Mortimer v. Wukreran

Background

Junaid Mortimer sued the defendants for willful copyright infringement and piracy. The opinion describes Mortimer as an English-based artist who creates artwork featuring skeletons in surreal scenes. He stated that he owned the copyrights at issue and had registered the works with the U.S. Copyright Office. He also stated that the works had never been assigned or licensed to the defendants.

Mortimer alleged that online stores operating under seller identification names listed in the complaint advertised, offered, or sold goods bearing unauthorized copies or derivatives of his copyrighted works. His submissions included declarations, website captures, images, and other exhibits. He sought a temporary restraining order and an order restricting the defendants’ financial accounts under the Copyright Act, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, and the All Writs Act.

Court’s Analysis

For a temporary restraining order, the court required a showing of a substantial likelihood of success, likely irreparable injury without relief, a balance of harms favoring relief, and consistency with the public interest. Because Mortimer sought the order without advance notice to the defendants, the court also considered whether specific facts showed that immediate and irreparable harm could occur before the defendants could respond and whether the notice requirements were addressed.

The court concluded, based on the declarations submitted with the motion, that Mortimer had a strong probability of proving at trial that the defendants had advertised, promoted, offered, sold, or distributed goods bearing unauthorized reproductions or derivatives of his copyrighted works. The court also concluded that the alleged infringement would likely cause immediate and irreparable injury. It further found that Mortimer had good reason to believe the defendants might hide or transfer assets beyond the court’s jurisdiction unless those assets were restrained.

Order

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

The order requires the defendants to discontinue the use of Mortimer’s copyrights or substantially similar works in specified online listings, webpages, advertising links, search-engine databases, and related uses. It bars transfer of ownership of the seller identification names during the case and requires preservation and retrieval of relevant computer files.

After receiving notice, financial institutions, payment processors, banks, escrow services, money transmitters, and marketplace platforms—including Amazon.com—must identify related accounts and connected accounts, restrain the transfer of funds, divert restrained funds to a court holding account, and provide specified information about the funds, transactions, sales, and defendants’ identities and contact information. Restrained funds may not be transferred or surrendered without the court’s express authorization. A defendant or account holder may petition the court to modify the asset restraint.

Duration, Bond, and Further Proceedings

The temporary restraining order remains effective for 14 days from the order’s date, or until a later date set by the court or agreed to by the parties. Mortimer must post a $5,000 bond to cover damages to which the defendants might be entitled if the restraint is wrongful; the court may increase the bond.

Mortimer must provide notice by serving the complaint, summons, and order through specified electronic or other court-approved methods and by posting case documents on the identified website. Opposition to the requested preliminary injunction was due November 24, 2025, and Mortimer’s reply was due December 1, 2025. The court set an in-person hearing for December 4, 2025, at which the defendants or other affected persons could challenge the order and the court would hear argument on the requested preliminary injunction. Judge P. Castel warned that failure to appear could result in a preliminary injunction.