ABS-CBN Corporation v. cinesilip.net, 0:17-cv-60650

Background

Plaintiffs ABS-CBN Corporation, ABS-CBN Film Productions, Inc., and ABS-CBN International own registered trademarks (the ABS-CBN Registered Marks) and registered and unregistered copyrights in various television and film content (the Copyrighted Works).
Defendants operate multiple websites and a social media profile (Subject Domain Names listed in Schedule A) that advertise, stream, and distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted content and use counterfeits or colorable imitations of the ABS-CBN Marks.
Plaintiffs filed suit for trademark counterfeiting and infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and copyright infringement, and moved for a preliminary injunction and ex parte temporary restraining order. Defendants did not appear or file substantive responses.
The district court held a preliminary injunction hearing; only Plaintiffs’ counsel participated and presented evidence (declarations and web captures) showing unauthorized distribution and use of Plaintiffs’ marks and works.
The court found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits (likelihood of consumer confusion and unlawful distribution), that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm absent relief, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored injunctive relief.
The court granted a broad preliminary injunction: enjoining further use/distribution of Plaintiffs’ content and marks; ordering preservation of evidence; halting domain transfers; directing registrars to transfer domain certificates to Plaintiffs’ counsel or a new registrar and to redirect domains to a notice page; and requiring disclosure of registrant identities from privacy services.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Likelihood of success on trademark and copyright claims	Plaintiffs showed websites used counterfeit or confusingly similar ABS-CBN marks and distributed copyrighted works without authorization, creating consumer confusion	Defendants did not appear or present opposing arguments	Court: Plaintiffs have a very strong probability of proving likelihood of consumer confusion and infringement; likelihood of success satisfied
Irreparable harm	Unauthorized use and distribution will cause immediate loss of sales, reputation, and goodwill that cannot be fully remedied by money damages	No response from Defendants	Court: Irreparable injury likely; injunctive relief necessary
Balance of harms and public interest	Harm to Plaintiffs’ reputation and marketplace outweighs any harm to Defendants; public interest favors preventing fraud and protecting IP	Defendants did not contest	Court: Balance and public interest favor preliminary injunction
Relief over domains, registrars, and evidence preservation	Plaintiffs requested domain lock/transfer, registrar assistance, redirection to notice page, disclosure of registrant identities, and preservation of files	Defendants did not respond; some registrars/administrators may be noncompliant	Court: Ordered domain transfer/lock or registry assistance, 302 redirection or DNS change to notice site, disclosure by privacy services, preservation of evidence, and prohibition on domain transfers during litigation

Key Cases Cited

Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2005) (sets preliminary injunction four-factor test)
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l. Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982 (11th Cir. 1995) (applies preliminary injunction standards in Lanham Act context)