Piechowicz v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in…

Background

Libby Piechowicz applied for a preliminary injunction against the partnerships and unincorporated associations identified in Schedule A. A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order issued before final judgment. Piechowicz sought to stop the defendants from manufacturing, importing, distributing, advertising, offering for sale, or selling allegedly infringing products bearing or using her copyrights, covered by U.S. Copyright Office Registration Nos. VA 2-368-850 and VA 2-368-862. She also sought temporary transfer of control over the defendants’ online marketplace storefronts and a temporary restraint on certain assets to preserve her right to an equitable accounting.

Court’s Findings

The court found that Piechowicz had shown a reasonable probability of success on personal jurisdiction. She alleged that each defendant had shipped an allegedly infringing product to New York and submitted evidence that the products were available for shipment to New York through Amazon. The court concluded that she had made a preliminary showing that exercising jurisdiction would comply with New York’s long-arm statute and constitutional due-process requirements.

The court also found that electronic service was proper. Piechowicz submitted evidence that her attorney tried to locate physical addresses for the defendants, including by researching the addresses listed on their Amazon storefronts and searching multiple internet search engines. The court accepted that the defendants’ true addresses were not known, including for defendants located in China.

On the copyright claims, the court found that Piechowicz was likely to prevail at trial because the defendants were using her copyrighted artworks. The court further found that the alleged misconduct was likely to cause immediate and irreparable losses, damages, and injuries. The findings included concerns that unauthorized and substandard products could harm Piechowicz’s reputation and goodwill, that consumers could be misled or disappointed, and that defendants could hide products, information, proceeds, or account information and continue operating under different seller names. The court found that the potential harm to the defendants from being stopped was outweighed by the potential harm to Piechowicz and that the public interest favored protecting her intellectual property and consumers from deception and fraud.

Ruling and Relief

The court granted Piechowicz’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the defendants on the basis of her copyright-infringement claims. Pending the application’s return date, the defendants were temporarily enjoined and restrained from using Piechowicz’s copyrights or counterfeit copies in connection with allegedly infringing products; passing off products as authorized by Piechowicz; causing consumers to believe that products were authorized, approved, sponsored, or connected with her; further infringing her copyrights or damaging her goodwill; and moving, storing, distributing, returning, or disposing of unauthorized products bearing her copyrights.

The defendants were also temporarily barred from using, transferring, selling, controlling, or owning user accounts, storefronts, domain names, or online marketplace accounts used to sell or continue selling the allegedly infringing products. They were barred from operating or hosting websites or other online presences involved in distributing, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or selling products bearing Piechowicz’s copyrights.

The order continued the temporary transfer of the defendants’ storefronts that had been imposed under an earlier temporary restraining order. E-commerce platforms and storefront operators were directed to disable user accounts involved in selling allegedly infringing products or infringing Piechowicz’s copyrights, stop displaying related advertisements, and take steps to prevent the Schedule A storefront links from appearing in search results. The earlier temporary asset restraint also remained effective. The court authorized service of the order and the summons and complaint by electronic means, and stated that the preliminary injunction would remain in effect until final judgment or further court order.