Weng v. Does 1-35
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-07082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Weng v. Does 1-35, Judge Oetken denied every preliminary-injunction motion, finding no likely success for three defendants and no proper notice for others.
Weijie Weng and the defendants named in the action, including Zoetop Business Co., Ltd., Shein Distribution Corporation, and Roadget Business Pte. Ltd.; no defendant was subject to the requested preliminary injunction.
What happened
In Weng v. Does 1-35, Weijie Weng asked the court to temporarily prevent the defendants from taking actions related to his copyright claims. The court held a telephone hearing on January 12, 2023.
Three defendants—Zoetop Business Co., Ltd., Shein Distribution Corporation, and Roadget Business Pte. Ltd.—argued that the first-sale rule protected them from liability. The court also found that earlier copyright registrations identified Lifei Zhou as a co-author, and that Weng had not shown at this stage that Zhou was not a co-author. For the other defendants, Weng did not show that he properly served the required legal papers, including papers that had to be served in China under the Hague Convention.
Judge J. Paul Oetken discharged the order to show cause and denied each of Weng’s three motions for a preliminary injunction. The Clerk of Court was directed to close all open motions.
The detailed version
- Weng v. Does 1-35 · No. 1:22-cv-07082
- James Oetken
- Jan. 12, 2023
Background
Weijie Weng sought a preliminary injunction, a court order issued before a final decision that temporarily restricts a defendant’s conduct. The court had previously issued an order to show cause concerning a preliminary injunction, a temporary restraining order, and expedited discovery. The court modified that order on January 9, 2023, and held a telephone hearing on January 12, 2023.
Reasons for denying relief as to three defendants
The court found that Weng had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, which is required for a preliminary injunction. Zoetop Business Co., Ltd., Shein Distribution Corporation, and Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. persuasively argued that the first-sale doctrine immunized them from liability on Weng’s copyright claims.
The court also considered registrations for Weng’s works “My First Birthday” and “ONE.” The defendants submitted evidence that earlier registrations identified Lifei Zhou as a co-author. Weng called that listing a mistake and asserted that he was the sole author. The court stated that a copyright registration certificate is initial evidence of valid ownership, but that Weng could challenge that presumption. At this stage, however, Weng had the burden of proving that Zhou was not a true co-author. The drawings Weng submitted did not have dates or enough contextual information to establish that he was the sole author.
Reasons for denying relief as to the other defendants
For the other defendants named in the amended complaint, the court found that Weng had not shown proper service of the summons, amended complaint, and temporary restraining order. The court had required service on defendants located in China through methods permitted by the Hague Convention. Because Weng did not provide evidence of proper service, the court found that those defendants had not been properly notified of the requested injunction. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 requires notice to the opposing party before a preliminary injunction may issue.
Disposition
The court discharged the order to show cause at Docket Number 29. It denied each of Weng’s three motions for a preliminary injunction, identified as Docket Numbers 51, 52, and 53. The Clerk of Court was directed to close all open motions on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.