Jordan v. Golden Bridge Books

Background

Portia Hartencia Jordan alleged that she owns the copyright in Herbal Medicines and Home Remedies: A Potpourri in Bahamian Culture. The opinion describes Jordan as a Bahamian resident and Golden Bridge Books as a bookseller with an address in Canada. Jordan alleged that Golden Bridge had sold illegally copied versions of the book through online platforms since 2004. She said she had printed fewer than 500 copies, distributed only in the Bahamas, but had purchased two used copies through Golden Bridge.

Jordan asserted claims for copyright infringement, unfair competition, and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. She moved for a temporary restraining order, an emergency order intended to preserve the situation until further proceedings. Among other relief, she sought an order barring Golden Bridge from copying or selling the book, preventing fraudulent transfers of assets from online store accounts, and requiring third parties to disable sales accounts and restrain funds connected to the alleged infringement.

Parties’ Positions

Jordan argued that she was likely to succeed on her claims and would suffer irreparable harm without an order. She asserted that sales of allegedly illicit copies diverted consumers from buying genuine copies and harmed the book’s perceived quality.

Golden Bridge denied producing illegal copies. It said its only role was cross-listing legally published used copies on certain online marketplaces. Golden Bridge also represented that, because the book did not meet its minimum used-book listing price, it would throw away any copy it encountered in the future. Jordan replied that the two copies she obtained were newly manufactured and argued that Golden Bridge could be liable even if it acted as a book-sourcing agent.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a temporary restraining order requires a showing that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief, that the balance of equities favors relief, and that an injunction serves the public interest. For a copyright-infringement claim, the plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright and unauthorized copying. Unauthorized copying requires proof that the work was actually copied and that the copying was improper or unlawful.

The court found that Jordan had not demonstrated a likelihood of success. Her evidence did not establish that the versions sold were unauthorized copies. The record left open the possibility that legal copies had been sold to individuals in the United States or Canada and later offered by Golden Bridge as used copies. The court therefore found that Jordan had not shown that Golden Bridge ever made copies of the book.

The court also found that Jordan could not demonstrate irreparable harm in light of Golden Bridge’s representation that it would no longer sell the book. Based on these findings, the court denied Jordan’s motion for injunctive relief.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

The court stated that the case would proceed. It also reiterated that Golden Bridge, if it wished to participate and defend itself, had to obtain legal representation and have counsel formally appear because an entity cannot represent itself in legal proceedings. The court directed Jordan to file proof that she served the order on Golden Bridge by February 6, 2023.

The opinion states that Golden Bridge’s response to the complaint was due February 8, 2022, even though the order is dated February 3, 2023; the text does not explain that discrepancy.