Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00474/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00474-0/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NFL PROPERTIES LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DOES 1 THROUGH 100,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00474

*SEALED*

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR EX PARTE TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND SEIZURE 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 4

Plaintiffs in this case are NFL Properties LLC (“NFLP”), Panthers Football, LLC d/b/a 

Carolina Panthers (“Carolina Panthers”), and PDB Sports, Ltd. d/b/a Denver Broncos Football 

Club (“Denver Broncos”). The Carolina Panthers and Denver Broncos are member clubs of the 

National Football League (“NFL”), and will meet on Sunday, February 7, 2016 in Super Bowl 50

to vie for the world champion title at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California. Dkt. No. 3. 

The NFLP owns all of the NFL’s “trademarks, names, logos, symbols, [and] slogans” and 

is “the authorized representative of the NFL’s thirty-two member clubs with respect to the 

licensing and protection of their trademarks, names, logos, symbols, slogans, and other identifying 

marks and indicia, including the marks adopted and used by the Carolina Panthers and the Denver 

Broncos.” Dkt. Nos. 3, 4. Based on long experience from prior Super Bowls, the NFLP, Carolina 

Panthers and Denver Broncos believe that defendants in this case will use the Super Bowl 50 

game as an opportunity to sell to the public “unlicensed, counterfeit merchandise (‘counterfeit 

merchandise’) and unlicensed, unredeemable counterfeit tickets (‘counterfeit tickets’) bearing the 

//

//

//

Case 3:16-cv-00474-CRB Document 12 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 5
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

Northern District of California

NFL trademarks.” Dkt. No. 4 at 1. They seek an order restraining that illicit conduct and 

allowing for the seizure of any infringing or counterfeit goods or tickets.

1

At the hearing on the motion for ex parte temporary restraining order, seizure order, and 

order to show cause re preliminary injunction, counsel acknowledged that the seizure of 

counterfeit merchandise and tickets matters most to plaintiffs. That aspect of plaintiffs’ motion --

the request for an ex parte seizure order -- is made under the Counterfeiting Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1116(d), as well as a similar state law, California Business and Professions Code § 14250. 

The Court finds that plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements for a seizure order but have 

proposed an order that overreaches in some aspects and does not go far enough in others. The 

Court explains here the modifications that are needed to plaintiffs’ proposed order. The Court 

discussed these modifications with counsel at the hearing, and plaintiffs do not object to them. 

The final seizure order issued concurrently with this opinion will contain the modifications. 

As a preliminary matter, the Court was concerned that this case names only “Does 1 

through 100” as defendants, with not a single defendant identified by name. Dkt. No. 3. Plaintiffs 

did not address this issue in their motion. Dkt. No. 4. Our Circuit has stated, however, that 

although “[a]s a general rule, the use of ‘John Doe’ to identify a defendant is not favored . . . , 

situations arise, such as the present, where the identity of alleged defendants will not be known 

prior to the filing of a complaint. In such circumstances, the plaintiff should be given an 

opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery 

would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” 

Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted). 

This case presents the additional twist that there is no discovery at present that would 

practically be of aid to plaintiffs. That is not because discovery would be futile in the sense that 

was likely meant by the Ninth Circuit Court in Gillespie, but rather because the expected harm has 

not yet come to pass. As stated by plaintiffs in their motion, “the identities and locations of the 

 1 This case has been assigned to Senior District Judge Charles R. Breyer who remains the 

presiding judge (see Dkt. No. 7), but Judge Donato is resolving the pending motion and issuing 

this order as the General Duty Judge in Judge Breyer’s absence.

Case 3:16-cv-00474-CRB Document 12 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Northern District of California

unnamed defendants in this action cannot be ascertained until they commence their illegal 

counterfeiting activities.” Dkt. No. 4 at 21. It is beyond dispute that a plaintiff has Article III 

standing to seek injunctive relief against threatened injury that is “certainly impending.” Clapper 

v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1143 (2013). Plaintiffs have met that bar and the Court 

finds that justice requires that they be permitted to pursue the requested relief against the Doe 

defendants while that is the only way that they can be named. To hold otherwise would rob 

plaintiffs of their only means of putting a stop to the threatened injury that is clearly impending. 

The Court modifies the proposed order as follows:

1. Who May Make the Seizures: Plaintiffs request an order that would authorize the 

following persons to effectuate the requested seizures: “an agent from the Department of 

Homeland Security and/or other duly authorized law enforcement officer(s) from the Santa Clara, 

San Jose, and, as available, other Bay Area Counties’ Police Departments, along with NFLP’s 

duly authorized representatives, including private investigators Heather Holdridge of Brand 

Security Corporation and Wayne Grooms, or any trained person acting under their supervision, 

direction, and control.” Dkt. No. 6 at 7 (italics added). 

Plaintiffs explained at the hearing that the non-law enforcement personnel were included 

because they are subject matter experts in that they can distinguish on sight counterfeit goods vs. 

authentic goods, and they may be needed to handle some back office work post-seizure. The 

federal statute plaintiffs have invoked, however, contemplates only seizures by federal, state or 

local law enforcement officers. See 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(9). Although the state counterpart, 

California Business and Professions Code Section 14250(b), does not contain the same limitation, 

it also does not expressly authorize non-law enforcement personnel to take part in the actual 

seizing of counterfeit goods. Plaintiffs stated at the hearing that they intend to make seizures only 

through law enforcement officers, and the Court sees no good reason to allow anyone other than 

an on-duty federal, state or local law enforcement officer to effectuate a seizure. See, e.g., World 

Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Does, No. 15-CV-01263-VC, 2015 WL 9690312, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Mar. 24, 2015) (raising concern of possible violence should off-duty officers be permitted to seize 

items). 

Case 3:16-cv-00474-CRB Document 12 Filed 02/02/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

2. Scope of Items That May Be Seized: Plaintiffs seek permission to seize “any and 

all . . . carton[s], container[s], or vessel[s] in which . . . Counterfeit Merchandise or Counterfeit 

Tickets are carried, or other containers in which said Counterfeit Merchandise or Counterfeit 

Tickets are stored, carried, displayed, or transported . . . .” Dkt. No. 6 at 8. As drafted, this would 

arguably permit plaintiffs to seize things like cars or other vehicles in which counterfeit 

merchandise or tickets are being transported. This plainly exceeds the scope permitted by the 

applicable statutes. See 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(1)(A) (providing for the seizure “of goods and 

counterfeit marks involved in such violation and the means of making such marks, and records 

documenting the manufacture, sale, or receipt of things involved in such violation.”); Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code § 14250 (providing for the seizure of “any goods, labels, packaging or any components 

bearing the counterfeit mark and all instrumentalities used in the production of the counterfeit 

goods . . . .”). 

3. When Service of the Order of Seizure Must Be Made: Plaintiffs request that 

service of the seizure order be permitted to be made “before or during any delivery, seizure, and 

impoundment executed pursuant to this order.” Dkt. No. 6 at 8. The federal statute is clear, 

however, that the order must be served before any seizure can take place. See 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1116(d)(9) (“The court shall order that service of a copy of the [seizure] order . . . shall be made 

by [a federal, state or local law enforcement officer], who, upon making service, shall carry out the 

seizure under the order.”) (emphasis added). 

4. Amount of Bond: Both the federal and state statutes require the posting of a bond 

as a condition of obtaining a seizure order. See 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(4)(A) (“the court shall not 

grant such an application unless the person obtaining an order . . . provides the security determined 

adequate by the court for the payment of such damages as any person may be entitled to recover as 

a result of a wrongful seizure or wrongful attempted seizure under this subsection”); Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code § 14250(b) (court may order seizure “upon the posting of an undertaking”); Cal. Bus. 

& Prof. Code § 14250(e) (“court shall set the amount of the undertaking . . . in accordance with 

the probable recovery of damages, costs, and expenses . . . if it were ultimately determined that the 

goods seized were not counterfeit”). Plaintiffs have proposed $30,000 as the amount of bond, see

Case 3:16-cv-00474-CRB Document 12 Filed 02/02/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

Dkt. No. 6 at 9, but the Court finds that this amount is too low. As plaintiffs state, “[i]n the 

coming days, hundreds of thousands of fans will arrive in the San Francisco Bay Area to witness 

the Carolina Panthers play the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl 50,” and “eagerly anticipated largescale entertainment events” such as the Super Bowl “precipitate[] the production and sale of a 

wide range of counterfeit merchandise and counterfeit tickets.” Dkt. No. 4 at 1, 5. In this context, 

$30,000 is simply too low an amount to be sufficient to cover what is effectively a margin of error. 

The Court will consequently raise the bond amount to $75,000.

The Court will issue a separate order that modifies plaintiffs’ proposed order on these

points. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00474-CRB Document 12 Filed 02/02/16 Page 5 of 5