Animaccord Ltd. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, or Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
1:21-cv-20744
S.D. Fla.Mar 24, 2021Background
- Animaccord Ltd. owns registered "Masha and The Bear" trademarks and multiple U.S. copyright registrations for related works and logos.
- Plaintiff alleges numerous online sellers (identified by Seller IDs in Schedule A) advertised and sold counterfeit/infringing Masha and The Bear branded goods via e‑commerce marketplaces.
- Plaintiff’s investigator ordered items from the Seller IDs, had the items shipped to Southern District of Florida, inspected them, and determined they were nongenuine/counterfeit.
- Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction requesting (among other relief) a ban on sales of infringing products, seizure/restraint of related assets/accounts, and an order to third‑party payment/platform providers to freeze funds.
- A March 24, 2021 hearing occurred with only Plaintiff’s counsel present; Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan recommended granting the preliminary injunction with specified prohibitions and an asset restraint, and maintaining a $10,000 bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on the merits (trademark/copyright infringement; consumer confusion) | Registered marks + copyrights; investigator purchases and visual inspection show counterfeit goods | No defense presented / defendants absent | Magistrate: strong probability Plaintiff will prevail; likelihood of consumer confusion established |
| Irreparable harm | Counterfeits harm sales, reputation, goodwill; future counterfeits likely | No opposition presented | Magistrate: irreparable injury likely; weighs in favor of injunction |
| Asset restraint and third‑party freezes (payment processors, marketplaces) | Freeze preserves availability of equitable relief and prevents dissipation of illicit profits | No opposition presented; such relief can be challenged by petition | Magistrate: authorized an asset restraint and ordered third‑party providers to restrain/divert funds to court holding account |
| Scope of injunctive relief (use of marks, Seller ID transfers, site takedowns) | Broad, immediate prohibition on manufacturing, selling, advertising, and using marks; bar transfer of Seller IDs; require discontinuance on e‑commerce stores | No opposition presented | Magistrate: granted wide injunctive relief (discontinuance, prohibition on transfer, applicabiliy to Seller IDs and related accounts); bond $10,000 required |
Key Cases Cited
- Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard for preliminary injunction)
- Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982 (11th Cir. 1995) (district court’s equitable power to order preliminary relief including asset freezes)
- Reebok Int’l, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enters., Inc., 970 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1992) (accounting of profits under §1117(a) is an equitable remedy)
- Federal Trade Comm’n v. United States Oil & Gas Corp., 748 F.2d 1431 (11th Cir. 1984) (support for preliminary equitable relief to preserve assets)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (procedures for objections to magistrate judge reports)
- Harrigan v. Metro Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2020) (procedural guidance on objections to magistrate reports)
- Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 1989) (procedural standard regarding magistrate reports)