SPIN MASTER LTD. v. TC TOY CITY STORE
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-00890
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Spin Master Ltd. v. TC Toy City Store, Judge Torres ordered the plaintiff to explain how it will proceed after a preliminary injunction.
Spin Master Ltd. must file a letter explaining how it will proceed. The 19 defendants are subject to the preliminary injunction, and any defendant whose default is pursued may be affected by the personal-jurisdiction proof requirement.
What happened
Spin Master Ltd. sued 19 defendants, including TC Toy City Store, alleging trademark infringement. The court first issued a temporary restraining order, later extended it, and Spin Master served the defendants with the case papers.
The defendants did not appear at the February 23, 2022 hearing about a preliminary injunction. The court then issued a preliminary injunction against them.
The September 8, 2022 order required Spin Master to tell the court by September 15 how it planned to proceed. Judge Analisa Torres reminded Spin Master that any request for a default judgment must include proof that the court has personal jurisdiction over each defendant and each claim.
The detailed version
- SPIN MASTER LTD. v. TC TOY CITY STORE · No. 1:22-cv-00890
- Analisa Torres
- Sept. 8, 2022
Background
Spin Master Ltd. filed a complaint against 19 defendants on February 2, 2022. The opinion states that Spin Master alleged the defendants were engaging in conduct infringing its trademark.
On February 4, 2022, the court granted Spin Master's request for a temporary restraining order, which barred the defendants from continuing the alleged conduct. Judge Sidney H. Stein extended that order on February 7, 2022. Spin Master served each defendant with the summons, complaint, temporary restraining order, supporting papers, and an order changing the briefing schedule on February 18, 2022.
Preliminary Injunction Proceedings
The court held a hearing on February 23, 2022, concerning whether a preliminary injunction should issue. The defendants did not appear. The court issued a preliminary injunction.
Order
The court ordered Spin Master to file a letter by September 15, 2022, explaining how it planned to proceed. The court reminded Spin Master that, if it intended to seek a default judgment—a judgment based on a defendant's failure to participate—it had to provide proof of personal jurisdiction for each claim and each defendant who was in default. Judge Analisa Torres entered the order on September 8, 2022.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it directs the plaintiff's next filing and addresses requirements for a possible default-judgment request; the order does not decide the ultimate trademark claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.