United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

Cheng Yizhou, Plaintiff,

v. 

The Individuals, Partnerships, and 

Unincorporated Associated 

Identified on Schedule “A”, 

Defendants.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Civil Action No. 22-23558-Civ-Scola 

Order Granting Preliminary Injunction 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Cheng Yizhou’s Motion for 

Entry of Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Order 

Restraining Transfer of Assets. (ECF No. 17.) The Court previously granted the 

Motion in part and entered a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO,” ECF No. 22) 

and subsequently extended the TRO's duration (ECF No. 25). The Plaintiff, 

Cheng Yizhou, also moves for entry of a preliminary injunction against the 

Defendants, Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations 

Identified on Schedule “A” to the Complaint, and an order restraining the 

financial accounts used by the Defendants pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502, 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, and The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). 

The Court heard oral argument on the motion for preliminary injunction on 

December 9, 2022, at which none of the Defendants appeared. 

 The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the record, the 

arguments, and the governing law. For the reasons stated below, the Court 

grants the Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 17.) 

1. Background 

On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff Cheng Yizhou filed the present action for 

copyright infringement alleging that the Defendants, through e-commerce 

stores, are advertising, promoting, marketing, offering for sale, displaying and 

soliciting for sale, using the Plaintiff’s federally registered copyright art or a 

substantially similar reflection thereof, in violation of federal copyright law. 

(ECF No. 1). 

Plaintiff is the owner of four (4) U.S. copyright registrations for 2-D 

visual art images (“Copyrighted Art”). Each of these images is individually 

registered with the United States Copyright Office and protected from 

infringement under federal copyright law. (See Compl. at Ex. No. 1-4, ECF 

Nos. 1-1 – 1-4; “Copyrighted Works,” ECF Nos. 11-1 – 11-4.) The Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-23558-RNS Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 1 of 7
demonstrated he is the owner of the Copyrighted Art by submitting copies of 

the U.S. copyright registrations: 1) Registration Number VA 2-279-758; 2) 

Registration Number VA 2-279-757; 3) Registration Number VA 2-280-456; 

and 4) Registration Number VA 2-280-455, all with an effective date of August 

18, 2021. (Compl. at Ex. 1-4; Copyrighted Works; see also Cheng Decl., ECF 

No. 14, ¶ 4.) 

The Plaintiff is the owner of all rights, title, and interest to the 

Copyrighted Art, which the Plaintiff advertises, offers for sale, and sells the 

Copyrighted Art in authorized e-commerce stores such as Amazon, among 

others. (Cheng Decl. ¶ 7.) The Plaintiff has expended time, money and other 

resources developing, advertising and otherwise promoting the Copyrighted 

Art. (Id. ¶ 8.) Each of the four images contained in the Copyrighted Art has 

independent economic value and has generated revenue in relation to the 

retail items offered for sale in the authorized e-commerce stores. (Id. ¶ 9.) The 

Plaintiff establishes that he suffers irreparable injury any time unauthorized 

sellers, such as the Defendants, sell or offer to sell goods using identical or 

substantially similar copies or derivatives of the Copyrighted Art. (Id. ¶ 10.) 

Without the Plaintiff’s permission or license, the Defendants are 

promoting, selling, reproducing, offering for sale, and/or distributing goods 

using unauthorized copies of the Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Art within this District 

through various Internet based e-commerce stores and fully interactive 

commercial Internet websites (such as Amazon, Aliexpress and Wish.com) 

operating under their seller identification names (“Seller IDs”), as set forth in 

Schedule A of the Complaint. (“Schedule A,” ECF No. 12; see also Cheng Decl. 

¶ 17.) Through a simple comparison of the Defendants’ infringing goods with 

Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Art, a layman can observe the Defendants’ infringement 

of the Plaintiff’s exclusive copyrights as the images are virtually exact 

duplicates or substantially similar images to the Plaintiff’s Art. (Compare

Compl. Ex. 1-4; Copyrighted Works; with “Schedule B,” ECF No. 16 (providing 

screenshots of the Defendants’ products on their e-commerce stores); Rubio 

TRO Decl., ECF No. 15, ¶ 5; and Cheng Decl. ¶¶ 12-16.) 

2. Legal Standard

The Copyright Act provides that courts may grant injunctive relief “on 

such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a 

copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 502(a). A party seeking to obtain a preliminary 

injunction must demonstrate: 

(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 

Case 1:22-cv-23558-RNS Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 2 of 7
(2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction were 

not granted; 

(3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the harm an 

injunction may cause the defendant; and, 

(4) that granting the injunction would not disserve the public 

interest. 

See Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11th Cir. 

2001) (citing Am. Red Cross v. Palm Beach Blood Bank, Inc., 143 F.3d 1407, 

1410 (11th Cir.1998)) (applying the test to a preliminary injunction in a 

Copyright Act case). 

3. Analysis 

The Plaintiff brings suit against 340 ecommerce sellers, alleging one 

count of copyright infringement against each. In support, the Plaintiff provided 

the Court with nine pages of Cheng’s copyrighted photographs (ECF Nos. 11-1 

11-2, 11-3, 11-4) and nearly 1,400 pages of screenshots from the Defendants’ 

various ecommerce websites (Schedule “B,” ECF Nos. 16-1, 16-2, 16-3, 16-4, 

16-5, 16-6). The Plaintiff left it to the Court to piece together which photograph 

or thumbnail on each Defendants’ website infringed which of the Plaintiff’s 

works. While the Court underwent this exercise, it kept a few legal principles in 

mind. 

To succeed on a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must 

establish “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent 

elements of the work that are original.” See Compulife Software Inc. v. Newman, 

959 F.3d 1288, 1301 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 

F.3d 1532, 1541 (11th Cir. 1996)). Copyright is built on the “fundamental 

axiom” that “copyright protection does not extend to ideas but only to 

particular expressions of ideas.” See Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, 

L.C., 527 F.3d 1218, 1224 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 102(b)). To 

determine whether one work infringes on another, “courts look to whether 

‘substantial similarity’ exists between the allegedly infringing work and the 

protectable elements of the copyrighted work. Morford v. Cattelan, No. 21-

20039-CIV, 2022 WL 2466775, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 6, 2022) (Scola, J.) 

(cleaned up). 

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has established a substantial likelihood 

of success on the merits. First, the Court finds that the Plaintiff established a 

substantial likelihood of success in proving that Cheng owns valid copyrights 

in the Copyrighted Art. Moreover, the Plaintiff established a substantial 

likelihood of success in showing that the Defendants reproduced the 

Case 1:22-cv-23558-RNS Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 3 of 7
protectable elements of one or more of the Copyrighted Art in furtherance of

their ecommerce businesses.

The Court finds that because of the infringement of the Copyrighted Art,

the Plaintiff is likely to suffer immediate and irreparable injury if a temporary

restraining order is not granted. The following specific facts, as set forth in the

Plaintiff’s Complaint, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and accompanying

declarations, demonstrate that immediate and irreparable loss, damage, and

injury will result to the Plaintiff and to consumers before the Defendants can

be heard in opposition unless the Plaintiff’s request for relief is granted:

1. The Defendants own or control Internet based e-commerce

stores and websites which advertise, promote, offer for sale,

and sell products bearing infringing images in violation of

the Plaintiff’s rights;

2. There is good cause to believe that more infringing products

bearing reproductions and derivatives of the Plaintiff’s

Copyrighted Art will appear in the marketplace, and that

consumers are likely to be misled, confused, and

disappointed by the quality of these products; and

3. There is good cause to believe that if the Plaintiff proceeds on

notice to the Defendants of this Application for Temporary

Restraining Order, the Defendants can easily and quickly

change the ownership or modify domain registration and ecommerce store account data and content, change payment

accounts, redirect consumer traffic to other seller

identification names, and transfer assets and ownership of

Seller IDs thereby thwarting the Plaintiff’s ability to obtain

meaningful relief.

The balance of potential harm to the Defendants in restraining their

trade in infringing goods if a preliminary injunction is issued is far outweighed

by the potential harm to the Plaintiff, and its reputation as the owner of the

Copyrighted Art.

The public interest favors issuance of the preliminary injunction to

protect the Plaintiff’s copyright interests, to encourage respect for the law, and

to protect the public from being defrauded by the illegal sale of infringing

goods.

The Plaintiff may be entitled to recover statutory damages from

Defendants in the amount of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars

($150,000.00) per each registered Copyrighted Art infringed, as provided by 17

U.S.C. § 504(c), enhanced to reflect the willful nature of Defendants’

infringement, instead of an award of actual damages or profits, and be awarded

Case 1:22-cv-23558-RNS Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 4 of 7
its costs and disbursements incurred in this action, including reasonable

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.

Requesting equitable relief “invokes the district court’s inherent equitable

powers to order preliminary relief, including an asset freeze, in order to assure

the availability of permanent relief.” Levi Strauss & Co., 51 F.3d at 987 (citing

Federal Trade Commission v. United States Oil & Gas Corp., 748 F.2d 1431,

1433-34 (11th Cir. 1984)).

In light of the inherently deceptive nature of the infringing business, and

the likelihood that the Defendants have violated federal copyright laws, the

Plaintiff has good reason to believe the Defendants will hide or transfer their illgotten assets beyond the jurisdiction of this Court unless those assets are

restrained.

Upon review of the Plaintiff’s Complaint, Motion for Preliminary

Injunction, and supporting evidentiary submissions, the Court hereby

ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

(ECF No. 17) is granted, under the terms set forth below:

(1) Each of the Defendants, its officers, directors, employees, agents,

subsidiaries, distributors, and all persons in active concert or participation

with any of the Defendants having notice of this Order are preliminarily

enjoined as follows:

(a) From manufacturing, importing, advertising, promoting,

offering to sell, selling, distributing, or transferring any products bearing

reproductions or derivatives of the Copyrighted Art; and

(b) From secreting, concealing, destroying, selling off, 

transferring, or otherwise disposing of: (i) any products, not

manufactured or distributed by the Plaintiff, bearing reproductions or

derivatives of the Copyrighted Art; (ii) any evidence relating to the

manufacture, importation, sale, offer for sale, distribution, or transfer of

any products bearing reproductions or derivatives of the Copyrighted Art;

or (iii) any assets or other financial accounts subject to this Order,

including inventory assets, in the actual or constructive possession of, or

owned, controlled, or held by, or subject to access by, any of the

Defendants, including, but not limited to, any assets held by or on behalf

of any of the Defendants.

(2) Each of the Defendants, its officers, directors, employees, agents,

subsidiaries, distributors, and all persons in active concert or participation

with any of the Defendants having notice of this Order shall immediately

discontinue the use of any unauthorized copies of the Copyrighted Art on or in

connection with all Internet based e-commerce stores owned and operated, or

Case 1:22-cv-23558-RNS Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 5 of 7
controlled by them, including the Internet based e-commerce stores operating

under the Seller IDs.

(3) Each of the Defendants shall not transfer ownership of the Seller

IDs during the pendency of this action, or until further Order of the Court.

(4) Upon receipt of notice of this Order, the Defendants and any third

party financial institutions, payment processors, banks, escrow services,

money transmitters, or marketplace platforms who is providing services for any

of the Defendants, including but not limited to, AliExpress, Alipay, Dhgate,

Dhpay, Joom, Wish, Wishpay, Amazon, Amazon Pay, Ebay, Etsy, Paypal,

and/or Taobao, and their related companies and affiliates (collectively, the

“Third-Party Providers”), shall within five (5) business days after receipt of

notice of this Order:

(a) Restrain the transfer of all funds, including funds relating

to ongoing account activity, held or received for the Defendants’ benefit

or to be transferred into the Defendants’ respective financial accounts,

restrain any other financial accounts tied thereto, and immediately divert

those restrained funds to a holding account for the trust of the Court.

Such restraining of the funds and the disclosure of the related financial

institution account information (as provided below) shall be made

without notice to the account owners or the financial institutions until

after those accounts are restrained. No funds restrained by this Order

shall be transferred or surrendered by any Third-Party Provider for any

purpose (other than pursuant to a chargeback made pursuant to their

security interest in the funds) without the express authorization of this

Court.

(b) Continue to provide the Plaintiff information regarding the

(i) the identity of all financial accounts and/or sub-accounts associated

with the Internet based e-commerce stores operating under the Seller IDs

identified on Schedule “A” hereto, as well as any other accounts of the

same customer(s); (ii) an accounting of the total funds restrained and

identities of the financial account(s) and sub-account(s) for which the

restrained funds are related.

(5) Any Defendant or Third-Party Provider subject to this Order may

petition the Court to modify the asset restraint set out in this Order.

(6) This Order shall apply to the Seller IDs, associated ecommerce

stores and websites, and any other seller identification names, e-commerce

stores, domain names, websites, or financial accounts which are being used by

Defendants for the purpose of infringing the Copyrighted Art at issue in this

action and/or unfairly competing with Plaintiff.

Case 1:22-cv-23558-RNS Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 6 of 7
(7) This Order shall go into effect immediately and remain in full force

for the pendency of this action or until further order of the Court.

(8) The Court determines that the bond in the amount of Ten

Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($10,000.00), posted by Plaintiff as

evidenced by the Plaintiff’s Notice (ECF No. 29) is sufficient and shall remain

with the Court until a final disposition or until this preliminary injunction is

dissolved or terminated. In the Court’s discretion, the bond may be subject to

increase should an application be made in the interest of justice.

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on December 9, 2022.

____________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-23558-RNS Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 7 of 7