Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled June 30, 2022

HTT Group LLC v. Individuals

Full caption

HTT Group LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unicorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:22-cv-04206
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Intellectual PropertyPreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In HTT Group v. Individuals, Judge Liman granted injunction-related applications but limited relief to listings and sales of counterfeit products.

Who this affects

HTT Group, the defendants identified on Schedule A, and the online storefronts whose services to the defendants are subject to the limited restraint.

What happened

In HTT Group, LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unicorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint, HTT Group asked the court for emergency and preliminary injunctive relief concerning alleged counterfeit products.

The court granted HTT Group’s applications, but modified the requested relief. The online storefronts could be restrained from providing services to the defendants only as related to infringing listings and the offering for sale or sale of counterfeit products. The court said HTT Group could renew its broader request, but the current application did not support that relief.

Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that an injunction must target specific legal violations and must not unnecessarily burden lawful activity. The court entered the order on June 30, 2022.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
HTT Group LLC v. Individuals · No. 1:22-cv-04206
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
June 30, 2022

Background

The court stated that, as described in accompanying orders, it had considered and granted HTT Group’s applications for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The opinion addresses the scope of the requested relief concerning the defendants’ online storefronts and alleged infringing listings and counterfeit products.

Ruling

The court modified the requested relief. The restraint on the online storefronts providing services to the defendants applies only insofar as those services relate to the defendants’ infringing listings and their offering for sale or sale of counterfeit products.

The court explained that injunctive relief must be narrowly tailored to specific legal violations and must not impose unnecessary burdens on lawful activity. It stated that the current application did not support the broader request to prevent the online storefronts from providing the defendants with all services during the litigation. The modification was without prejudice to HTT Group’s renewing the original request.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman entered the order granting HTT Group’s applications with the described limitation on the requested relief. The opinion does not provide further details about the underlying alleged infringement or the identities of the defendants listed on Schedule A.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.