Filipova v. Gezhong

Background

Yuliya Filipova alleged that she owns copyrights in five sculptures: “Professor Roland,” “Mr Grumble,” “Harry,” “Christmas Mouse,” and “Mrs Clause.” The order states that the works are handcrafted miniature wool-animal designs and identifies five United States copyright-registration numbers. Filipova alleged that the defendants operated online seller stores under the listed seller-identification names and used unauthorized copies or derivatives of her works to advertise, offer, and sell goods through Amazon.com, eBay.com, Walmart.com, and other e-commerce platforms. She alleged that she never authorized the defendants to make, use, or sell goods using copies or derivatives of her intellectual property.

The order states that Filipova or someone acting under her supervision viewed the seller stores, added products to online shopping carts, proceeded toward checkout, captured web pages, and determined that the products were not genuine versions of her goods. She filed claims for federal copyright infringement and deceptive or unfair trade practices under New York law. The order expressly states that these allegations and the supporting materials were assumed to be true only for deciding the request for emergency relief.

Temporary Restraining Order Standard

To obtain a temporary restraining order, a party must show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable injury without relief, a balance of harms favoring relief, and that the relief serves the public interest. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the court may issue such an order without notifying the opposing party when specific facts show that immediate and irreparable harm will occur before the opposing party can be heard and the moving party’s lawyer certifies the efforts made to provide notice and why notice should not be required. An emergency order issued without prior notice is intended to preserve the existing situation and prevent irreparable harm only until a hearing can occur.

Court’s Reasoning

Based on Filipova’s complaint, motion, declarations, and exhibits, the court found a strong probability that she could prove at trial that the defendants were selling or promoting goods bearing unauthorized copies or derivatives of her works. The court also found that the alleged infringement was likely to cause immediate and irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction was not issued. The order cited the alleged ongoing online sales, the likelihood that additional allegedly infringing goods would appear, possible consumer confusion or disappointment, and possible lost sales for Filipova’s genuine products.

The court further found good cause to believe that notifying the defendants could allow them to change store-registration information or payment accounts, redirect customer traffic, or transfer seller accounts and assets, potentially preventing meaningful relief. It concluded that the potential harm to the defendants from being restrained from selling the alleged infringing goods was outweighed by potential harm to Filipova’s reputation and goodwill. The court also found that the public interest favored protecting copyright interests and consumers from allegedly misrepresented goods.

Relief Granted

The court ordered that the motion was granted and entered a temporary restraining order. Until further order, the defendants and notified persons acting with them were barred from manufacturing, importing, advertising, promoting, offering to sell, selling, distributing, or transferring products bearing or using unauthorized copies of Filipova’s works, subject to the order’s terms. They were also barred from concealing, destroying, selling, transferring, or disposing of such products, related evidence, or assets and financial accounts covered by the order.

The order required the defendants to discontinue use of the works in specified listings and related website-source-code or search-related uses associated with their Amazon seller stores. The restriction was limited to listings using the works and did not apply to the defendants’ entire e-commerce stores. The defendants could not transfer ownership of the seller-identification names during the case and had to preserve and, where necessary, retrieve computer files relating to their use.

After receiving notice, listed financial institutions, payment processors, banks, money transmitters, and marketplace platforms—including Amazon, eBay, Walmart, PayPal, Payoneer, and Stripe—were directed to identify related accounts, restrain transfers of funds, divert restrained funds to a holding account for the court’s trust, and provide specified financial, sales, and identity information to Filipova’s counsel. The order allowed an affected defendant or account holder to ask the court to modify the asset restraint.

Bond, Notice, and Hearing

Filipova was required to post a $5,000 bond to cover damages to which the defendants might be entitled if the injunction or restraint proved wrongful. The order set a preliminary-injunction hearing for October 16, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. at the federal courthouse at 500 Pearl Street in New York, New York, and stated that the defendants or other affected persons could challenge the order and ask the court to dissolve it. The order required service through specified electronic or other reasonably calculated methods, including posting case documents on the identified website. It gave defendants five business days after notice to comply.

The order was signed by Jennifer L. Rochon, United States District Judge. It granted temporary emergency relief but did not enter a final judgment on copyright infringement or the New York-law claims.