Whaleco Incorporated v. dltemuapp.com
2:23-cv-02332
D. Ariz.Nov 9, 2023Background
- Whaleco Inc. (plaintiff) operates a shopping website and app under the TEMU trademark and alleges defendants registered multiple domain names incorporating "temu" that infringe its marks.
- Plaintiff filed a verified complaint on November 7, 2023 and moved ex parte for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to lock the domains, suspend the sites, and unmask registrants; the Domain Names include dltemuapp.com, temudl.net, temu-win.com, istemusafe.pro, temuapp.info, temumodapk.com, and temu.markets.
- The contested domains were registered through NameCheap and use a privacy service (Withheld for Privacy), preventing registrar disclosure without court process.
- Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement, dilution, and cybersquatting, arguing bad faith registration and likely consumer confusion (noting TEMU’s national advertising exposure earlier in 2023 and domain registrations beginning August 2023).
- The court granted the TRO in part: enjoining defendants and those acting in concert from transferring or operating the Domain Names, from using the TEMU mark/brand in those domains, and ordering the domains suspended; the court denied the request to bind non-parties NameCheap and Withheld for Privacy.
- The court set a $1,000 bond, required plaintiff to serve defendants and file proof by Nov. 13, 2023, scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for Nov. 21, 2023, and set briefing deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on merits (trademark infringement, dilution, cybersquatting) | TEMU owns/exclusively licenses the mark; defendants used identical/nearly identical domain names and branding, causing confusion and acting in bad faith to profit | No substantive rebuttal in record; registrant identity shielded by privacy service | Court: plaintiff likely to succeed on trademark, dilution, and ACPA cybersquatting claims (bad faith, likelihood of confusion shown) |
| Irreparable harm | Loss of control over reputation, consumer deception, risk of identity theft/malware — harm to goodwill is immediate and not fully compensable | Not contested; defendants anonymous | Court: irreparable harm established |
| Ex parte TRO / no notice requirement | Immediate injury shown in verified complaint; counsel attempted to identify registrants and explained privacy service prevents disclosure; risk registrants would transfer domains if warned | Not directly opposed; registrant anonymity and potential transfer upon notice implied | Court: Rule 65(b) satisfied; ex parte TRO appropriate; minimal $1,000 bond ordered |
| TRO directed at non-parties (NameCheap, Withheld for Privacy) | Requested registrar be ordered to suspend, lock, and disclose registrant information | Registrar/non-parties not alleged to knowingly facilitate infringement; registrar protections and lack of party status | Court: denied TRO against non-parties; cannot bind registrars absent party status or specific allegations of knowing facilitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard)
- Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, 775 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2014) (injunction standards in Ninth Circuit)
- Rigsby v. GoDaddy Inc., 59 F.4th 998 (9th Cir. 2023) (ACPA cybersquatting elements)
- AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) (likelihood-of-confusion factors)
- Adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc., 890 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2018) (irreparable harm and loss of goodwill)
- Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., 737 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2013) (limitations on relief against registrars)
- Barahona-Gomez v. Renno, 167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999) (when bond may be waived)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (sliding-scale approach to injunction factors)
- Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009) (distinction between mandatory and prohibitory injunctions)