Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02259/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02259-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEALED,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEALED,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02259-EMC 

*SEALED*

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING [UNDER SEAL]

Docket No. 4

Plaintiff has filed an ex parte application for relief. See Docket No. 4 (ex parte 

application). Having reviewed that application and the supporting documents, the Court hereby 

orders Plaintiff to provide supplemental briefing and/or evidence regarding the following.

A. Requested TRO

Plaintiff shall also address why a TRO that limits Defendant’s speech beyond advertising 

(thus, possibly implicating First Amendment concerns) (see ¶ J.2-3) is appropriate. 

Plaintiff shall further address why a TRO that freezes Defendant’s bank account is 

appropriate (see ¶ J.6), especially as (1) there does not appear to be any evidence that Defendant 

might transfer funds and (2) Defendant may engage in the legal sale of other goods.

Finally, Plaintiff shall address whether this Court has jurisdiction over any and all third 

parties to order them to preserve evidence (see ¶ 8) and whether the desired preservation order as 

to third parties may be premature. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) (providing that a restraining order 

“binds only the following who receive actual notice of it” – i.e., “the parties”; “the parties’

officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys”; and “other persons who are in active concert 

or participation with anyone described [above]”).

///

Case 3:16-cv-02259-EMC Document 21 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

B. Requested Seizure Order

Plaintiff shall address whether their request for seizure of documents (as opposed to goods) 

(see ¶ K) is overbroad – i.e., why should the seizure order not simply track the language of §

1116(d)(1).

1

 See 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(1) (providing for the seizure of “the means of making such 

[counterfeit] marks, and records documenting the manufacturer, sale, or receipt of things involved 

in such violation”) (emphasis added).

Plaintiff shall also address what authority there is to support their claims that (1) an offduty law enforcement official may effect the seizure (see ¶ K); (2) Plaintiff and/or its 

agents/employees may be appointed to assist in the seizure and may videotape or photograph the 

seizure (see ¶¶ K, Q); (3) an “unknown business location[]” (see ¶ L) may be identified in a 

seizure order, see id. § 1164(d)(5) (providing that there must be “a description of each place at 

which such matter is to be seized”); (4) that Plaintiff’s counsel may be appointed a substitute 

custodian for the seized items,

2

see id. § 1164(d)(7) (providing that materials seized “shall be 

taken into the custody of the court”) (emphasis added); (5) Plaintiff is entitled to, in effect, take 

expedited discovery by examining the seized items and even take custody of them (see ¶ M); and 

(6) a law enforcement officer is entitled to use reasonable force, including breaking open entrances 

to buildings and rooms (see ¶ R).

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

 

1

The Court also notes that ¶ K of the proposed seizure order seems problematic in that it refers to 

law enforcement authority to seize “cash.” Prop. Order ¶ K.

2

Plaintiff has cited Reebok Int'l, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc., 737 F. Supp. 1521 (S.D. Cal. 

1990), but there the court took note that there was a “protective order [that] limited plaintiff’s 

access to these records.” Id. at 1525.

Case 3:16-cv-02259-EMC Document 21 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

C. Amount of Bond

Plaintiff shall provide more specifics as to why a bond in the amount of $10,000 is 

sufficient to protect Defendant’s interests.

Plaintiff shall file their supplemental brief and/or evidence within three days of the 

date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02259-EMC Document 21 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 3