Wright v. Nguyen

Background

Jon Q. Wright is described as a professional wildlife illustrator and the sole author of a series of original fish illustrations. JQ Licensing LLC is identified as Wright’s exclusive licensing agent and rights holder. The opinion states that Wright obtained valid and continuing registrations for the works from the United States Copyright Office.

The defendants operated commercial websites selling consumer goods. According to the court’s findings, they placed Wright’s illustrations into digital product images and arranged for physical merchandise displaying those illustrations to be produced and distributed. Side-by-side comparisons showed substantial similarity, including similarities in composition, pose, musculature, proportions, fin placement, shading, coloring, and anatomical details. The court also found that, in some instances, the defendants removed or obscured Wright’s copyright management information, including his name and copyright notice.

The defendants asserted in their opposition that the images were “independently sourced,” but submitted no declaration, sketches, drafts, or testimony supporting that assertion. The court found that the record instead showed direct appropriation. It also found that the defendants operated anonymously and could quickly create or move to new websites and accounts.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that it had subject-matter jurisdiction because the claims arose under the Copyright Act and that personal jurisdiction and venue were proper in the Southern District of New York. For a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs had to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and that an injunction would serve the public interest.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had shown a clear likelihood of success. It found that the defendants’ works were substantially similar to Wright’s protected expression, including Wright’s original selection, arrangement, and coordination of artistic elements. The court further found that removing copyright management information supported an inference of intentional copying and caused harm to Wright’s attribution, reputation, and licensing market.

The court found likely irreparable harm from lost control over the works, interference with licensing opportunities, reputational injury, and erosion of goodwill. It found that the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs because the defendants would lose only unlawful profits, while the plaintiffs faced significant business and reputational harm. The court also found that the public interest favored protecting artists’ rights and preventing consumer deception.

Order

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It converted the temporary restraining order entered on August 5, 2025, into the preliminary injunction and ordered it to remain in effect until final disposition of the action or further order of the court.

The injunction bars the defendants and persons acting with them from using, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or selling products bearing Wright’s works or infringing imitations; passing off products as authorized by the plaintiffs; removing copyright management information; and maintaining websites or online marketplace accounts used to sell the allegedly infringing products.

The order directs service providers to disable the defendants’ websites and related advertisements and to prevent the creation of new accounts. It also restrains the defendants from transferring, concealing, dissipating, or disposing of money or other assets. Financial institutions and service providers must locate and restrain identified assets, stop related services, confirm compliance, and provide available information about the defendants, their websites, and their financial accounts. The plaintiffs must maintain a $2,500 bond as security, and the court declined to require additional security at that time.