Crocs, Inc. v. Jinjiang HobiBear Shoes & Clothing Co., Ltd.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-00180
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Crocs v. Jinjiang HobiBear, Judge Furman denied HobiBear’s premature request for emergency and preliminary relief because it asserted no claims.
Jinjiang HobiBear Shoes & Clothing Co., Ltd.’s request for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and preliminary declaratory judgment was denied; the opinion does not decide the underlying intellectual-property claims.
What happened
Crocs, Inc. and Jibbitz, Inc. sued Jinjiang HobiBear Shoes & Clothing Co., Ltd. over intellectual-property claims. HobiBear sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a declaration that it had not infringed; the court had also ordered HobiBear to explain why its motion should not be denied because it had brought no counterclaims seeking affirmative relief.
The court explained that emergency injunctive relief requires a showing involving the merits of a claim. Because HobiBear had not asserted a claim, it could not show a likelihood of success or serious questions for litigation. The court also said that preliminary declaratory relief generally is not available under the rule governing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.
Judge Furman concluded that HobiBear’s motion was premature and denied it. The court denied HobiBear’s request for preliminary relief without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Crocs, Inc. v. Jinjiang HobiBear Shoes & Clothing Co., Ltd. · No. 1:25-cv-00180
- Jesse Furman
- May 28, 2025
Background
Crocs, Inc. and Jibbitz, Inc. brought intellectual-property claims against Jinjiang HobiBear Shoes & Clothing Co., Ltd. HobiBear had moved to dismiss the original complaint, which the plaintiffs later amended. HobiBear separately moved under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.
The court ordered HobiBear to show cause—meaning to explain—why its motion should not be denied because HobiBear had not brought any counterclaims seeking affirmative relief. The court considered the reasons in that order and the plaintiffs’ response.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are extraordinary remedies. Ordinarily, the requesting party must show irreparable harm, either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions about the merits combined with a favorable balance of hardships, and that the injunction would serve the public interest.
The court held that HobiBear’s request was premature because HobiBear had not asserted a claim. Without a claim, HobiBear could not show a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions about the merits. That defeated its requests for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
The court also rejected HobiBear’s request for a preliminary declaratory judgment of non-infringement. It stated that the weight of authority in the circuit holds that preliminary declaratory relief is unavailable under Rule 65. The court distinguished HobiBear’s cited precedent because that case involved an injunction entered after a jury trial on the merits, rather than preliminary relief.
Disposition
The court concluded that HobiBear’s motion was premature and denied it. It stated that HobiBear’s motion for preliminary relief was DENIED without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 26.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.