Overnight Blowout LLC. v. Shenzhen Kairuijia e-commerce co., ltd.

Background

Overnight Blowout LLC and Yesenia Hipolito sought emergency and preliminary relief against Shenzhen Kairuijia E-Commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/a Kayoco and the other named defendants. The plaintiffs relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 64 and 65, the Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, the Patent Act, California law, New York law, and the court’s equitable authority.

The court found that Overnight Blowout owns exclusive rights in the OVERNIGHT BLOWOUT trademark, a registered design patent covering the ornamental design for a “bendable hair rod with clasp,” and several registered copyrights. The court also found that Hipolito is a California domiciliary and holds exclusive rights to her image and likeness under California common law and California Civil Code § 3344.

The defendants operated storefronts on online marketplaces including Amazon.com, Shein.com, and TikTok.com. According to the court’s findings, they imported, advertised, offered for sale, sold, and distributed unauthorized wholesale reproductions of the plaintiffs’ hair rods. The products were designed to be substantially identical, if not completely identical, to the patented design, and the defendants used the plaintiffs’ marketing, including images of Hipolito and other influencer affiliates. The defendants were not authorized retailers and were not authorized to use the plaintiffs’ intellectual property or Hipolito’s image and likeness.

Court’s Findings

The court found that, based on the evidence presented, the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that the defendants had infringed and were continuing to infringe Overnight Blowout’s trademark, patent, and copyrights. The court also found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing false advertising and that the defendants had violated and were continuing to violate Hipolito’s right of publicity.

The court further found that continued importation, distribution, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of the accused products would cause immediate and irreparable injury. It concluded that the harm to the plaintiffs from denying relief outweighed harm to the defendants’ legitimate interests, and that the public interest favored protecting the plaintiffs’ intellectual-property interests and the public from being deceived by goods represented as genuine.

Before this order, the court had entered a temporary restraining order on July 30, 2025, and extended it on August 13 until August 27 at 5:00 p.m. After an August 26 show-cause hearing, the court converted the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction and issued this order to record its supporting findings and legal conclusions.

Injunction

The court enjoined the defendants and those acting with them from manufacturing, importing, advertising, promoting, offering to sell, selling, distributing, or transferring products that infringe the OVERNIGHT BLOWOUT trademark, the design patent, or the copyrights; violate Hipolito’s publicity rights; or falsely imply endorsement or promotion by Hipolito or another model. The order also barred passing off unauthorized products as genuine OVERNIGHT BLOWOUT products and barred conduct intended to make consumers believe that the defendants’ products were authorized, sponsored, approved, endorsed, or connected with the plaintiffs.

The defendants were required to stop using the OVERNIGHT BLOWOUT trademark, patent, copyrights, and Hipolito’s name, voice, signature, image, photograph, or likeness on internet-based e-commerce storefronts. They also had to stop creating a false impression that Hipolito or another unaffiliated model endorsed the defendants’ products.

After receiving actual notice of the preliminary injunction, the listed online marketplaces, financial institutions, payment processors, banks, escrow services, money transmitters, web hosts, registrars, and related companies were required to locate accounts connected to the defendants’ storefronts. They were required to stop transfers, withdrawals, and other reductions of money or assets in those accounts pending further court order. The order specifically included accounts with Amazon.com, Shein.com, and TikTok.com and linked financial-institution accounts that had received payments from the defendants’ storefronts.

The injunction was issued without prejudice to the defendants’ ability to seek to vacate or modify it later. The plaintiffs were ordered to serve the injunction on the defendants and the listed e-commerce platforms by email as directed in the earlier temporary restraining order.