Quantum Mango v. Individuals

Background

Quantum Mango, LLC moved without advance notice for emergency relief against the defendants listed on Schedule A. It relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 64 and 65, the Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, the Patent Act, and New York law. Quantum Mango asserted rights in the DESK NEST trademark, a registered design patent for a “cat bed for desk,” and a copyrighted work.

The court found that Quantum Mango had presented evidence that the defendants were importing, advertising, offering for sale, selling, and distributing unauthorized reproductions through online storefronts on platforms including AliExpress, Alibaba, Amazon, eBay, Shein, Temu, TikTok, Walmart, and Wayfair. The court stated that Quantum Mango was likely to succeed on its trademark and copyright claims. Because of that likelihood, the court said it was unnecessary at that stage to address the patent-infringement claim.

Temporary Restraining Order

The court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the defendants, persons acting with them, and specified related parties from manufacturing, importing, advertising, promoting, offering to sell, selling, distributing, or transferring products that directly or indirectly infringe the DESK NEST trademark or copyright. The order also prohibited passing off non-genuine products as DESK NEST products and conduct likely to make consumers believe that the defendants’ products were authorized, sponsored, approved, endorsed, or connected with Quantum Mango.

The defendants were ordered to stop using the DESK NEST trademark and copyright, including on the listed online storefronts. After receiving actual notice, specified third-party providers—including financial institutions, payment processors, web hosts, registrars, and marketplace platforms—were ordered to locate accounts connected to the storefronts and stop transfers, withdrawals, or other reductions of funds in those accounts. The order required Quantum Mango to post security, but the amount is obscured in the provided text.

Basis for Emergency Relief

The court found that continued sales could cause immediate and irreparable harm, including loss of reputation, goodwill, and business opportunities. It relied on evidence that customers had asked whether stores selling the accused products were affiliated with Quantum Mango and that the defendants allegedly used Quantum Mango’s advertising materials. The court also found that the balance of hardships favored Quantum Mango and that the public interest supported protecting its intellectual-property interests and the public from being misled about the products’ source.

Expedited Discovery and Service

The court granted Quantum Mango’s motion to take expedited discovery before the parties’ usual initial conference. Third-party providers were ordered, to the extent they possessed the information, to provide details about the defendants’ identities, locations, aliases, contact information, additional accounts or storefronts, restrained funds, linked financial accounts and cards, and sales of the accused products.

The court also authorized alternative service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Quantum Mango was permitted to serve the complaint and summons by email to the defendants’ email addresses. The court concluded that email, together with notice from third-party providers, was reasonably calculated to inform the defendants of the lawsuit. The defendants were ordered to appear on October 3, 2025, to show why a preliminary injunction should not be entered. The order states that the temporary restraining order would remain effective until that hearing or a later date set by the court.

Disposition

The court entered the temporary restraining order, granted expedited discovery, and authorized service by email. This order provided preliminary relief and did not finally decide the parties’ trademark, copyright, or patent claims.