Gummy Bear International, Inc. v. Soonova, LLC

Background

Gummybear International, Inc. (GBI) created the Gummibär animated character and produces related music, videos, and merchandise, including plush toys. The opinion states that GBI owns three copyright registrations covering music, sound recordings, and a motion picture, as well as a federal trademark registration for the Gummibär mark.

GBI alleged that the 62 defendants—described as online sellers, manufacturers, wholesalers, and operators of online stores or marketplace accounts—were working together to sell counterfeit plush Gummibär dolls. The dolls allegedly played a 37-second recording of the Gummy Bear Song. The opinion states that the products were offered through platforms including Amazon, Walmart, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, and MadeInChina, and that none of the defendants was authorized to use GBI’s copyrights or trademark.

GBI filed an application without notifying the defendants in advance for a temporary restraining order and related relief. It requested an order stopping sales of the alleged counterfeit products, temporarily restraining certain assets, expedited discovery of sales and financial records, alternative service of the application, and an order requiring the defendants to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue.

Court’s findings

The court found that GBI would suffer immediate and irreparable harm without emergency relief, including harm to its reputation, customer goodwill, brand recognition, and legitimate distribution efforts. It also found that consumers could be confused into believing that the counterfeit products came from or were approved by GBI.

The court found that the balance of hardships favored GBI because GBI faced continuing harm while the defendants would not suffer a legitimate hardship from being required to stop selling counterfeit products. The court also found that the public interest favored protecting consumers from deceptive counterfeit goods.

For the asset restraint, the court found good cause because the alleged copyright infringement and counterfeiting made it likely that the defendants could dissipate or hide assets overseas if they received advance notice. The court concluded that five days would give financial institutions and third-party service providers enough time to implement the order before notice to the defendants.

Order

The court granted GBI’s temporary restraining-order application. The order temporarily and preliminarily barred the defendants and people acting with them from:

- using the Gummibär mark or confusing copies of it in connection with unauthorized merchandise; - passing off or helping others pass off the alleged counterfeit products as genuine GBI products; - engaging in conduct likely to make consumers believe the products were authorized, sponsored, approved, or connected with GBI; - further infringing GBI’s mark or copyrights; - unfairly competing with GBI; and - moving, storing, distributing, selling, or disposing of unauthorized products bearing the Gummibär mark or protected by GBI’s copyrights.

The order also required defendants and persons with notice to locate and stop transfers from accounts connected with the defendants’ online storefronts. Online marketplaces, banks, payment processors, and other financial institutions with actual notice were directed to locate and restrain connected accounts and funds. The asset freeze expressly did not apply to Everymarket, Inc., IBSpot, Inc., or Haile Cozzie Soles LLC.

Third-party service providers and financial institutions with notice were ordered to provide expedited discovery within seven days, including records sufficient to identify the defendants and their associates, describe their operations and sales, and identify related financial accounts. Those entities also had to disable advertisements associated with the alleged counterfeit and infringing goods. The order required GBI to post security of $25,000.

The court permitted GBI to provide notice of the proceedings and preliminary-injunction hearing to most defendants through a secure website link sent by email or through marketplace communication systems. The opinion separately states that this alternative method did not apply to service of the summons and complaint. Any restrained defendant or third party could seek dissolution or modification of the order after giving two business days’ written notice and making an appropriate evidentiary showing.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it grants emergency, temporary, and ancillary relief while the underlying copyright and trademark claims remain unresolved. The order directs the defendants to appear and explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue; it does not enter a final judgment on those claims.