Liangsword Limited v. The Partnerships, Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
0:24-cv-60618
S.D. Fla.May 21, 2025Background
- The plaintiff, Liangsword Limited, filed suit on April 16, 2024, alleging trademark infringement and related claims against 172 defendants, including five Joybuy entities.
- The plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, freezing online accounts and restraining the sale of products allegedly infringing the FACEGA trademark.
- Joybuy Defendants claim they were never properly served, did not sell the accused goods (only operate marketplaces), and made repeated but unsuccessful attempts to cooperate with Plaintiff.
- After learning their accounts were frozen, the Joybuy Defendants retained counsel, filed various motions (many denied for procedural issues), then retained new counsel and moved to vacate the default judgment.
- Plaintiff also sought an order to show cause as to why Walmart should not be held in contempt for not releasing restrained funds following the entry of default judgment.
- The court reviewed the motions, the record, and found troubling issues with service, the merits of Plaintiff's claims, and the conduct of both parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper Service on Joybuy | Service was proper via alternate means; Joybuy is a defendant | Joybuy was never properly served and Plaintiff had their correct info | For Joybuy—Service was improper |
| Marketplace vs. Seller Liability | Joybuy should be liable as a defendant | Joybuy is a platform, does not sell infringing products | For Joybuy—Role is unclear, needs review |
| Scope and Merits of Injunction | Freeze and injunction proper for all defendants | Injunction overly broad; assets unrelated to alleged conduct restrained | For Joybuy—Scope must be narrowed |
| Holding Walmart in Contempt | Walmart should be compelled to release funds | Not addressed by Joybuy; Walmart held funds relevant to Joybuy | Denied—No order issued to Walmart |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf Coast Fans, Inc. v. Midwest Elecs. Imps., Inc., 740 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir. 1984) (Rule 60(b) is the exclusive method to attack a default judgment)
- Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1980) (Rule 60(b) relief balances finality and justice)
- Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677 (11th Cir. 1984) (Extraordinary relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires showing extreme and unexpected hardship)
- Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2000) (Discretion of district court to grant Rule 60(b) relief)