Patagonia, Inc. v. Does, 2:25-cv-03283

Patagonia alleges Defendants conspired to import, promote, and sell counterfeit Patagonia products bearing Patagonia's registered trademarks, sourcing from unauthorized suppliers in China and selling using online platforms and payment processors.
In December 2024, U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized 60 counterfeit Patagonia products, triggering Patagonia's investigation and this lawsuit.
The District Court initially entered a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining alleged infringing conduct, freezing assets, ordering record preservation, and involving several non-party platforms (PayPal, Meta, Shopify, Telegram).
Patagonia moved for a preliminary injunction to maintain restrictions and asset freezes, aiming to prevent ongoing trademark abuse, irreparable harm, and dissipation of ill-gotten gains while litigation proceeds.
Defendants opposed, arguing no irreparable harm existed and claiming alleged efforts to halt infringing sales; non-parties Meta and Shopify also raised objections regarding the scope and enforceability of the order.
The Court granted the preliminary injunction against served Defendants and included certain non-parties (Meta and Shopify), finding all Winter factors favored Patagonia and holding expedited discovery and asset freeze appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Likelihood of Success on the Merits	Patagonia owns valid marks, Defendants' conduct is unlawful counterfeiting likely to confuse consumers	No argument contesting likelihood of success	Court finds Patagonia likely to succeed; evidence unchallenged
Irreparable Harm	Harm to goodwill, brand, and consumer trust is irreparable and not compensable by damages; presumption applies under Lanham Act	Harm is monetary and compensable; have ceased or will cease infringing conduct	Irreparable harm presumed and unrebutted; Defendants' assurances insufficient
Balance of Equities	Continued infringement harms Patagonia; Defendants gain no equitable advantage from unlawful conduct	Argue for mitigating harm via cease of activities, claim prejudice from asset freeze	Balance of equities favors Patagonia; no legitimate prejudice to Defendants
Public Interest	Public interest in preventing consumer deception and confusion supports injunction	No forceful argument; mainly focus on procedural and jurisdictional issues	Injunction favors public interest by reducing confusion and upholding trademark rights
Scope and Non-Party Inclusion	Non-parties are integral to counterfeiting operations, should be bound by injunction for effective relief	Meta/Shopify claim overbreadth, lack of jurisdiction, procedural concerns	Meta and Shopify included (due to notice/active assistance), PayPal not, Telegram excluded for lack of notice

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (sets standard for extraordinary preliminary injunction remedy)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (sets the four-factor test for preliminary injunctions)
Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. West Coast Ent. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (registration as prima facie evidence of trademark validity/exclusivity)
Grocery Outlet, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc., 497 F.3d 949 (elements for trademark infringement)
Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190 (likelihood of confusion test)
State of Idaho Potato Comm’n v. G & T Terminal Packaging, Inc., 425 F.3d 708 (intentional counterfeiting standard)
JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098 (Sleekcraft factors for consumer confusion)
Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. West Coast Ent. Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (intent to confuse/deceive in trademark use)
Reebok Int’l, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enters., Inc., 970 F.2d 552 (asset freezes and broad injunctive powers in trademark cases)
Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330 (infringer’s lack of equitable claim to continue infringement)
Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 321 F.3d 878 (discretion over security bond in injunctions)