Supercell Oy v. Bandai Gua Gua Model Toys Store

Background

Supercell alleged that the defendants were manufacturing, importing, advertising, distributing, displaying, offering for sale, and selling counterfeit products through user accounts and merchant storefronts on Alibaba and/or AliExpress. Supercell said the products used or infringed its Brawl Stars trademarks and that the defendants were not authorized licensees or distributors. The court treated these factual allegations as true only for deciding Supercell’s request for this order.

Supercell sought several forms of emergency, ex parte relief—meaning relief requested without advance notice to the opposing parties—including a temporary restraining order, restraints on defendants’ assets and online storefronts, alternative service, an order requiring defendants to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and expedited discovery. The court found, for purposes of the application, that Supercell was likely to prevail on its Lanham Act and related common-law claims, that continued alleged infringement could cause immediate and irreparable harm, and that defendants might hide products, records, or sales proceeds if given notice before the requested restraints were imposed.

Rulings

The court extended the temporary restraining order issued in its April 2 order for 14 additional days, until April 30, 2025. The order restrained defendants from dealing in alleged counterfeit products or products bearing the Brawl Stars marks or confusingly similar marks. It also restricted operation of the defendants’ user accounts and merchant storefronts, prohibited acts likely to confuse the public about a product’s source or affiliation, and barred concealment, destruction, transfer, or disposal of relevant products, records, and evidence.

The court also restrained defendants and covered persons or entities that received actual notice from transferring, withdrawing, encumbering, or paying defendants’ assets from or to defendants’ financial accounts. Financial institutions were ordered to locate and attach defendants’ financial accounts and assets within five days after receiving service and to provide related information.

The court ordered defendants to show cause at a telephonic hearing on April 30, 2025, why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The order set deadlines for opposing and reply papers and warned that failure to appear could result in a preliminary injunction.

Alternative Service

The court analyzed service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which permits a court to authorize a method of serving process on defendants in another country when the method is reasonably calculated to provide notice and is not prohibited by an applicable international agreement. The court found that one defendant had a false or outdated address and therefore had an unknown address. For the other 42 defendants, the court found that Supercell had not shown that their addresses were unknown.

For the defendant with the false or outdated address, the court granted alternative service because the Hague Convention did not apply to that defendant. For the remaining 42 defendants, the court found sufficient urgency under Article 15 of the Hague Convention because of the alleged continuing trademark infringement and the risk of irreparable harm. The court therefore granted alternative service by electronic means for those defendants as well. The order authorized delivery of the order, summons, complaint, and supporting papers by email and through specified secure websites. It also authorized electronic service on the identified third-party service providers and financial institutions.

Expedited Discovery

The court authorized expedited discovery, meaning information-gathering before the ordinary discovery schedule. Within 14 days after receiving service, each served defendant was ordered to provide a sworn report identifying its true name and physical address, relevant websites and online accounts, sales records, financial-account details, and steps taken to comply with the restraints. Supercell was also permitted to serve interrogatories and document requests, with responses and production due within 14 days of service.

Financial institutions and third-party service providers were separately ordered to identify defendants’ accounts and storefronts within five days and to provide records within 14 days. The requested records included account-identifying information, balances, transaction information, account-opening documents, sales histories, listing histories, contact information, and information about the alleged counterfeit-product activity.

Bond and Sealing

Supercell was required to post a $5,000 security bond to cover damages that a person might be entitled to recover from an improper or wrongful restraint. The complaint, supporting exhibits, ex parte application, declarations, and order were to remain sealed until specified service-provider and financial-institution steps were completed. Supercell’s counsel was also ordered to explain why the case should remain sealed in light of the presumption of public access to judicial documents.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered the amended temporary restraining order on April 14, 2025. The application was granted as set out in the order. This was an interim procedural order; it did not finally resolve Supercell’s trademark claims or determine whether the defendants were ultimately liable.