Restoration Hardware v. Sichuan Wei Li Tian Xia Network Technology Co.
Restoration Hardware, Inc. v. Sichuan Wei Li Tian Xia Network Technology Co., Ltd
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-03054
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Restoration Hardware v. Sichuan Wei Li Tian Xia Network Technology: Judge Corley partly expanded website restrictions and denied relief against Verisign without prejudice.
The order directly affected the plaintiffs; the defendants; GoDaddy, LLC; eName Technology Co. Ltd.; and Verisign, Inc. GoDaddy and eName were ordered to disable the two domain names, while the motion was denied without prejudice as to Verisign. The order also made the case filings public.
What happened
In Restoration Hardware, Inc. v. Sichuan Wei Li Tian Xia Network Technology Co., Ltd., the plaintiffs asked the court to expand earlier orders blocking defendants from using copyrighted works and trademarks and locking the domain name “rainandlight.com.”
The court found that defendants had registered “rainandlights.com,” redirected traffic to it, and continued displaying the plaintiffs’ marks and copyrighted photographs. It granted the request concerning GoDaddy, LLC and eName Technology Co. Ltd., ordering them to disable both domain names while the case continued or until further court order. It denied the request concerning Verisign, Inc. without prejudice.
Judge Corley also lifted the seal on the case and all earlier filings, after the plaintiffs agreed that the materials should be public. The court therefore granted in part and denied in part the motion to expand relief.
The detailed version
- Restoration Hardware v. Sichuan Wei Li Tian Xia Network Technology Co. · No. 3:22-cv-03054
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Sept. 16, 2022
Background
The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the defendants from using the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works and trademarks and locking the domain name “rainandlight.com.” The court later converted that order into a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary order intended to prevent harm while a case proceeds. The plaintiffs served the defendants with the complaint and the court’s orders.
Motion to Expand Relief
The plaintiffs showed that the defendants registered a new domain, “rainandlights.com,” and routed traffic from “rainandlight.com” to that site. The plaintiffs also showed that most of their marks and copyrighted photographs remained on the websites despite the court’s orders. The evidence identified GoDaddy, LLC and eName Technology Co. Ltd. as registrars for the websites.
The plaintiffs asked the court to require GoDaddy, LLC, eName Technology Co. Ltd., and Verisign, Inc. to disable both domain names while the case was pending. The court concluded that disabling the domains would help prevent further infringement. It found a relationship between GoDaddy and “rainandlight.com,” and between eName and “rainandlights.com,” but said the evidence did not clarify Verisign’s relationship with the websites.
The court therefore granted the plaintiffs’ request as to GoDaddy, LLC and eName Technology Co. Ltd. It ordered those entities to disable “rainandlight.com” and “rainandlights.com” during the case or until a further court order. The court denied the motion as to Verisign, Inc. without prejudice.
Unsealing and Disposition
The court stated that the public has a right of access to its files. Because the plaintiffs agreed that the matter and all earlier filings should be unsealed, the court lifted the seal on all filings in Case No. 22-cv-03054. Judge Corley concluded that the motion to expand relief was granted in part and denied in part, and that the order disposed of Docket No. 48.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.