Low Tech Toy Club, LLC v. 1688 3C Electronics Direct Store

Background

Low Tech Toy Club, LLC, doing business as The Woobles, creates and distributes beginner crochet kits and related products. The court described the kits as including yarn, a crochet needle, other materials, and a card linking to a video tutorial. The company sells the products through its website and third-party retail stores. The court found that the products had generated millions of dollars in sales since their official launch in or about 2020.

The company owns federal trademark registrations for “Woobles” and “THE WOOBLES,” as well as a federal copyright registration for artwork depicting Pierre the Penguin. The court found that the defendants were manufacturing, importing, exporting, advertising, marketing, distributing, displaying, and offering for sale alleged counterfeit products through online accounts and storefronts on Alibaba and AliExpress. The defendants were not authorized distributors or licensees, and Low Tech Toy Club had not consented to their use of the company’s trademarks, artwork, or confusingly similar material.

Court’s preliminary findings

The court found that Low Tech Toy Club was likely to prevail at trial on claims under the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute; the Copyright Act; and related common-law claims. The court also found that the company and consumers were likely to suffer immediate and irreparable harm before the defendants could be heard. The identified risks included consumer confusion and disappointment, damage to the company’s reputation and goodwill, lost sales, and continued appearance of alleged counterfeit products in the marketplace.

The court further found that the defendants might conceal or destroy alleged counterfeit products, records, and evidence; transfer or hide proceeds; or open new accounts and storefronts if they received advance notice. It concluded that the potential harm to the defendants from being prevented from continuing the alleged activities was outweighed by the potential harm to Low Tech Toy Club and the public. The court also found that the public interest favored protecting consumers from being misled by allegedly substandard products presented as Woobles products.

Orders issued

The court granted Low Tech Toy Club’s application. It entered a temporary restraining order, which is short-term emergency relief, for 14 days from the date of the order and any further period permitted by court order. The order prohibited the defendants from manufacturing, selling, distributing, or otherwise dealing in alleged counterfeit products; operating the relevant user accounts and merchant storefronts in violation of the order; infringing the Woobles trademarks or artwork; using confusingly similar marks or artwork; engaging in conduct likely to cause confusion or deception; hiding or disposing of products, proceeds, records, or evidence; creating new entities or accounts to evade the order; and knowingly directing others to engage in those activities.

The order also restrained the defendants and covered persons who received actual notice from transferring, withdrawing, encumbering, or paying assets from the defendants’ financial accounts. Third-party service providers that received the order were directed to stop the covered storefronts from operating in violation of the order and not to assist in the prohibited conduct. Financial institutions were ordered, within five days after service, to locate and attach the defendants’ financial accounts or assets and confirm that action to Low Tech Toy Club’s counsel.

Hearing and service

The court ordered the defendants to show cause at a telephonic hearing on June 13, 2025, why a preliminary injunction should not issue. It set deadlines for opposing papers and a reply. The order warned that failure to appear could result in a preliminary injunction that might take effect immediately after the temporary restraining order expired and could continue during the litigation. The opinion does not state whether that later hearing occurred or whether a preliminary injunction was ultimately entered.

The court authorized alternative service by electronic means under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and the relevant international-service rules. The authorized methods included sending the order, summons, complaint, and supporting materials by email and providing access through secure websites. The court found that the plaintiff’s investigation showed that some defendants’ addresses were unknown or that attempted mailings had failed, while other addresses were known but the situation was urgent because service through the usual international process could take more than six months or fail.

Expedited discovery, bond, and sealing

The court authorized expedited discovery, meaning discovery on a shortened schedule before the ordinary timetable. Within 14 days after receiving the order, each served defendant was required to provide information under oath about its identity, addresses, websites, online accounts, storefronts, sales of alleged counterfeit products, financial accounts, and compliance with the order. Low Tech Toy Club could also serve interrogatories and document requests, which the defendants would have to answer or satisfy within 14 days.

Financial institutions and third-party service providers were required to identify relevant accounts and storefronts and provide specified identifying, account, sales, financial, and transaction records. The court required Low Tech Toy Club to post a $5,000 security bond to cover damages that might be recoverable from an improper or wrongful restraint. It ordered the complaint, supporting materials, and the order to remain sealed until the financial institutions and third-party service providers complied with specified parts of the order.

Disposition

The court granted the application, including the temporary restraining order, asset restraints, order to show cause, alternative electronic service, expedited discovery, security-bond requirement, and sealing order. It did not make a final determination of infringement or damages, and the order to show cause was not itself a ruling that a preliminary injunction would issue.