Cuiping Zhou v. Tchh-Dayup
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-06958
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Zhou v. Tchh-Dayup, Judge Failla granted a preliminary injunction barring alleged infringers from selling wallets that likely infringe Zhou’s patented design.
Cuiping Zhou received temporary protection for her patented wallet design. TCHH-DayUp, Innifer, SUMGOGO, NUER NEW, foliates, easygogo, Belsmi, Xiying, juntianshangmaoyouxiangongsi, and RUIMO were prohibited from dealing in the accused products or taking steps to evade the injunction. People acting with those defendants who received actual notice were also bound by the restrictions. Defendant DLseego had settled with Zhou and was not included among the defendants enjoined by the order.
What happened
In Cuiping Zhou v. Tchh-Dayup, Cuiping Zhou claimed that the defendants were selling wallets that infringed her leaf-shaped wallet design patent. The court found that Zhou owned the patent and that the defendants had not been authorized to distribute it.
The court found that Zhou was likely to succeed on her patent-infringement claim and would suffer immediate, irreparable harm without an injunction, including lost revenue, market share, reputation, and marketing opportunities. It also found that the balance of harms and the public interest favored protecting Zhou and the public from allegedly inferior and infringing products.
The court granted Zhou’s application for a preliminary injunction. Judge Katherine Polk Failla barred the listed defendants and people acting with them who receive notice from making, selling, advertising, distributing, or otherwise dealing in the accused wallets, concealing or transferring related products and records, or helping others evade the order. Defendant DLseego had settled with Zhou, and the remaining defendants had not opposed the motion or appeared at the hearing.
The detailed version
- Cuiping Zhou v. Tchh-Dayup · No. 1:22-cv-06958
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 17, 2022
Background
Cuiping Zhou and her relatives developed, marketed, sold, licensed, and distributed wallets under the “UTO” brand. Zhou owned a leaf-shaped wallet design patent, U.S. Patent No. 927,179 S, which disclosed a wallet-opening design with a leaf shape. She began selling the patented wallet through an authorized Amazon seller account in 2018.
The opinion found that, beginning in July 2019, the defendants manufactured, imported, exported, advertised, marketed, promoted, distributed, displayed, and offered through Amazon storefronts wallets that infringed the patent. The defendants were not authorized distributors or licensees. The court also found personal jurisdiction over the defendants under New York law because they operated Amazon storefronts through which customers in New York had purchased the accused products.
Findings supporting preliminary relief
A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order issued before the final determination of the action. The court found that Zhou had shown a likelihood of success on her patent-infringement claim because the accused products and the patented design were “substantially the same”: an ordinary observer familiar with prior designs would be deceived into believing that the accused product was the same as the patented design.
The court further found that Zhou was likely to suffer immediate and irreparable losses before the defendants could be heard in opposition unless an injunction issued. The identified harms included unrecoverable lost revenue, loss of market share, price erosion, harm to reputation, and loss of significant marketing opportunities. The court found that these potential harms outweighed the harm to defendants from being prevented from profiting from the infringing activities, and that the public interest favored protecting Zhou’s patent rights and the public from being deceived by sales of inferior and infringing products.
Prior temporary order and defendants’ participation
The court had issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants on October 14, 2022, making the same findings. The court ordered opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion by November 3, 2022, and set a hearing for November 17, 2022. Zhou served the complaint, temporary restraining order, and supporting papers electronically on November 2, 2022, using a method authorized by the temporary restraining order.
The opinion states that the defendants did not oppose the motion by the deadline, did not appear at the November 17 hearing or earlier hearing dates, and gave the court no basis to remove the restraints. It also states that Defendant DLseego settled with Zhou.
Order
The court granted Zhou’s application for a preliminary injunction against TCHH-DayUp, Innifer, SUMGOGO, NUER NEW, foliates, easygogo, Belsmi, Xiying, juntianshangmaoyouxiangongsi, and RUIMO. Pending the action’s determination or further court order, those defendants were restrained and enjoined from manufacturing, importing, exporting, advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, displaying, offering for sale, selling, or otherwise dealing in the accused products.
The order also prohibited concealing, destroying, altering, selling, transferring, or otherwise disposing of the accused products and related records; creating or using new entities, platforms, user accounts, or storefronts to evade the order; and knowingly instructing, aiding, or abetting others in those activities. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the same restrictions applied to people acting in active concert or participation with the listed defendants who received actual notice of the order. The court ordered electronic service of the injunction on all defendants within five days and directed service on Amazon.com by Federal Express and email. The order was signed by United States District Judge Katherine Polk Failla.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.