Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02142/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02142-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

Young Champions Recreation Programs Incorporated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Toop Sports Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-02142-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining 

Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction Regarding Trademark, Service Mark and 

Copyright Infringement (Doc. 4). 

 “Someone seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate ‘that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in 

the public interest.’” Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Brown, 599 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)), rev’d on other 

grounds, 132 S. Ct. 965 (2012). The Application fails to allege an adequate likelihood of 

irreparable harm to carry Plaintiff’s burden. Plaintiff asserts “it is anticipated that a large 

shipment of unlicensed Young Champions merchandise...is about to be released to 

customers throughout the United States.” Doc. 4 at 4. But Plaintiff neither explains the 

basis for this belief nor provides any information about when, exactly, this shipment is set 

to leave the warehouse. Nothing in Plaintiff’s Application reveals whether the goods that 

Case 2:14-cv-02142-NVW Document 14 Filed 10/01/14 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 

are “about to” be released will ship a week from now, a month from now, or at some 

point further in the future. A bare, conclusory assertion that “the harm to Plaintiff [from 

the shipment] will be imminent, irreparable and incapable of remedy solely by money 

damages,” id. at 17, is insufficient. 

 The facts alleged in the Application also do not justify the issuance of an order ex 

parte. A court “may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to 

the adverse party or its attorney 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 

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)(1). For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff 

cannot satisfy subpart (A) of this rule. As for subpart (B), Plaintiff’s counsel states in his 

Declaration that, based on his experience in similar cases, Defendants’ past conduct—

including their “refusing to disclose the identity of where the Goods are made” and their 

unwillingness to assist Plaintiff in vetting Defendants’ manufacturing process—leads him 

to believe they will “secret[] away” and “hid[e]” the goods if given notice of a hearing 

before a temporary restraining order issues. Doc. 4-2 at 2-3. Even if there were a link 

between stonewalling a vetting process and hiding a batch of Defendants’ goods, it is not 

clear why Plaintiff fears the “secret[ing] away” and “hid[ing]” of such goods. After all, it 

is precisely the distribution of these goods that Plaintiff asks the Court to restrain. 

Counsel’s Declaration does not offer a compelling reason “why [notice] should not be 

required.” 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining 

order, without notice, is denied. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction Regarding Trademark, Service 

Mark and Copyright Infringement (Doc. 4) is set for a hearing on Monday, October 6, 

Case 2:14-cv-02142-NVW Document 14 Filed 10/01/14 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 

2014 at 4:00 p.m., Courtroom 504, Sandra Day O’Connor U. S. Courthouse, 401 West 

Washington, Phoenix, Arizona 85003. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall give Defendants actual notice of 

its Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction 

Regarding Trademark, Service Mark and Copyright Infringement (Doc. 4), whether by 

service of process or not, no later than 5 p.m. on October 3, 2014. 

 Dated this 1st day of October, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-02142-NVW Document 14 Filed 10/01/14 Page 3 of 3