United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
O'Grady Alexandria. Virginia United States District
matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs ex parte
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 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." Dkt. 11.
Defendants are unknown individuals identified by their eBay
seller ID or store name in Schedule A. Dkt. 7.
requested that the Court issue a temporary restraining order
freezing the assets of each of the Defendants' PayPal
accounts and permit limited expedited discovery directed to
eBay and PayPal. Dkt. 10. 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 parte motion.
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 all 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)
("[W]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
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
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
is likely to succeed on the merits of all four of its claims:
(a) trademark counterfeiting, (b) trademark infringement, (c)