ALLSTAR MARKETING GROUP, LLC v. AFACAI
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-08406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Allstar Marketing Group v. Afacai, Judge Cronan extended a temporary restraining order, paused two Wish obligations, and scheduled a conference.
Allstar Marketing Group, LLC, the defendants, and ContextLogic d/b/a Wish were affected. The order required the parties and Wish to attend a conference, set deadlines for Allstar, extended the temporary restraining order, stayed two Wish obligations, directed service of case materials, and ordered the case unsealed.
What happened
ALLSTAR MARKETING GROUP, LLC v. AFACAI concerns a temporary restraining order issued earlier in the case and Wish’s request to join the case and change that order. The court scheduled a telephone conference for October 28, 2020, to discuss those requests and plan a preliminary-injunction hearing.
The court extended the temporary restraining order until October 28, but paused two obligations imposed on Wish while the court considers Wish’s requests. It also set deadlines for Allstar to oppose those requests, directed Allstar to send specified case materials to the defendants, and ordered the case and earlier filings unsealed.
Judge John P. Cronan also asked Wish and Allstar to be prepared to address Wish’s product-removal process, alleged infringing listings, sales calculations, and the possible scope of relief under the federal rule governing injunctions.
The detailed version
- ALLSTAR MARKETING GROUP, LLC v. AFACAI · No. 1:20-cv-08406
- John Cronan
- Oct. 26, 2020
Background
The order concerns a temporary restraining order previously issued by Judge Paul A. Crotty on October 9, 2020. ContextLogic d/b/a Wish filed a motion to intervene, meaning to join the case, and a motion to modify the temporary restraining order. The court scheduled a telephone conference for October 28, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss those motions and expected to set a date for a preliminary-injunction hearing.
Deadlines and Temporary Restraining Order
The court directed Allstar to file any written opposition to Wish’s motion to intervene by the close of business on October 27, 2020. Any written opposition to Wish’s motion to modify the temporary restraining order was due by 10:00 a.m. on October 28, 2020.
The court extended the temporary restraining order until October 28, 2020. It stayed, pending further court order, Wish’s obligations under section I(C) and section V(E)(1)(d). Section I(C) required Wish to stop providing services to the defendants, their user accounts, and their merchant storefronts, and to stop instructing, aiding, or abetting that conduct. Section V(E)(1)(d) required Wish to provide documents and records relating to the defendants’ alleged manufacture, import, export, advertising, marketing, promotion, distribution, display, offering for sale, or sale of allegedly infringing products or products bearing specified marks or artwork.
Matters for the Conference
The court asked Wish, to the extent feasible, to be prepared to explain how it reviews product-removal requests alleging intellectual-property infringement; how long that process usually takes; whether it had removed products for any named vendor defendants; the number of such requests and removals for individual defendants; and how it calculated the defendants’ sales of products that Allstar identified as infringing.
The court asked Allstar to be prepared to address whether it had identified allegedly infringing product listings to Wish before filing suit, how Wish responded, decisions in Tiffany v. Ebay concerning injunctions against Wish and the identification of infringing products, and why narrower relief against Wish could not be granted under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Other Directives and Disposition
The court directed Allstar, if it had not already done so, to electronically serve all defendants with the order and the listed case materials by the close of business on October 26, 2020. The Clerk was directed to unseal the case and all documents and orders previously filed in it.
This order scheduled proceedings, set filing and service requirements, extended the temporary restraining order with specified exceptions, and stayed two Wish obligations. It did not state a ruling granting or denying Wish’s motions to intervene or modify the temporary restraining order, and it did not decide the underlying intellectual-property claims. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.