Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00244/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00244-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 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

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 3:16-cv-00244-RS

ORDER GRANTING MODE MEDIA’S 

EX PARTE MOTION FOR: 

(1) A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER WITHOUT NOTICE AND 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD 

NOT ISSUE;

(2) LEAVE TO SERVE DEFENDANT 

JOHN DOE 1 VIA HIS PRIVACY 

PROTECTION PROXY AGENT; AND

(3) LEAVE TO CONDUCT EARLY 

DISCOVERY PRIOR TO A RULE 26(f) 

CONFERENCE

MODE MEDIA CORPORATION, 

f/k/a GLAM MEDIA, a Delaware 

corporation;

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE 1, as registrant of the 

GLAMSCOOP.ORG domain name; 

and JOHN DOES 2-10;

 Defendants.

Case 3:16-cv-00244-RS Document 11 Filed 01/15/16 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

-1-

ORDER

Plaintiff Mode Media Corporation (“Mode Media”) seeks an ex parte temporary 

restraining order (“TRO”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Civil Local 

Rules 7-10 and 65-1, and under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1116 et seq.). For good 

cause shown, Mode Media’s ex parte motion is GRANTED.

A. Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order

A TRO may be granted upon a showing “that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, 

or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(A). The purpose of such an order, as a form of preliminary injunctive 

relief, is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm “just so long as is necessary 

to hold a hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters,

415 U.S. 423, 439, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974). A request for a TRO is evaluated 

by the same factors that generally apply to a preliminary injunction, see Stuhlbarg Int’l. 

Sales Co. v. John D. Brushy & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir.2001), and as a form of 

preliminary injunctive relief, a TRO is an “extraordinary remedy” that is “never granted as 

of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 

L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). “Under the Winter test, the moving party must 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 tips in its favor; and (4) an injunction is in the 

public interest.” Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, 775 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) permits courts to issue a TRO without written or oral 

notice to the adverse party if (1) the moving party will suffer “immediate and irreparable 

injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in 

opposition”; and (2) “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give 

notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” 

Mode Media has submitted its registrations for the trademarks to GLAM, BRASH, 

and TEND, which serves as prima facie evidence of ownership and exclusive right to use 

the mark. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115(a); Pom, 775 F.3d at 1124. Mode Media has also 

introduced screenshots of GlamScoop.org’s website alongside screenshots of its own. A 

Case 3:16-cv-00244-RS Document 11 Filed 01/15/16 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

-2-

ORDER

comparison of the two websites reveals striking similarities, and therefore a strong 

likelihood that the public would be confused. See Pom, 775 F.3d at 1125 (listing the 

Sleekcraft factors, including the likelihood of confusion). In addition, Mode Media has 

submitted evidence that suggests defendants are intentionally concealing their identities and 

going out of their way to place the allegedly infringing content on another server once the 

host removed the content from the website. See Pietz Decl. ¶ 10. 

Mode Media has also demonstrated a likelihood of confusion tends to cause 

trademark holders to lose control of their business reputation and good will—all forms of 

harm. In addition to showing likelihood to confusion, Mode Media has demonstrated that it 

has tried numerous times to stop defendants from posting the offending material on their 

website. Mode Media has sent numerous letters to website servers, requesting the server to 

remove GlamScoop.org’s content. When the content was removed, however, defendants 

found another server to host the website. Pietz Decl. ¶ 10. That defendants seek and find 

new servers to host their content suggest they are willfully seeking to infringe upon Mode

Media’s trademarks.

There is little evidence to suggest that the equities tip in defendants favor. 

Everything in the record suggests that defendants are willfully appropriating and using 

Mode Media’s content. Nor is there evidence that defendants are engaged in legitimate 

business activities. Thus, the balance of equities tips in favor of Mode Media.

Finally, the public interest favors issuing a TRO. “In trademark cases, the public 

interest is the public’s right not to be deceived or confused. Indeed, ‘the most basic public 

interest at stake in all Lanham Act cases [is] the interest in prevention of confusion, 

particularly as it affects the public interest in truth and accuracy.’” Warner Bros. Entm’t v. 

Glob. Asylum, Inc., No. CV 12-9547 PSG CWX, 2012 WL 6951315, at *23 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 

10, 2012) aff’d sub nom. Warner Bros. Entm’t v. Glob. Asylum, Inc., 544 F. App’x 683 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (quoting Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 730 (3d Cir. 2004)). 

Where, as here, the plaintiff shows that there is a likelihood of consumer confusion, an 

injunction to prevent that confusion is in the public’s interest. Id. 

Case 3:16-cv-00244-RS Document 11 Filed 01/15/16 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

-3-

ORDER

In addition to showing immediate and irreparable harm, Media Mode has made a 

sufficient showing that it has tried and failed to serve notice of this temporary restraining

order. Mode Media does not know the defendants’ identities, despite its efforts to find out. 

Mode Media has figured out that defendants are using a privacy proxy service, but absent a 

court order, the privacy proxy service and servers will not assist with service. See Pietz 

Decl. ¶¶ 3-6. Thus, Mode Media has satisfied Rule 65(b)’s requirements for issuing a TRO 

without notice.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

a. the GlamScoop.org domain name be placed on lock and hold, such that 

control over the domain name is frozen by the registrar for the pendency of this litigation;

b. all evidence related to the claims at issue in this action, including 

records relating to Internet hosting accounts used to host the website located at 

GlamScoop.org be preserved, which will include placing and maintaining all user and/or 

account information for the registrant of the GlamScoop.org domain name, including 

metadata, server data, network data, records of IP addresses for account logins, contact 

information, and billing information, on a legal hold during the pendency of this litigation.

c. Mode Media need not post a bond and need not appear at a hearing

because there appears to be “no realistic likelihood of harm to [GlamScoop.org] from 

enjoining” the website. Jorgenson v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 919 (9th Cir. 2003). 

d. This order shall become effective at 3:00 p.m. on Friday, January 15, 

2016.

B. Alternative Service

To effect service of process, parties have options. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

4(e)(1) permits parties to “follow[] state law for serving a summons in an action brought in 

courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service 

is made.” Pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2), parties may also serve process by “delivering a copy of 

the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; leaving a copy of each at 

the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and 

Case 3:16-cv-00244-RS Document 11 Filed 01/15/16 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

-4-

ORDER

discretion who resides there; or delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by 

appointment or by law to receive service of process.” Id. As Mode Media has filed its 

claims for relief in the Northern District of California, it may serve process by filing a 

motion to direct service “in a manner which is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to 

the party to be served and that proof of such service be made as prescribed by the court.” 

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 413.30. Service by email is reasonably calculated to give defendants 

notice. See Rio Props. Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1017 (9th Circ. 2002); 

Facebook, Inc. v. Banana Ads, LLC, No. C-11-3619 YGR, 2012 WL 1038752, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. Mar. 27, 2012) (holding that service of process by email was reasonably calculated to 

provide actual notice because the foreign and domestic defendants were involved in 

commercial internet activities). Mode Media has not been able to identify John Doe 1’s 

email address, but it has found the next-best thing: the privacy protection proxy service. To 

use the privacy proxy service, defendants had to give the service contact information. Pietz 

Decl. ¶¶ 4-6. Thus, Mode Media has demonstrated that service via the proxy service is 

reasonably calculated to effect service.

Leave is hereby GRANTED and Mode Media is ORDERED to serve on John Doe 1 

via the privacy protection proxy service online form that is associated with GlamSnoop.org, 

the following documents:

a. the requested TRO;

b. the complaint in this action;

c. a summons directed, as per the caption, to “John Doe 1, as registrant of 

the GlamScoop.org domain name”;

d. this order, pursuant to which the John Does are also hereby ORDERED 

TO SHOW CAUSE as to why a preliminary injunction should not be issued. Specifically, 

the John Does must show cause as to why, for the duration of this action: (i) the terms of the 

TRO should not remain in effect, and (ii) GlamScoop.org should not be disabled at the 

domain name server (“DNS”) level and they should not be enjoined from further 

infringement of Mode Media’s trademarks or other intellectual property rights, whether via 

Case 3:16-cv-00244-RS Document 11 Filed 01/15/16 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

-5-

ORDER

re-enabling GlamScoop.org name, or by using, registering, or trafficking in any other 

domain name, Internet website, or other method. Defendants shall appear at a hearing on 

Mode Media’s motion for a preliminary injunction on January 29, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in 

Courtroom 3. 

C. Leave to Engage in Early Discovery

Use of “John Doe” defendants is generally disfavored. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 

637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). When plaintiffs have tried to uncover the defendant’s identity and 

failed, however, plaintiffs should have the opportunity to obtain discovery for the limited 

purpose of identifying the defendant. Id. Mode Media seeks subpoenas to third-parties 

who host or have hosted GlamScoop.org and the privacy proxy service John Doe 1 

supposedly uses. Mode Media has documented its efforts to identify John Doe 1 and shown 

that there is good cause to permit limited discovery in order to ascertain the John Does’

identities.

Accordingly, leave is hereby GRANTED to Mode Media to conduct early discovery 

prior to a Rule 26(f) conference, that is designed to identify and serve the John Doe 

defendants, as follows:

a. serving a third party subpoena on each hosting company that the John 

Does have used in connection with hosting GlamScoop.org;

b. serving a third party subpoena on the registrar for GlamScoop.org;

c. serving a third party subpoena on the privacy proxy service that John 

Doe 1 used to hide his or her identity while registering GlamScoop.org; 

d. serving follow-up subpoenas based on returns made on prior subpoenas 

that are necessary to identifying the John Does so they can be named in their true names and 

served with the summons and complaint; 

e. provided, however, that all such early third party subpoenas authorized 

by this order are subject to the following limitations:

i. early discovery and any responsive information received may be 

used only for the purpose of identifying the defendants and prosecuting this action;

Case 3:16-cv-00244-RS Document 11 Filed 01/15/16 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

-6-

ORDER

ii. any subpoena recipient that is a cable service provider, or that 

wishes to do so, may give its subscribers notice of the subpoena, and at least 21-days to 

move to quash the subpoena or seek a protective order before any return is made thereon;

iii. the only information which Mode Media may request without 

seeking additional Court approval is contact information, IP addresses logs, non-content 

metadata (such as the type of device used to login), and/or billing account information for 

the suspected John Doe defendants who are somehow associated with GlamScoop.org.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 15, 2016 BY:_____________________________________

Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00244-RS Document 11 Filed 01/15/16 Page 7 of 7