Zieske v. 53wuyongquan

Background

Dorina Zieske alleged that she owns registered copyrights in certain artworks. The opinion describes her as a Canada-based, self-taught artist who creates custom murals and decorative finishes and sells products through her website. She alleged that defendants used online marketplace stores operating under identified seller names to advertise, offer, and sell products bearing unauthorized copies or derivatives of her copyrighted works. The opinion states that the works were never assigned or licensed to defendants.

Zieske filed the copyright-infringement and piracy complaint on October 9, 2025. On October 22, 2025, she filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and an order restricting transfers of assets. An ex parte request is one made without advance notice to the opposing side. The court considered the complaint, the application, declarations, and supporting exhibits.

Legal standard

For a temporary restraining order, the court applied four factors: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury without relief, whether the threatened injury outweighs harm to the opposing party, and the public interest. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, emergency relief without notice also requires specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm will occur before the opposing party can be heard, along with a written certification concerning notice efforts and why notice should not be required.

Court’s reasoning

The court concluded that Zieske had a strong probability of proving at trial that defendants advertised, promoted, offered, sold, or distributed goods bearing unauthorized reproductions or derivatives of her copyrighted works. The court found that continued infringement could cause immediate and irreparable harm to Zieske and consumers, including lost sales, harm to reputation and goodwill, and consumer confusion or disappointment about product quality.

The court also found good cause to believe that advance notice could allow defendants to change seller-account information, payment accounts, or online content, redirect customers, or transfer assets, making meaningful relief more difficult. It determined that the potential harm to defendants from restricting allegedly counterfeit or infringing goods was outweighed by the potential harm to Zieske, and that the public interest favored protecting intellectual-property rights and consumers.

Order

The court granted the motion and entered a temporary restraining order. Until further order, the defendants and covered persons who received notice were restrained from manufacturing, importing, advertising, promoting, offering for sale, selling, distributing, or transferring products bearing or using Zieske’s copyrights or substantially similar works, except for products actually manufactured or distributed by Zieske. They were also barred from copying, displaying, distributing, or creating derivative works of those copyrights.

The order required defendants to stop using the copyrights or substantially similar works in specified online marketplace listings, webpages, advertising links, search-engine databases or caches, and other online uses connected to their stores. It prohibited transfer of ownership of the seller identifiers during the case, required preservation and retrieval of related computer files, and restricted transfers of funds in accounts associated with the identified seller stores and related accounts.

After receiving notice, financial institutions, payment processors, banks, escrow services, money transmitters, and marketplace platforms were directed to identify covered accounts, restrain and divert specified funds to a court holding account, and provide information about restrained funds, transactions, sales, and defendants’ identities and contact information. The order allowed an affected defendant or account holder to ask the court to modify the asset restraint.

Duration, bond, and further proceedings

The temporary restraining order was set to remain in effect for 14 days from the order’s date, unless the court set a later date or the parties stipulated to one. Zieske was required to post a $5,000 bond to cover damages defendants might be entitled to receive for a wrongful injunction or restraint; the court stated that it could increase the bond in its discretion. The order also contemplated a hearing at which defendants or other affected persons could challenge the order and the court could consider Zieske’s request for a preliminary injunction. The opinion text supplied here contains unreadable or blank portions concerning the hearing date and certain filing deadlines.