Lashify v. Qingdao Network Technology CoO.
Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology CoO., LTD., a/k/a Qingdao Follow the Trend Network Technology CoO., LTD. a/k/a Qingdao Mars Culture Media Co., LTD d/b/a UCOOLME and Vivicute Limited
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-04183
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Lashify v. Qingdao Network Technology, Judge Liman denied Lashify’s contempt motion without prejudice because the evidence did not clearly prove injunction violations.
Lashify’s request for contempt, sanctions, and a bond was denied without prejudice; the defendants were not held in contempt based on the evidence presented.
What happened
In Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology CoO., LTD. and Vivicute Limited, Lashify asked the court to enforce an earlier order that barred the defendants from selling products that infringed Lashify’s patents. Lashify also sought sanctions and a bond. The earlier order covered sales through the defendants’ identified website and other channels.
Lashify argued that the defendants violated the order by selling infringing products through the UCoolMe and AiryCute websites and through TikTok. It relied on purchases made by its law firm, similarities between the products and packaging, shipping from the same location, website references to UCoolMe, payment records, and business records. The defendants argued that unauthorized third parties—not the defendants—sold the products. The court found problems with some of Lashify’s evidence, including translations made with Google Translate and corporate records presented through testimony from someone who had not personally conducted the searches.
The court ruled that Lashify had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants violated the injunction, so it denied the contempt motion without prejudice. Judge Lewis J. Liman explained that the similarities, shared shipping location, and website references were not enough to establish that the defendants sold the products or owned the websites.
The detailed version
- Lashify v. Qingdao Network Technology CoO. · No. 1:25-cv-04183
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 18, 2025
Background
Lashify moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) and Local Civil Rule 55.2(b) for an order requiring Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., also known as Qingdao Follow the Trend Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Mars Culture Media Co., Ltd. doing business as UCoolMe, and Vivicute Limited to comply with an existing temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Lashify also requested sanctions for alleged violations and a bond to satisfy the amount in controversy.
On June 24, 2025, the court entered a preliminary injunction barring the defendants and persons acting with them from, among other things, making, using, selling, importing, offering for sale, advertising, or distributing products that infringed Lashify’s patents. The order defined the covered products as lash clusters and kits designed to be applied beneath natural lashes and stated that sales had to stop through all channels, including the website identified in the order as ucoolmelashes.com.
Arguments and Evidence
Lashify argued that the defendants violated the injunction by selling infringing products through alternate TikTok storefronts and through www.ucoolme.com and https://airycute.com. Lashify’s law firm purchased products from both websites. Lashify relied on the products’ similarity to products previously purchased through the defendants’ website, similar packaging, shared shipping information, references to UCoolMe in website instructions, payment receipts, and business records that Lashify said connected the websites to entities associated with Qingdao Network Technology.
The defendants did not dispute that the purchased products infringed Lashify’s patents, but they denied selling those products. They argued that unauthorized users or third parties were selling the products and that they had disputes with online imposters using the UCoolMe name. Vicky Xie, an operations specialist for Qingdao Network Technology, testified that the defendants’ official website was ucoolmelashes.com, not ucoolme.com; that Qingdao Network Technology had not authorized the other websites or third-party sellers; and that the products sold through the UCoolMe website were not its products.
Court’s Analysis
To hold a party in civil contempt, the court stated that it must have issued a clear order, find by clear and convincing evidence that the order was violated, and find that the alleged contemnor had not clearly shown an inability to comply. A willful violation was not required.
The court found that Lashify had not met the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. It ruled that the Google Translate translations of the Chinese characters on the PayPal receipts were not a substitute for certified translations. Lashify also did not present testimony from the Chinese lawyers who allegedly performed or confirmed the translations. The court further found that the corporate records were hearsay because Lashify’s witness was reporting what the Beijing lawyers had told her about their searches rather than testifying from personal knowledge.
After setting aside that evidence, the remaining evidence showed that the products looked alike, were shipped from the same location, and that one package directed customers to the defendants’ website. The court found those facts insufficient to establish that the defendants sold the products, owned the websites, or were responsible for the sales. The court also stated that the defendants’ failure to take steps to stop sales by others did not establish that the products came from the defendants. The court noted that Lashify offered no evidence about the warehouse or whether it served multiple manufacturers.
Disposition
The court concluded that Lashify had not proved that the defendants violated the preliminary injunction. The motion for contempt was DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket No. 59.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.