Restoration Hardware, Inc. v. Alimia Light

Background

RH US, LLC and its parent company, Restoration Hardware, Inc., sought a preliminary injunction against the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were selling knockoffs of the plaintiffs’ lighting fixtures and were using the plaintiffs’ copyrighted photographs and trademarks on websites. The plaintiffs asserted copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition under California law.

The court had previously entered a temporary restraining order and set a hearing on why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The plaintiffs notified the defendants by email and required responses by June 16, 2023. No defendant filed an opposition or other response.

Reasons for the Injunction

The court applied the four preliminary-injunction requirements: likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest.

For copyright infringement, the court found that the plaintiffs had provided copyright-registration certificates and side-by-side comparisons of the plaintiffs’ photographs and the defendants’ photographs. The court stated that the defendants appeared to be copying and publicly displaying numerous copyrighted works on their websites.

For trademark infringement, the court found that the plaintiffs had shown ownership of the RH marks, including marks identified in the complaint, through photographs of the marks in use and dates of first use. Applying the likelihood-of-confusion factors, the court found the marks distinctive, the defendants’ marks identical, and the products and marketing channels sufficiently similar. The court also found that the California unfair-competition claim was likely to succeed for the same reasons.

The court found likely irreparable harm because consumers could believe they were buying authentic RH lighting products, potentially damaging the plaintiffs’ control over their reputation and goodwill. It found that the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs because any hardship to defendants from lost profits would result from conduct the court found likely to be infringing. The court also found that the public interest favored stopping infringement where consumers were likely to be confused.

Order

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Pending resolution of the lawsuit or further court order, the defendants and persons acting with them were barred from copying, distributing, or publicly displaying the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works and from using the RH marks or confusingly similar marks in connection with lighting products.

The injunction would take effect once the defendants were served because the plaintiffs had already posted the required bond. The court ordered the listed domain names associated with noncompliant defendants’ websites to be temporarily disabled, made inactive, and made non-transferable within three days after receipt of the order. The court also ordered restrictions on transfers or withdrawals from specified PayPal accounts and required notice of compliance and an accounting of the funds, assets, and account-holder information. The plaintiffs could seek to expand the account freeze with additional evidence.

The order allowed defendants, after two business days’ written notice, to appear and seek dissolution or modification of the domain-name and asset-restriction provisions upon a proper showing. It also allowed affected third parties to seek relief from provisions requiring them to act. The plaintiffs were ordered to serve the preliminary injunction on each defendant by email and file proof of service. The order warned that violations could be considered and prosecuted as contempt of court.