DKH Retail Limited v. 2814218764 et al
| 1:2022cv07848 |
| October 6, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1051 Trademark Infringement |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
44
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Earlier today, the Court entered a Final Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction Order. ECF No. 43. The Court largely adopted the order proposed by Plaintiff DKH Retail Ltd. ("DKH"), with one notable exc eption: The Court declined to adopt DHK's proposal for a full shut-down of the Defendant storefronts. The Court will now explain its reasons for doing so. For these reasons, the Court largely adopted DKH's proposed default judgment and permanent injunction but struck the full shut-down order as overbroad. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/12/23) (yv)
|
|
Filing
17
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER, The injunctive relief previously granted in the TRO shall remain in place as to all Defendants through the pendency of this litigation, and issuing this Order is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Section 34 of the Lanham Act. a) 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: i. manufacturing, importing, exporting, advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, displaying, offering for sale, selling and/or otherwise dealing in Counterfeit Products or any other products bearing the Superdry Marks and/or marks that are con fusingly similar to, identical to and constitute a counterfeiting or infringement of the Superdry Marks; ii. directly or indirectly infringing in any manner Plaintiff's Superdry Marks; iii. using any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of Plaintiff's Superdry Marks to identify any goods or services not authorized by Plaintiff; iv. using Plaintiff's Superdry Marks and/or any other marks that are confusingly similar to the Superdry Marks on or in connection wi th Defendants' manufacturing, importing, exporting, advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, offering for sale, selling and/or otherwise dealing in Counterfeit Products and as further set forth in this Order; Accordingly, the Third P arty Service Providers and Financial Institutions 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: i. secreti ng, concealing, transferring, disposing of, withdrawing, encumbering or paying Defendants' Assets from or to Defendants' Financial Accounts until further ordered by this Court; ii. secreting, concealing, destroying, altering, selling off, transferring or otherwise disposing of and/or dealing with any computer files, data, business records, documents or any other records or evidence relating to Defendants' Assets and Defendants' Financial Accounts; and iii. knowingly inst ructing any person or business entity to engage in any of the activities referred to in subparagraphs 1(a)(i) through 1(a)(vii) and 1(b)(i) through 1(b)(ii) above and through I(c)(i) below. c) Accordingly, the Third Party Service Providers are here by 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: i. providing services to Defendants, Defendants User Accounts and De fendants' Merchant Storefronts, including, without limitation, continued operation of Defendants' User Accounts and Merchant Storefronts insofar as they are connected to the Counterfeit Products; ii. knowingly instructing any other perso n or business entity to engage in any of the activities referred to in subparagraphs 1(a)(i) through 1(a)(vii), 1(b)(i) through 1(b)(ii) and 1(c)(i) above. As sufficient cause has been shown, the asset restraint granted in the TRO shall remain in p lace through the pendency of this litigation, including that as further set forth in this Order. As sufficient cause has been shown, the expedited discovery previously granted in the TRO shall remain in place through the pendency of this litigation, including that as further set forth in this Order: Within fourteen (14) days after receiving notice of this Order, the Third Party Service Providers who receive service of this Order shall provide Plaintiff's counsel with all documents and re cords in their possession, custody or control (whether located in the U.S. or abroad), relating to any and all of Defendants' User Accounts and Defendants' Merchant Storefronts, including, but not limited to, documents and records relati ng to as further set forth in this Order: The $25,000.00 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 t his action, or until further order of the Court. Plaintiff shall, no later than sixty days from the date of this order, file a status update, which shall include any proposal regarding default judgment proceedings. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 10. SO ORDERED. Motions terminated: 10 MOTION. filed by DKH Retail Limited. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/7/22) (yv)
|
|
Filing
3
UNSEALING ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint filed on September 14, 2022, (ECF No. (and all related filings), the Proposed Temporary Restraining Order filed on September 14, 2022, (ECF No. 2) (and all related filings), the Temporary Re straining Order filed on September 23, 2022, (ECF No. 3), Plaintiffs Status Letter filed on October 5, 2022, (ECF No. 4), and the Courts Endorsement filed on October 6, 2022, (ECF No. 5), in the above- captioned case be and are unsealed. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/6/2022) (js)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: DKH Retail Limited v. 2814218764 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.
