598 F.Supp.3d 1005
D. Nev.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (HYBE entities) own exclusive trademark/licensing rights to BTS merchandise and allege likely bootlegging at BTS concerts in Las Vegas (Allegiant Stadium) in April 2022.
- Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and an order allowing local law enforcement and U.S. Marshals to seize counterfeit goods within a five-mile radius from April 5–17, 2022.
- Defendants are unnamed "John Does 1–100," i.e., unidentified potential bootleggers whom plaintiffs expect to appear only during the tour dates.
- Plaintiffs rely on prior incidents of bootlegging at other BTS shows and argue identification/service will be impracticable, invoking the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1116(a)) and FRCP 65(b).
- The court denied the motions, finding threshold justiciability and personal‑jurisdiction defects and that plaintiffs cite no authority authorizing injunctions against unidentified persons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can plaintiffs obtain injunctive relief against unnamed Doe defendants? | Need broad, ex parte relief against whoever will sell counterfeits; identities unknown and hard to serve. | Suit against unnamed persons is non‑adversarial; cannot bind unknown persons. | Denied: courts generally disfavor Doe‑only suits; cannot enjoin unnamed persons. |
| Does this case present a justiciable case or controversy / ripeness? | Imminent harm from likely bootleggers at concerts establishes urgency. | Allegations of possibility don’t create an adversarial dispute with identifiable parties. | Denied: plaintiffs failed to show a ripe, concrete dispute with identified parties. |
| Is there personal jurisdiction over the persons to be enjoined? | Service is impracticable; relief should issue preemptively despite unknown identities. | Court must have in personam jurisdiction before imposing injunctive relief. | Denied: without identified defendants, court cannot determine or acquire personal jurisdiction. |
| Do the Lanham Act or FRCP 65 authorize injunctive seizure/order against unidentified persons? | §1116 and FRCP 65 empower equitable relief and TROs without notice; thus relief is proper. | Statute and rule assume an adverse party; neither authorizes sweeping orders against the world at large. | Denied: neither §1116 nor FRCP 65 authorizes injunctions/seizures against unidentified/potentially nonexistent persons. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (recognizing constitutional case/controversy limits on judicial power)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (federal courts cannot enjoin the world at large)
- Chase Nat’l Bank v. City of Norwalk, 291 U.S. 431 (federal injunctive power limited by in personam jurisdiction)
- Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637 (9th Cir.) (use of fictitious defendants is disfavored)
- Joel v. Various John Does, 499 F. Supp. 791 (E.D. Wis.) (court cannot order injunctive relief over persons absent personal jurisdiction)
- Brockum Co. v. Various John Does, 685 F. Supp. 476 (E.D. Pa.) (discussing limits on enjoining unnamed defendants and need for jurisdiction)
- Araca Merch. L.P. v. Does, 182 F. Supp. 3d 1290 (S.D. Fla.) (holding plaintiffs failed to show personal jurisdiction over unknown defendants)