Lindsey Adelman Studio LLC v. Lucretia Lighting PTY, LTD

Background

Lindsey Adelman Studio, LLC and Lindsey Adelman sued Lucretia Lighting PTY. LTD., Replica Lights, Replica-Lights, Delightful, Loft & Concept, Jas Industries, Ltd., The Plum Plum, Great Light Company, Vakker Lighting, MooieLight, Svetmarket, and John Does Nos. 1–55. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants manufactured, marketed, offered for sale, and sold unauthorized copies of the plaintiffs’ lighting products through websites and social-media platforms.

The plaintiffs own federally registered trademarks for “LINDSEY ADELMAN STUDIO” and “BRANCHING BUBBLE.” They also claimed rights in the Lindsey Adelman name and other lighting-design collection names. According to the opinion, the defendants used counterfeit or infringing versions of those marks and copied authentic photographs that the plaintiffs had commissioned for their business. The plaintiffs sought emergency relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the Lanham Act.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that an emergency restraining order without advance notice requires specific evidence showing that immediate, irreparable injury may occur before the opposing side can be heard. In this case, the court found that the plaintiffs were substantially likely to succeed on their claims for infringement and counterfeiting of registered and unregistered trademarks under the Lanham Act.

The court also found a risk of immediate and irreparable harm to the plaintiffs’ goodwill and a risk that consumers would be confused, misled, or disappointed by counterfeit products. It stated that the defendants had taken steps to conceal their identities and locations, creating a risk that they could transfer domain-name registrations, change website hosts, modify website content, or redirect traffic if given advance notice. The court concluded that the potential harm to the plaintiffs and the public outweighed the harm to defendants from temporarily restricting the alleged counterfeit activity.

Order

The court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause. The order prohibited the defendants, and people acting with notice of the order, from using the Lindsey Adelman marks or confusingly similar marks; selling lighting fixtures using confusingly similar names or marks; creating confusion about affiliation, sponsorship, or approval; passing off products as originating from the plaintiffs; or using listed marks and variations in online sales, advertising, metadata, or promotion.

The order also prohibited transfer of the subject domain names during the case or until further court order. It directed domain registries or registrars, within three days after receiving the order, to temporarily disable specified domains or make them inactive and non-transferable unless the plaintiffs consented in writing. Third-party service providers that received actual notice were directed to stop or disable services provided in connection with the Lindsey Adelman marks. Privacy-protection services were ordered, upon the plaintiffs’ request, to disclose registrants’ identities and contact information.

The order further directed financial institutions, payment providers, processors, and advertising-service providers that received actual notice to locate and restrain accounts connected to the defendants’ operations and to prevent transfers or withdrawals from those accounts. The temporary restraining order was to remain in effect until the preliminary-injunction hearing or a later date set by the court or agreed to by the parties. The plaintiffs were required to post a $10,000 bond by November 23, 2021. The court scheduled a telephone hearing for December 1, 2021, at which defendants or other persons with standing could challenge the order and the court would hear argument on the requested preliminary injunction.