Spin Master Ltd. v. 158

Background

Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master, Inc. filed a motion for a default judgment and permanent injunction against 55 defendants who had allegedly failed to respond. The motion alleged trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, and violations of New York law, including unfair competition and unjust enrichment.

Questions Identified by the Court

The court scheduled a conference for April 8, 2020, concerning the motion. It directed the plaintiffs to be prepared to address:

- Which claims supported the requested default judgment, including whether the plaintiffs sought judgment on the New York claims and what well-pleaded facts or evidence supported those claims. - What allegations or evidence supported the claims against each defendant, including whether a small number of alleged infringements was enough to support permanent injunctive relief. - What allegations or evidence established personal jurisdiction over each defendant. The court specifically questioned whether alleged shipments to New York involved infringing goods and whether shipments of other goods would be enough. - Whether the defendants had a relationship that supported joining them in one complaint or attributing one defendant’s conduct to another. - Whether evidence supported sales of infringing goods outside merchant storefronts on Wish.com and the assertion that the defendants likely made more sales than those identified in discovery responses from ContextLogic. - How the requested statutory damages related to the retail value of the allegedly infringed products. The court noted that the products were alleged to retail for $5.99 to $29.99, while the motion requested $50,000 from defendants who may have sold only one infringing item. - The legal basis and proper scope of the proposed permanent injunction, including provisions concerning successors and assigns, financial institutions, third-party service providers, user accounts, merchant storefronts, electronic service, asset restraints, transfer orders, and relief under Section 5222 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules. - Whether the proposed injunction was sufficiently narrow and whether the court should follow an earlier Southern District of New York decision involving 158, identified by citation as 2019 WL 3936879.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman’s order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment or permanent injunctive relief. It required the plaintiffs to address the listed issues at the scheduled conference. The opinion therefore does not state a final ruling on the motion.