United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
Juul Labs. Inc., Plaintiff,
The Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A, Defendants.
Liam O'Grady, Judge
matter came before the Court on Plaintiff's ex
parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (Dkt.
10). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "are knowingly
and intentionally promoting, advertising, marketing,
retailing, offering for sale, distributing, and selling
counterfeit products bearing the famous and distinctive
[Juul] Trademarks." Defendants are unknown individuals
identified in Schedule A (Dkt. 7) by their eBay seller ID or
requested that the Court issue a temporary restraining order
freezing the assets of each of the Defendants' PayPal
accounts. The lack of identification for the Defendants and
the need to prevent Defendants from removing their assets
beyond the jurisdiction of the Court necessitated the ex
reasons that follow and for good cause shown, the Court
granted Plaintiffs motion.
of temporary injunctive relief requires the movant to
establish four factors: (1) the likelihood of irreparable
harm to the plaintiff if the TRO is denied; (2) the
likelihood of harm to the defendants if the TRO is granted;
(3) the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the
merits; and (4) the public interest. Winter v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
established that ail four Winter factors favored
granting the TRO.
Likelihood of Irreparable Harm
trademark case in which the likelihood of success is clearly
established, irreparable harm follows as a matter of course.
See Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of
Virginia, Inc., 43 F.3d 922, 939 (4th Cir. 1995)
("fW]e recognize that irreparable injury regularly
follows from trademark infringement."). There is a
strong likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits
(see infra). In addition. Plaintiff would be
irreparably harmed absent a TRO because Defendants would have
the incentive and capacity to transfer their assets from any
accounts within the United States, depriving Plaintiff of the
ability to obtain monetary relief. This factor therefore
favored granting the TRO.
Harm to Defendants
Defendants are unlikely to suffer any cognizable harm from
the TRO as they would merely be prevented from profiting from
past infringement and moving their funds beyond the reach of
the Court. Cf Toolchex, Inc. v. Trainor, 634
F.Supp.2d 586. 593 (E.D. Va. 2008) (holding that any harm a
defendant would suffer by being prevented from deliberately
infringing a plaintiffs trademark does not alter the balance
of hardship analysis). This factor thus weighed in favor of
granting the TRO.
on the Merits Plaintiff is likely to
succeed on the merits of all four of its claims: (a)
trademark counterfeiting, (b) trademark infringement, (c)