Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. v. Awker, Inc.

Background

Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. and Anker Innovations Limited sued Awker, Inc., Jianjun Xue, and Lee Austin. The opinion provides a stipulated order rather than a description of the underlying claims or disputed facts. The parties agreed to entry of a permanent injunction and consented that the four factors identified in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC—irreparable injury, inadequate legal remedies, the balance of hardships, and the public interest—were satisfied.

Permanent Injunction

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the Lanham Act, the court permanently enjoined and restrained the defendants, along with specified persons and entities acting with them, from:

- Using the AWKER mark, or a variation, copy, or imitation of it, in connection with the sale, advertising, distribution, or offering for sale of electric charging devices and related products in the United States. - Using images of ANKER-branded products or offering or selling those products, including through the websites and online platforms identified in the order. - Using the AWKER mark in connection with goods and services covered by the ANKER trademarks, in electronic, digital, or printed media. - Using the www.awker.com website and linked www.awker.us pages, maintaining them in online sponsored advertising, or using related websites and social-media applications; the order also required transfer of the AWKER domain name to the plaintiffs. - Destroying records concerning the manufacture, advertising, importation, shipment, purchase, sale, offering for sale, or distribution of AWKER products or products using a name confusingly similar to the ANKER trademarks. - Engaging in acts likely to cause confusion or a mistaken belief that the defendants were affiliated with the plaintiffs, injuring the plaintiffs’ business reputation or trademark goodwill, or otherwise unfairly competing with the plaintiffs’ products and services.

Other Rulings and Disposition

The court granted the parties’ request to file their confidential settlement and release agreement partly under seal, with Paragraph 5 redacted as shown in Docket Number 36. The court also granted the request to retain jurisdiction for one year from the agreement’s Effective Date to enforce the agreement. The clerk was directed to terminate the open motions at Docket Numbers 34 and 35. The order does not state that the court made findings of liability on the underlying trademark claims; it records the parties’ stipulation and enters the permanent injunction. Judge Valerie Caproni signed the order.

Date Note

The opinion’s filing and signature information states January 12, 2024, while the order’s signature blocks state January 4, 2023. This summary uses the supplied filing date for the metadata.