Bitpanda GmbH v. Bitpanda, Inc. and Does 1 through 10

Background

Bitpanda GmbH sued Bitpanda, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, alleging that the defendants were using the BITPANDA name and mark without authorization. The complaint asserted three claims: false designation of origin and unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act; unfair competition under New York common law; and misuse of a name with intent to deceive under New York General Business Law § 133.

The court found that it had subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and proper venue. It also found that the complaint stated claims against the defendants.

Findings Supporting the Temporary Restraining Order

The court found that Bitpanda was likely to succeed on all three claims. For the federal trademark claim, the court found that Bitpanda owned a distinctive and protectable BITPANDA mark; that the defendants were using, or were likely imminently to use, the mark in commerce; that the defendants’ use was likely to harm Bitpanda’s reputation, goodwill, sales, and global brand; and that the use was likely to confuse consumers. The court also found that Bitpanda was likely to show that the defendants intentionally imitated the mark in bad faith to defraud consumers.

For the New York unfair-competition claim, the court found likely consumer confusion, protectable reputation and goodwill in New York, likely harm to that reputation and goodwill, and likely bad-faith imitation. For the name-misuse claim, the court found that the defendants used Bitpanda’s name in bad faith with an intent to deceive the public.

The court further found that Bitpanda would suffer immediate, irreparable harm without temporary relief. It found that the defendants were exploiting Bitpanda’s reputation and goodwill to make consumers believe that the defendants were affiliated with, authorized by, or were Bitpanda, and that monetary damages would not adequately compensate for the resulting loss of control over Bitpanda’s reputation and goodwill. The court found that the balance of hardships favored Bitpanda and that the public interest favored an order, particularly because of the stated risk of financial scams.

Order

The court granted Bitpanda’s application for a temporary restraining order. Pending the referenced hearing or another date set by the court, the defendants and persons acting with them were temporarily restrained from operating businesses, websites, or social-media accounts that falsely appeared to originate from or be affiliated with Bitpanda; registering or using BITPANDA or confusingly similar names or marks; maintaining related registrations; making deceptive representations; passing off services as Bitpanda’s; assisting others in those activities; or destroying or failing to preserve relevant products, services, or records.

The order also temporarily restrained the defendants and persons acting with them from transferring, withdrawing, or disposing of money or other assets in accounts associated with the defendants. Banks, payment processors, and other financial institutions receiving notice were directed to locate connected accounts and temporarily restrain transfers or disposal of assets in those accounts. The defendants were ordered to cooperate with government agencies to suspend and remove from public view registrations containing BITPANDA or confusingly similar variations, and to notify consumers or third parties and take corrective measures regarding relevant offerings or interactions.

Expedited Discovery and Bond

The court granted expedited discovery. Bitpanda could serve written questions and document requests, with responses generally due within 14 days of service. The defendants were also required to provide witnesses for depositions on the timetable stated in the order. The order allowed discovery from third parties concerning the defendants’ identities and locations, related businesses and registrations, communications and records using BITPANDA, and bank, payment-processing, and other financial accounts and assets.

The defendants were required to preserve relevant documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things while the claims remained pending. The order allowed a defendant or affected third party to appear and seek dissolution or modification after two business days’ written notice to the court and Bitpanda’s counsel. Bitpanda was required to post a $2,500 bond or undertaking by December 5, 2025.

Disposition

Judge Victor Marrero granted the temporary restraining order application and allowed expedited discovery. The opinion describes provisional relief pending a hearing or another date set by the court; it does not state that the court entered a final judgment on the underlying claims.