Mercis B.V. v. Individuals

Background

Mercis B.V. sought emergency relief against defendants identified on Schedule A to its complaint. It alleged that the defendants were advertising, distributing, offering for sale, and selling products that infringed U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 1-054-563 for “MIFFY.” The application relied on declarations and other filed materials.

Mercis B.V. requested four types of relief: a temporary restraining order, which is a short-term court order prohibiting specified conduct; a restraint on certain assets to preserve its right to an accounting; expedited discovery, meaning information exchange on a faster schedule; and permission to serve the defendants by email.

Court’s Findings

The court found that Mercis B.V. had shown a likelihood of success on its copyright-infringement claim. It also found that, before the defendants could respond, Mercis B.V. was likely to suffer immediate and irreparable harm unless emergency relief was granted. The court cited the risk that more allegedly infringing products would be sold, consumers would be misled or disappointed, and Mercis B.V.’s reputation and goodwill would be harmed.

The court further found that advance notice could lead the defendants to hide, transfer, destroy, or dispose of allegedly infringing products, records, and sale proceeds, or to close and replace online seller accounts. It concluded that the potential harm to Mercis B.V. outweighed the harm to defendants from being prevented from continuing the alleged activities. Those findings supported proceeding without advance notice, temporarily restraining assets, and allowing expedited discovery.

The court declined to conclude that Mercis B.V. had made sufficiently diligent efforts to locate the defendants’ physical addresses. The court said the efforts described appeared limited to electronic searches of addresses displayed on online storefronts and that more investigation was required before determining that the addresses were unknown for purposes of service under the Hague Convention.

Order

The court granted in part and denied in part Mercis B.V.’s application.

Temporary restraints. Until the return date for the application, the defendants and people acting with them who receive actual notice were temporarily prohibited from:

- manufacturing, advertising, offering for sale, selling, distributing, destroying, selling off, transferring, or disposing of the allegedly infringing products; - making, selling, reproducing, or distributing goods using the “MIFFY” intellectual property or confusingly similar goods, except genuine products made or distributed by Mercis B.V. or its authorized manufacturers and distributors; - destroying, transferring, or disposing of documents, electronically stored information, financial records, or assets related to the allegedly infringing products; - using the “MIFFY” intellectual property with any seller alias on an online marketplace; - using the “MIFFY” name or brand as metatags, webpage terms, advertising links, search-engine information, or other tools directing users to defendants’ seller aliases; and - altering, disabling, closing, or transferring ownership of seller aliases during the case or until further court order.

Asset restraint. Within five days after receiving the order, identified financial institutions, online marketplaces, and domain registrars were ordered to locate defendants’ accounts and assets, including cryptocurrency, and to locate, attach, and restrain the transfer or disposal of funds and assets until further order. The entities were also required to provide written confirmation of compliance to Mercis B.V.

Expedited discovery. Within five days after receiving the order, covered financial institutions, domain registrars, and other relevant third parties were ordered to provide available identifying and contact information, account numbers and balances, additional online accounts or marketplace websites connected to the defendants, and information about related accounts or assets. Mercis B.V. was also authorized to serve interrogatories and document requests. Defendants served with the order were required to respond under oath and produce requested documents within seven days after service.

Service. After the financial institutions, domain registrars, and other identified entities complied with the asset-restraint and discovery provisions, Mercis B.V. could provide the order, summons, complaint, and supporting papers by email or through an electronic link under the procedures specified by the court. But Mercis B.V. was also required to make further reasonably diligent efforts to locate physical addresses and serve the defendants under the Hague Convention. It had to file proof of those efforts by August 5, 2026. The court directed the Clerk to issue one summons naming the defendants collectively as identified on Schedule A.

Bond and sealing. Mercis B.V. was required to deposit $1,500 in cash, by cashier’s check, or as a surety bond as security for damages that might result from a wrongful restraint. The court ordered certain Schedule A and complaint materials, including specified exhibits, to remain sealed until the defendants’ accounts and assets were restrained. Unsealed versions were to be filed before the order expired once the relevant entities confirmed that funds were frozen and the defendants had been properly served, whichever occurred later.

Next proceeding. The court scheduled a hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction for August 19, 2026. It stated that Mercis B.V. would need to show personal jurisdiction over each defendant and that showing only that defendants sold goods through third-party platforms that ship to New York would not be enough. The order also set deadlines for opposition papers, witness affidavits, cross-examination lists, exhibits, and objections.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it grants temporary and ancillary relief, expedited discovery, asset restraints, sealing, and service instructions without finally deciding the copyright-infringement claim.