ROLLER RABBIT LLC v. YIULANGDE CLOTHING STORE

Background

Roller Rabbit alleged that it owns a registered design trademark called the “ROLLER RABBIT Mark” and the copyright in artwork called the “Monkey Print.” According to the opinion, the trademark covers various clothing and related products, and the copyright was registered in 2007.

Roller Rabbit alleged that the defendants operated individual seller stores on Amazon under identified seller names and used those stores to advertise, offer for sale, or sell counterfeit or infringing goods. Roller Rabbit submitted web-page captures and other evidence that, according to the opinion, showed products using unauthorized copies of the ROLLER RABBIT Mark and Monkey Print. Roller Rabbit also stated that it had not authorized the defendants to make, import, use, or sell goods using those designs.

Roller Rabbit’s complaint asserted federal trademark counterfeiting and infringement, false designation of origin, common-law unfair competition and trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and violations of New York law concerning deceptive or unfair trade practices. It sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and an order restricting transfers of assets.

Legal standard

The court applied the requirements for a temporary restraining order: a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a balance of harms favoring the applicant, and consistency with the public interest. Because Roller Rabbit sought the order without first notifying the defendants, the court also applied the rule requiring specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm could occur before the defendants could be heard, along with a written explanation of efforts to provide notice and why notice should not be required.

Court’s reasoning

Based on Roller Rabbit’s complaint, motion, declarations, and exhibits, the court concluded that Roller Rabbit had a strong probability of proving at trial that consumers would be confused by goods using counterfeits or imitations of the ROLLER RABBIT Mark and Monkey Print. The court also concluded that the defendants’ products were likely copies and that the alleged infringement would likely cause immediate and irreparable injury if preliminary relief were not granted.

The court identified several reasons for immediate relief: the defendants allegedly operated Amazon stores selling products using the disputed trademark and copyright; more allegedly counterfeit products could enter the marketplace and confuse consumers; and the defendants could quickly change store information, payment accounts, or seller identities and transfer assets if they received advance notice. The court found that the potential harm to the defendants from being prevented from trading in counterfeit goods was outweighed by the potential harm to Roller Rabbit’s reputation and goodwill. It also found that the public interest favored protecting the trademark and copyright and preventing counterfeit goods from being presented as genuine products.

Order

The court stated that Roller Rabbit’s motion was “GRANTED” and entered a temporary restraining order. Until further order, the defendants and persons acting with notice were barred from manufacturing, importing, advertising, promoting, offering, selling, distributing, or transferring products using the ROLLER RABBIT Mark, the Monkey Print, or confusingly similar marks or copyrights, except for products actually made or distributed by Roller Rabbit.

The order also prohibited concealing, destroying, selling, transferring, or disposing of covered products, related evidence, or assets and financial accounts subject to the order. The defendants were required to discontinue use of the disputed designs in their Amazon listings and related search or website materials, were prohibited from transferring ownership of the identified Seller IDs, and were required to preserve relevant computer files.

After receiving notice, financial institutions, payment processors, banks, escrow services, money transmitters, and marketplace platforms—including Amazon, PayPal, Payoneer, and Stripe—were directed to identify accounts associated with the Seller IDs, restrain covered funds, divert those funds to a court holding account, and provide specified financial, sales, and defendant-identification information to Roller Rabbit’s counsel. The order allowed an affected defendant or account holder to ask the court to modify the asset restraint.

The order states that the temporary restraining order would remain in effect for 35 calendar days, until the preliminary-injunction hearing, or until a later date set by the court or agreed to by the parties. It set a preliminary-injunction hearing for October 9, 2025, at 11:45 a.m., and required Roller Rabbit to provide notice and case documents through electronic means and a specified website. Defendants were given five business days after notice to comply. The order also granted Roller Rabbit’s application for leave to file excess pages and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF Nos. 11 and 12.

Bond and drafting issues

The bond section contains an apparent inconsistency: the operative text says Roller Rabbit must post a $5,000 bond, while a nearby notation refers to $25,000 and says that a lower bond would be insufficient. The supplied text also contains bracketed placeholders and conflicting or corrupted language concerning some hearing, service, and filing details. Those apparent drafting issues are not resolved in the opinion text.