the Ministry of Justice. See In re Bibox Grp. Holdings Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 20CV2807(DLC), 2020 WL 4586819, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2020) commenting that service through the procedures in the Hague Convention poses the risk of significa nt delay and that plaintiffs would be unable to check the status of their request). Moreover, the Court agrees that the goal of prosecuting copyright and trademark infringement abroad is a noble one. However, the Court may not ignore the text of R ule 4(f), the Hague Convention, and Chinese law in order to make service more efficient for Plaintiff. Nor may the Court ignore the implications of the Supreme Court's decisions in Water Splash and Schlunk. Rather, the Court is bound to those precedential and textual strictures. Indeed, [t]hose rules are mandatory, and... 'the systemic comity interests embodied in the Service Convention' shouldn't be sacrificed in the name of 'concrete case management concerns.' ; See Facebook, 480 F. Supp. 3d at 987 (quoting Maggie Gardner, Parochial Procedure, 69 Stan. L. Rev. 941, 1000 (2017) (footnote omitted)). For the reasons stated, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is denied. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/21/2022) (rro)
June 8, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 95 ORDER: Any response by Plaintiff to the June 7, 2022 Brief of Amici Curiae, Dkt. No. 94, is due no later than June 20, 2022. ( Responses to Brief due by 6/20/2022) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/8/2022) (rro)
March 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 81 ORDER: On March 1, 2022, the Court wrote Professor Benjamin L. Liebman, the Director of the Hong Yen Chang Center for Chinese Legal Studies at Columbia Law School, seeking his assistance to obtain disinterested legal advice regarding whether a fo reign plaintiff may, under relevant Chinese law, properly serve via email a defendant located in the People's Republic of China. The Court will share any advice provided to the Court with Plaintiff and will afford Plaintiff time to respond to that advice. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/4/2022) (rro)
January 1, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 66 ORDER: Nabeela M. Hanif is granted leave to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate Nabeela M. Hanif from the list of active counsel in this case. Attorney Nabeela Malika Hanif terminated. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/1/20222) (rro)
December 13, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER: Plaintiff's amended request to adjourn the oral argument currently scheduled for December 16, 2021 (the "Request"), Dkt. No. 55, is granted. The oral argument is adjourned to December 21, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The parties are dire cted to the Court's Emergency Rules in Light of COVID-19, which are available on the Court's website, for the dial-in number and other relevant instructions. The parties are specifically directed to comply with Rule 2(C) of the Court's Emergency Rules. As stated in the Court's December 3, 2021 order, the oral argument will be conducted in English, and the parties and/or their counsel will be required to participate in English. Defendants Youli and Teng are reminded that th ey may retain the services of a lawyer admitted in the Southern District of New York to represent them in this matter and participate in oral argument on their behalf. If Defendant Youli or Defendant Teng wishes participate in oral argument withou t representation, they may use the services of an interpreter. Should they choose to do so, they should contact the Southern District of New York's Interpreter's Office at 212-805-0084 to obtain a list of qualified interpreters that can be retained for the oral argument. Defendants Youli and Teng will bear the cost of interpretation services. If Defendant Youli or Defendant Teng decides to retain an interpreter, they should inform the Court of that decision by letter no later than December 16, 2021. That letter should include the name and phone number of the interpreter they have retained. The Court understands that Ms. Danielle S. Futterman plans to argue for Plaintiff at the oral argument. The Court requests that Mr. Jas on Drangel or Ms. Ashly Sands attend the oral argument. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order on all Defendants. ( Telephone Conference set for 12/21/2021 at 09:00 AM before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 12/13/2021) (rro)
December 3, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER: The Court will hold oral argument on Defendant Xie Youli's (d/b/a YLILILY) motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 24, and Defendant Li Teng's (d/b/a TOPIVOT) motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, Dkt. No. 23, on December 16, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The oral argument will be conducted via teleconference. The parties are directed to the Court's Emergency Rules in Light of COVID-19, which are available on the Court's website, for the dial-in number and other relevant instruc tions. The parties are specifically directed to comply with Rule 2(C) of the Court's Emergency Rules. The oral argument will be conducted in English, and the parties and/or their counsel will be required to participate in English. Defendants Yo uli and Teng are reminded that they may retain the services of a lawyer admitted in the Southern District of New York to represent them in this matter and participate in oral argument on their behalf. If Defendant Youli or Defendant Teng wish part icipate in oral argument without representation, they may use the services of an interpreter. Should they choose to do so, they are directed to contact the Southern District of New York's Interpreter's Office at 212-805-0084 to obtain a list of qualified interpreters that can be retained for the oral argument. Defendants Youli and Teng will bear the cost of interpretation services. If Defendant Youli or Defendant Teng decides to retain an interpreter, they should inform the Court of that decision by letter no later than December 13, 2021. That letter should include the name and phone number of the interpreter they have retained. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order on all Defendants no later than December 6, 2021. (Telephone Conference set for 12/16/2021 at 09:00 AM before Judge Gregory H. Woods.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 12/3/2021) (rro)
November 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 48 ORDER: On November 22, 2021, the Court held a conference to discuss the means by which this matter will proceed. As discussed during that conference, Plaintiff's anticipated order to show cause as to why a default judgment should not be entered in this case should be filed no later than December 27, 2021. Plaintiff is ordered to serve a copy of this order on Defendants. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/22/2021) (rro)
November 19, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 46 ORDER: On November 15, 2021, the Court entered an order granting Defendant Topivot's request for an extension of time to file a reply to Plaintiff's opposition, and ordering Defendant Topivot to inform the Court whether it was organized as a corporate entity. Dkt. No. 38. Plaintiff is ordered to serve a copy of that November 15, 2021 order, as well as this order, on Defendant Topivot. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 11/19/2021) (rro)
October 5, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER: The Court has received Xie Youli o/b/o YLILILY's motion to dismiss, see Dkt. Nos. 24, 25; and Defendant Li Teng d/b/a TOPIVOT's motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, see Dkt. Nos. 23, 26. Plaintiff is directed respond to these filings no later than October 25, 2021. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order on the defendants. SO ORDERED.( Responses due by 10/25/2021) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 10/5/2021) (rro)
August 3, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER. Pursuant to the Courts July 9, 2021 order, this case was unsealed as of July 23, 2021. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal this case without delay.SO ORDERED.(Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 07/30/2021)(jus)
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: ABC v. DEF
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?