Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03105/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-03105-0/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO.,

LTD., a Korean corporation; and

SAMSUNG

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 13-CV-3105-BEN (DHB)

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

DELAY PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION HEARING

(2) EXTENDING TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

(3) DIRECTING ADDITIONAL

BRIEFING

[Docket No. 15]

vs.

EARLY BIRD SAVINGS, a company

operating from China; SHENZHEN

OKELER SCIENCE &

TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., a

company operating in China,

Defendants.

Before this Court is a Motion to Delay the Preliminary Injunction Hearing and

Extend the Existing Temporary Restraining Order or For Preliminary Injunction filed

by Plaintiffs Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America,

LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). (Docket No. 15). For the reasons stated below this

Court GRANTS the Motion to Delay and GRANTS IN PART the Motion to Extend

the Temporary Restraining Order. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction is therefore

DENIED without prejudice at this time.

///

- 1 - 13cv3105

Case 3:13-cv-03105-BEN-JLB Document 17 Filed 01/27/14 Page 1 of 7
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

BACKGROUND

This Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on January 7, 2014. 

On January 21, 2014, this Court set a preliminary injunction hearing on January 28,

2014 and found good cause to extend the TRO until that date. (Docket No. 13).

Samsung filed the instant motion to delay on January 24, 2014. Samsung states

that Defendants, who are Chinese corporations, have not yet been formally served. 

Peter Colosi, counsel for Samsung, has submitted a declaration relating Samsung’s

efforts to serve Defendants. (Colosi Decl.) Samsung has begun the formal process of

serving Defendants under the Hague Convention, but counsel states that he has been

advised that this process is likely to take four to five months. (Id. at ¶ 1). Once

Samsung has provided translated documentsto the Chinese government, the speed with

which Defendants are served is largely in the hands of that government and various

components of China’s Ministry of Justice and court system. (See id.) 

Counsel for Samsung informs this Court that his firm has been in contact with

individuals connected to Defendants, and have made them aware of the relevant court

documents and the preliminary injunction hearing date. Counsel spoke to an attorney

in Los Angeles, Qiang Djornbak, who claimed to represent Defendants, but who stated

thatshe was not authorized to acceptservice of documents or to appear in any capacity

representing Defendants in litigation. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-9). Ms. Djornbak has informed

Samsung’s counsel thatshe could only negotiate regarding the asset freeze. (Id. at ¶ 7). 

Counsel states that the firm has e-mailed copies of relevant case documents to

Defendants’ known e-mail addresses, and to Ms. Djornbak. (Id. ¶ 11). Ms. Djornbak

asked Samsung’s counsel not to send her litigation documents and told counsel to find

alternative ways to communicate with Defendants. (Id. ¶ 12). She stated that she is

not engaged to represent any party in the case, would “passthe word around” regarding

settlement plans, but “Otherwise, I am out. You directly deal with defendants.” (Id.;

Colosi Decl. Ex. J). It is apparent to this Court that Samsung is making a good faith

effort to communicate information to Defendants and to properly serve them.

- 2 - 13cv3105

Case 3:13-cv-03105-BEN-JLB Document 17 Filed 01/27/14 Page 2 of 7
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

DISCUSSION

I. Extension of the Temporary Restraining Order

As a general rule, a court is authorized to issue a temporary restraining order

lasting no longer than 14 days, and can extend the TRO for a like period for good

cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 65. Rule 65(b)(3) requires that a court set a preliminary

injunction hearing at the earliest possible time where a TRO wasissued without notice. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(3). This Court is aware that temporary injunctive relief has

serious consequences, and that it is imperative to allow Defendants to address this

Court as soon as possible to ensure that continued injunctive relief is proper. In the

overwhelming number of situations, it is possible for a plaintiff to serve the defendant

and for the parties to argue the motion for preliminary injunction, within 28 days. The

short duration of the typical TRO ensures that extraordinary relief will not persist for

long without a full hearing. However, there are special circumstances in the case at

hand.

 Where a plaintiff is unable to promptly serve a foreign defendant because the

only proper means of serving defendants available to plaintiff cannot be completed

within the usual deadlines, a court may extend the TRO until proper service can be

completed. In H.D. Michigan, LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827

(7thCir. 2012), the SeventhCircuit affirmed a district court’s decision to extend a TRO

beyond 28 days in similar circumstances. In H.D. Michigan, the district court extended

the TRO until the defendants could be served with process under the Hague

Convention, and issued a second extension while the parties prepared for the

preliminary injunction hearing. Id. at 832. The H.D. Michigan defendants had actual

notice of the hearing, but chose not participate and refused service. The Seventh

Circuitfound that when a TRO is extended beyond the 28-day limit without the consent

of the enjoined party, “it becomes in effect a preliminary injunction that is appealable,

but the order remains effective.” Id. at 844 (citations omitted). 

If a TRO were not permitted to remain in effect until a defendant is served under

- 3 - 13cv3105

Case 3:13-cv-03105-BEN-JLB Document 17 Filed 01/27/14 Page 3 of 7
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

the Hague Conventions, “Rule 65 would be inoperable against foreign defendants.” 

Almetals, Inc. v. Wickeder Westfalenstahl, GMBH, No. 08-10109, 2008 WL 624067,

at *4 (E.D. Mich., Mar. 6, 2008). Given the length of time that it can take to serve a

foreign defendant, placing a 28-day maximum on the TRO in these circumstances

would effectively defeat injunctive relief because Defendants could simplywaitfor the

TRO to dissolve. See id. This does not appear to be the result intended by the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. Furthermore, if a TRO could not be extended in this

narrow situation, it would reward defendants who are able to evade proper service and

undermine the authority of the courts. 

This Court finds that an extension of the TRO is required by the interests of

justice. Defendants cannot evade this Court’s authority to grant injunctive relief in an

appropriate situation by refusing service until the normal deadline has expired. This

is especially true given that Defendants may now have actual notice ofthe proceedings,

and Samsung is making a good faith effort to formally serve Defendants. Dissolution

of the TRO is particularly improper here, where the dissolution would defeat the

purposes of the Order. Defendants would be able to remove their assets from this

jurisdiction and prevent this Court from awarding equitable relief. Samsung has

demonstrated that the likelihood of such actions by Defendants is substantial enough

to justify this Court’s continuing order to freeze assets. 

II. A Temporary Restraining Order is Appropriate

Samsung was required to establish that 1) it is likely to succeed on the merits;

2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; 3) the

balance of equities favor Samsung; and 4) an injunction is in the public interest. See

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 19 (2008). The four factors are

to be balanced, and if a threshold showing is made for each, “serious questions” going

to the merits and a balance of hardships that leans sharply toward the plaintiff can

support the issuance of an injunction. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632

F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).

- 4 - 13cv3105

Case 3:13-cv-03105-BEN-JLB Document 17 Filed 01/27/14 Page 4 of 7
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

This Court has carefully reviewed the filings in this case, and finds that the

findings that initially justified the issuance of a TRO are still valid and are sufficient

to justify the extension of the TRO until such time as this Court is able to hear

argument on a preliminary injunction. 

Samsung has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. To prevail on

trademark infringement claims under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate

that it has a protectible ownership interest in the mark, and that a defendant’s use of the

mark is likely to create consumer confusion. Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced

Sys. Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). Samsung has produced

evidence that it has a protectible ownership interest in the “Samsung marks,” which

have been recorded with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and which Samsung has

used for many years. Samsung has also provided significant evidence that consumers

are likely to be confused, as it has presented this Court with sworn declarations and

photographic evidence to support its claim that Defendants sell counterfeit goods

which are nearly identical to Samsung products and which bear near-identical Samsung

marks. It has also presented evidence that consumers have mistaken Defendants’

products for Samsung products.

Samsung has also demonstrated that it islikely to suffer irreparable harm unless

preliminary injunctive relief is issued. Samsung argues that it has invested

considerable time and money in developing its products, and its investment is

jeopardized by the accused products. Samsung has argued that the sale of these

products harms their business reputation, sales, and goodwill, and that the sale of

counterfeit and infringing products hurts their ability to control the quality and safety

of goods bearing their mark. Samsung has produced evidence that consumers have

complained about Defendants’ products, which they believe are Samsung products. 

Samsung has demonstrated that the balancing of harms favors maintenance of

the TRO. Defendants would only be prevented from engaging in an activity which is

likely to constitute infringement and allows them to profit at the expense of Samsung

- 5 - 13cv3105

Case 3:13-cv-03105-BEN-JLB Document 17 Filed 01/27/14 Page 5 of 7
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

and the public. See Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 864 F. Supp. 2d 839, 851

(D. Alaska 2012) (“To the extent that the competing interests of Greenpeace USA are

illegal ortortious activities, the balance of equities undoubtedly tipsto Shell”);see also

DISH Network LLC v. DelVecchio, 831 F. Supp. 2d 595, 601-02 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). 

Samsung has also argued that an injunction would be in the public’s interest. 

Given the showing on the merits, it would benefit the public to continue cessation of

sales of goods likely to cause consumer confusion. If the allegations are untrue, the

public will only have temporarily lost an opportunity to purchase from Defendants.

Samsung has made the necessary showing on all four factors. After balancing

the factors, this Court finds that the TRO is proper and should be extended.

CONCLUSION

This Court therefore GRANTS the Motion to Delay and Motion to Extend the

TRO. The TRO is EXTENDED until May 26, 2014. If Samsung wishes this Court

to order an additional extension of the TRO, it must file a motion to extend the TRO. 

In its motion, Samsung must update the Court on its efforts to serve Defendants.

Samsung is ORDERED to inform this Court when Samsung has been able to

serve Defendants. Such notice must be filed as soon as possible, and no later than the

next court day after Samsung learns Defendants have been served. At that time, the

Court will schedule a prompt status conference to determine how quickly Defendants

can prepare to argue a preliminary injunction. 

As this Court will not consider a motion for preliminary injunction without

giving Defendants an opportunity to respond, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction

is DENIED without prejudice at this time. In order to expedite consideration of this

matter, Samsung is ORDERED to file its Motion for Preliminary Injunction within

two days of receiving notice that Defendants have been served. If this Court has not

yet set a preliminary injunction hearing date, Samsung is EXCUSED from the

requirement that partiesstate the hearing date and time on the motion. Samsung should

clearly state that it is doing so pursuant to this Order.

- 6 - 13cv3105

Case 3:13-cv-03105-BEN-JLB Document 17 Filed 01/27/14 Page 6 of 7
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

Samsung is ORDERED to submit additional briefing to thisCourt regarding the

amount of assets which are frozen pursuant to the Temporary Restraining Order. If

appropriate, this Court will modify the TRO to change the amount of the bond. If

Samsung wishes to recommend an adjustment to the size of the bond, it may do so in

its briefing. The additional briefing is to be submitted to the Court no later than

February 14, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 27, 2014

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 7 - 13cv3105

Case 3:13-cv-03105-BEN-JLB Document 17 Filed 01/27/14 Page 7 of 7