Rovio Entertainment Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc.
907 F. Supp. 2d 1086
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Rovio Entertainment Ltd fka Rovio Mobile Oy filed copyright and trademark claims against Royal Plush Toys, Western Sales and Services, Royal Trade Int’l, and Park.
- Plaintiff seeks ex parte TRO, OSC for a preliminary injunction, seizure, substitute custodian, and expedited discovery.
- Angry Birds merchandise, especially the Angry Birds Plush Line, is central to Rovio and Commonwealth’s business with extensive licensing and sales nationwide.
- Plaintiff alleges Defendants sell infringing Angry Birds plush toys, bearing Rovio’s marks, with counterfeit packaging and designs.
- Investigations by Plaintiff and a licensed firm allegedly found infringing goods at Defendants’ Livermore, CA location and through shipments intercepted by U.S. customs.
- Court denied ex parte TRO, ex parte seizure, substitute custodian, and expedited discovery; granted an OSC to address a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to issue an ex parte TRO | Rovio argues irreparable harm and risk of concealment and public risk warrant ex parte relief. | Defendants contend lack of immediacy, no Reno Air basis, and proper notice is required. | Ex parte TRO denied; no clear showing of immediate irreparable harm. |
| Whether to issue an ex parte seizure order | Seizure necessary to preserve infringing goods and records before hearing. | Insufficient authority and insufficient linkage to defendant to justify ex parte seizure. | Ex parte seizure denied; not warranted under §503 or Reno Air standard. |
| Whether to issue a substitute custodian order | Custody of seized goods should be with Plaintiff’s counsel. | dependent on seizure order being granted. | Denied due to denial of ex parte seizure. |
| Whether expedited discovery is appropriate | Expedited discovery is needed to identify additional infringers and scope of distribution. | No good cause; discovery not narrowly tailored or time-critical for injunction. | Denied without prejudice; court will reconsider after briefing on preliminary injunction. |
| Whether to grant an OSC why a preliminary injunction should not issue | Evidence preserves counterfeiting risk and merits a preliminary injunction. | Not explicitly stated; focus is on supporting TRO denial. | OSC for preliminary injunction granted; court will treat TRO motion as a preliminary injunction motion and set briefing/hearing schedule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (likelihood of irreparable harm and balance of equities for injunctions)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (U.S. 2006) (rejection of categorical irreparable harm presumption; standard for injunctions)
- Flexible Lifeline Sys., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 654 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2011) (overruled presumption of irreparable harm in copyright; applies Winter/eBay standards)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2011) (overruled copyright presumption; injunctive standard refined)
- Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009) (presumption of irreparable harm in trademark cases uncertain post-Winter/eBay)
- Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (limits ex parte relief; exceptions when notice would be fruitless or identity unknown)
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Bisan Food Corp., 377 F.3d 313 (3d Cir. 2004) (courts should weigh dangers of ex parte seizures; context matters)
- Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (sets framework for preliminary injunction analysis)
- In re Excel Innovations, Inc., 502 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2007) (expedited discovery and injunction considerations in IP cases)