Cuiping Zhou v. Tchh-Dayup

Background

Cuiping Zhou alleged that she and her relatives developed, marketed, sold, licensed, and distributed wallets under the “UTO” brand. The opinion states that the brand is protected by a trademark registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Zhou was also identified as the registered owner of U.S. Patent No. 927,179 S, which covers a wallet-opening design with a leaf shape.

Zhou alleged that, beginning in July 2019, TCHH-DayUp, Innifer, SUMGOGO, DLseego, NUER NEW, foliates, easygogo, Belsmi, Xiying, juntianshangmaoyouxiangongsi, and RUIMO manufactured, imported, exported, advertised, marketed, promoted, distributed, displayed, offered for sale, and sold wallets through Amazon storefronts that infringed the patent. The opinion states that the defendants were not authorized distributors or licensees of the patent.

Court’s Findings

The court found, at this stage, that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 302(a)(1), because the defendants operated Amazon storefronts through which customers in New York had purchased the accused products.

The court also found that Zhou had established a likelihood of success on her patent-infringement claim. It determined that the accused products and the patented designs were substantially the same under the ordinary-observer test. The court further found that Zhou faced likely immediate and irreparable harm, including unrecoverable revenue loss, market-share loss, price erosion, reputational harm, and lost marketing opportunities. It found that the balance of potential harms favored Zhou and that the public interest favored protecting the patent and preventing consumers from being deceived by allegedly inferior infringing products.

The court found good cause for ex parte relief because, if notified beforehand, the defendants were likely to conceal, transfer, dispose of, destroy, move, or hide the accused products and related records. It also found that electronic service was reasonably calculated to provide notice and satisfy due process.

Order

The court granted Zhou’s application as follows:

Temporary restraining order

The order temporarily restrained and enjoined the defendants, pending the hearing and determination of Zhou’s application for a preliminary injunction, from:

- manufacturing, importing, exporting, advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, displaying, offering for sale, or selling the accused products; - concealing, destroying, altering, selling, transferring, disposing of, or otherwise dealing with the accused products and records or evidence relating to the defendants’ accounts, storefronts, assets, and activities involving those products; - creating or using new entities, accounts, storefronts, platforms, or other means to evade the order; and - knowingly instructing, aiding, or helping another person or business engage in those activities.

The order applied similar restrictions to people acting in active concert or participation with the defendants who received actual notice of the order.

Preliminary-injunction hearing

The defendants were ordered to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The hearing date, time, and some filing deadlines are blank in the provided text. The order warned that failing to appear could result in a preliminary injunction that might take effect when the temporary restraining order expired and could continue for the duration of the litigation under the same terms.

Alternative service

The court authorized service on the defendants by electronic means under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Service could be made by sending PDF copies of the order, summons, complaint, and supporting papers to email addresses identified by Amazon.com. The order also specified methods for serving Amazon.com through Federal Express and email.

Expedited discovery

The court authorized expedited discovery. Within 14 days after receiving the order, each served defendant was required to provide a sworn report identifying the defendant’s true name and physical address, websites and online accounts, sales records for the accused products, financial-account details, and steps taken to comply with the order. The defendants were also required to answer interrogatories and produce responsive documents within 14 days after service of the relevant requests.

Within five days after receiving the order, Amazon.com was required to identify the defendants’ user accounts and storefronts and provide a summary report with identifying and contact information. Within 14 days, Amazon.com was required to provide records in its possession, custody, or control concerning those accounts and storefronts, including information about the defendants’ identities, businesses, payment methods, sales history, financial information, and activities involving the accused products.

Security and sealing

The order required Zhou to post a $500 security bond to cover damages that a person might recover from an improper or wrongful restraint. It also ordered that the complaint, attached exhibits, Zhou’s ex parte application, supporting declarations, exhibits, and the order remain sealed until Amazon.com complied with the identified provisions of the order.

The opinion does not state the issuing judge’s name or the signing date, and the preliminary-injunction hearing information is incomplete in the provided text.