Liu v. Chen

Background

Songhua Liu alleged that Longyan Chen and Shenzhenshiyixindianziyouxiangonsi sold products that infringed Liu’s copyrighted artwork. Liu moved for a temporary restraining order, or TRO, seeking to prohibit the defendants from reproducing, distributing, or selling products using the artwork. She also asked the court to order non-party Amazon.com to freeze the defendants’ seller-account funds while the case continued.

Legal standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. A preliminary injunction generally requires notice to the opposing party. A TRO may be issued without written or oral notice only if specific facts show that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the opposing party can be heard, and the applicant explains why notice should not be required.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Liu had not shown immediate and irreparable harm. Liu alleged that she learned of the defendants’ alleged infringement in July 2024 and had since experienced decreased sales and a risk to her reputation as an artist. But the court found that she had not provided specific facts showing that continued infringement, which she alleged had been occurring for months, would cause irreparable harm before the defendants could respond. She also had not alleged specific facts showing another imminent harm.

The court further found that Liu had provided no evidence of efforts to notify or serve the defendants and had not explained why notice should not be required. Her request that Amazon notify the defendants did not satisfy her obligation to attempt service.

Disposition

The court denied Liu’s motion for a temporary restraining order because the defendants had not been served and Liu failed to satisfy either requirement under Rule 65(b) for issuing a TRO without notice. The order did not decide whether the alleged copyright infringement occurred.