Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01859/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01859-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ming's Mark Incorporated,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Innovative Imports Incorporated, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-01859-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Ming’s Mark, Inc.’s Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (with Notice). (Doc. 4.) The title of 

Plaintiff’s Motion indicates that its request is made with notice but Plaintiff has not yet 

completed formal service on Innovative Imports Inc. (Doc. 4, at 1.) The Court finds that 

oral argument would be helpful in determining whether injunctive relief is appropriate. 

BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff Ming’s Mark, Inc. sells mats to distributors and to end users. It owns a 

copyright for several of the mat designs. Since April, 2014 Ming’s Mark has learned that 

Innovative Imports is selling unauthorized reproductions which include these copyrighted 

designs. These sales are offered on eBay. Although Ming’s Mark has successfully had 

two of the listings on eBay removed, others remain and Innovative Imports has added a 

new one. Ming’s Mark informed Innovative Imports that its reproductions were 

unauthorized in a cease and desist letter. Innovative Imports responded by asking for 

proof of the copyrights but has not responded again and it continues sell the mats. 

Case 2:14-cv-01859-GMS Document 12 Filed 09/05/14 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 

DISCUSSION 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 authorizes the Court to issue a preliminary 

injunction or TRO upon a proper showing. The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as 

that for issuing a preliminary injunction. See Brown Jordan Int’l, Inc. v. The Mind's Eye 

Interiors, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D. Haw. 2007). To prevail on a request for a 

preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs must demonstrate “that [they are] likely to succeed on 

the merits, that [they are] likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 

relief, that the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and that an injunction is in the 

public interest.” Winter v. Nat’t Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 65. The Ninth Circuit continues to analyze these four elements using a “sliding 

scale” approach, in which “the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, 

so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). 

 The element of irreparable injury, however, is not subject to balance; the moving 

party must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” 

Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (emphasis in original). Injuries that can be compensated with 

money are not normally considered irreparable. Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 

(1974) (“Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy 

necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough. The possibility that 

adequate compensatory or other corrective relief . . . weighs heavily against a claim of 

irreparable harm.”) (internal citations omitted); Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. 

Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir.1980) (“[M]onetary injury is not 

normally considered irreparable.”). 

 In addition to the requisite showing, a preliminary injunction may issue “only on 

notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). A TRO may be granted without notice 

to the adverse party: 

only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified 

complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse 

party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s 

Case 2:14-cv-01859-GMS Document 12 Filed 09/05/14 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 

attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 

 Here, Ming’s Mark has submitted an affidavit from Chunhong Yu describing the 

injury that Ming’s Mark alleges. The attorney for Ming’s Mark submitted a certified 

statement (Doc. 5) that he sent an email to the attorney for Innovative Imports about the 

intent to file this action and to seek a TRO and preliminary injunction without further 

notice (Doc. 4-1). The email indicates that the Complaint in this matter was attached to it. 

(Id.) The attorney did not explain why formal notice should not be required and does not 

detail any efforts to provide notice beyond the email. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED setting a Hearing on the Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (with Notice) (Doc. 4) for September 11, 

2014 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 602, Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Federal Courthouse, 

401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Ming’s Marks, Inc. shall complete 

service of the Complaint (Doc. 1), Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 4), Certificate 

of Attorney (Doc. 5), Affidavit of Chunhong Yu (Doc. 6), and this Order on Defendant 

Innovative Imports before the hearing. If Ming’s Mark is unable to do so before the 

hearing, it should submit a certified statement from the attorney detailing the further 

efforts to do so and explaining why formal notice should not be required. 

 Dated this 5th day of September, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01859-GMS Document 12 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 3