Matthew A. Levin, OSB #003054 

MattLevin@MHGM.com 

MARKOWITZ, HERBOLD, GLADE 

& MEHLHAF, P.C. 

1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3000 

Portland, OR 97204-3730 

Tel: (503) 295-3085 

Fax: (503) 323-9105 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

FILED 7 Alt~ '141569/JSDC·(JRP 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

ABS-CBN CORPORATION, a Philippines 

corporation; ABS-CBN FILM 

PRODUCTIONS, INC. d/b/a Star Cinema, a 

Philippines corporation; and ABS-CBN 

INTERNATIONAL, a California corporation, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

JEFFREY ASHBY, an individual; LENIE 

ASHBY, an individual; jointly d/b/a 

WEBPINOYTAMBAYAN.COM; 

W ATCHFILIPINOTV.COM; 

WATCHFILIPINOMOVIES.COM; 

PINOY-TVKO.COM; PINOYTVKO.BIZ; 

PINOY-TUBE. COM; 

MYPINOYTUBETV.COM; 

PINOYTALAGA.COM; 

PINOYSTREAMING.COM; 

PINOYMOVIEFAN.COM; 

PINOYTVEPISODES.NET; 

PINOYTVEPISODES.INFO; and DOES 1-

100, 

Defendants. 

3 '14 - cv - 1 2 7 5 Ca~~ No.: _ HU I .·'' ~ 

PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF 

ORDER RESTRAINING TRANSFER 

OF ASSETS AND MEMORANDUM 

OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

Page 1- PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER 

RESTRAINING TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN SUPPORT THEREOF 

Case 3:14-cv-01275-BR Document 4 Filed 08/07/14 Page 1 of 11
Plaintiffs, ABS-CBN Corporation, ABS-CBN Film Productions, Inc. d/b/a Star Cinema, 

and ABS-CBN International (hereinafter collectively, "Plaintiffs" or "ABS-CBN"), hereby do 

apply, on an ex parte basis, for entry of an Order Restraining Transfer of Assets against the 

Defendants Jeffrey Ashby and Lenie Ashby (the "Individual Defendants"), d/b/a the Subject 

Domain Names identified on Schedule "A" to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Temporary 

Restraining Order (the "Individual Defendants"), and Does 1-100 (with the Individual 

Defendants, collectively, "Defendants"), pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, 

and in support thereof submit the following memorandum of law. 

I. ARGUMENT 

Plaintiffs seek to restrain Defendants' assets, including advertisement service accounts 

and financial institution accounts, which contain illegal profits generated by Defendants through 

their unlawful distribution and advertisement of ABS-CBN copyrighted content under the ABSCBN trademarks without authorization. In light of the inherently deceptive nature of the 

Defendants' business, and Defendants' blatant violation of the federal trademark and copyright 

laws, Plaintiffs have good reason to believe Defendants will secret or transfer their ill-gotten 

assets beyond the jurisdiction of this Court unless they are restrained. As provided by the 

Lanham Act and the Copyright Act, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the illegal profits gained 

through Defendants' unlawful distribution services under Plaintiffs' trademarks (see 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1117(a)) and infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works (see 17 U.S.C. § 504(a)-(c)). 

Therefore to preserve the disgorgement remedies authorized by Congress, Plaintiffs seek an ex 

parte order restraining Defendants' assets. 

As part of the ongoing investigations regarding the infringement of ABS-CBN's Marks, 

Plaintiffs retained Investigator Robert Holmes ("Holmes"), the founder and CEO of 

Page 2- PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER 

RESTRAINING TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN SUPPORT THEREOF 

Case 3:14-cv-01275-BR Document 4 Filed 08/07/14 Page 2 of 11
IPCybercrime.com ("IPC"), a licensed private investigative firm located in Plano, Texas. As 

detailed in the Declaration of Robert Holmes in support hereof and Plaintiffs' Ex Parte 

Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction ("Holmes Decl."), filed 

contemporaneously herewith, Robert Holmes was able to locate the advertising revenue accounts 

of the Defendants in relation to the advertising networks set up to generate income on their 

infringing websites. The accounts are identified by Subject Domain Name below: 

Site Advertising Advertising Advertising Personalized - Service Service Service E- Account 

Address and mail Number 

Telephone 

Number 

webpinoytambayan. com Adprotected No. 02/63 Le info@ad:grot 641 

JSC Due Tho, Tu ected.com 

Liem District 

HaNoi 

Capital, Viet 

Nam 

Tel: 

+8498899919 

5 

webpinoytambayan.com Exact Media 1133 .webmaster@ 513 

Inc. dba Ad Broadway exactmediain 

Reactor #706 c.com 

New York, 

NY 10010 

Tel: (646) 

4177100 

webpinoytambayan.com Mad Ads 717D su:ggort@ma 5731 

Media LP Fellowship dadsmedia.co 

Rd. m 

Mount Laurel, 

NJ 08054 

Tel: (856) 

8748928 

Page 3- PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER 

RESTRAINING TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN SUPPORT THEREOF 

Case 3:14-cv-01275-BR Document 4 Filed 08/07/14 Page 3 of 11
Site Advertising Advertising Advertising Personalized 

Service Service Service E- Account 

Address and mail Number 

Telephone 

Number 

webpinoytambayan.com, Matomy c/o Matomy info@matom 11881072 

pinoytvko.biz Media USA, Inc. ymarket.com 

Group 77 Water 

Street 12th 

Floor 

New York, 

NY, 10005 

Tel: (212) 

7711578 

watchfilipinotv .com, Matomy c/o Matomy info@matom 11949838 

watchfilipinomovies.com, Media USA, Inc. ymarket.com 

pinoymoviefan.com, Group 77 Water 

pinoytalaga.com Street 12th 

Floor 

New York, 

NY, 10005 

Tel: (212) 

7711578 

watchfilipinomovies.com Gunggo Co. 7270 7270 S0003250 

Ltd. dba Woodbine Woodbine 

DirectRev Ave. #100, Ave. #100, 

Markham, ON Markham, 

L3R4B9; ON L3R4B9; 

(416) 637- (416) 637-

5079 5079 

watchfilipinotv .com Gunggo Co. 7270 7270 S0003253 

Ltd. dba Woodbine Woodbine 

DirectRev Ave. #100, Ave. #100, 

Markham, ON Markham, 

L3R4B9; ON L3R4B9; 

(416) 637- (416) 637-

5079 5079 

pinoytalaga.com Gunggo Co. 7270 7270 S0003257 

Ltd.dba Woodbine Woodbine 

Direct Rev Ave. #100, Ave. #100, 

Markham, ON Markham, 

L3R4B9; ON L3R4B9; 

(416) 637- (416) 637-

5079 5079 

Page 4- PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER 

RESTRAINING TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN SUPPORT THEREOF 

Case 3:14-cv-01275-BR Document 4 Filed 08/07/14 Page 4 of 11
Site Advertising Advertising Advertising Personalized 

Service Service Service E- Account 

Address and mail Number 

Telephone 

Number 

pinoytalaga.com Gunggo Co. 7270 7270 S0003258 

Ltd. dba Woodbine Woodbine 

DirectRev Ave. #100, Ave. #100, 

Markham, ON Markham, 

L3R4B9; ON L3R4B9; 

(416) 637- (416) 637-

5079 5079 

watchfilipinomovies.com Google Inc. 1600 legal@googl ca-pubdb a Amphitheater e.com 16757298080193 

DoubleClic Way 24 

k Mountain 

View, CA 

94043 

(650) 618-

253-0000 

mypinoytubetv .com Google Inc. 1600 legal@googl ca-pubdb a Amphitheater e.com 49586013004495 

DoubleClic Way 66 

k Mountain 

View, CA 

94043 

(650) 618-

253-0000 

(Holmes Decl. ~ 5 and Compl. Ex. A thereto.) 

A. An Ex Parte Order Restraining Transfer of Certain Assets is Appropriate. 

In addition to requested relief stated in Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed contemporaneously herewith, the Court 

should enter an order limiting the transfer of Defendants' unlawfully gained assets. Plaintiffs 

have already demonstrated that they will likely succeed on the merits of their claims. As such, 

under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) and 17 U.S.C. § 504(a)-(c), Plaintiffs will be entitled to an accounting 

and payment of the profits earned by Defendants throughout the course of their unlawful copying 

Page 5- PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER 

RESTRAINING TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN SUPPORT THEREOF 

Case 3:14-cv-01275-BR Document 4 Filed 08/07/14 Page 5 of 11
and distribution service scheme. Due to the deceptive nature of the Defendants' business and 

Defendants' deliberate violation of federal trademark and copyright laws, Plaintiffs respectfully 

request this Court grant additional ex parte relief restraining the transfer of all monies held or 

received by any person or entity, including the marketing/advertising partners identified above, 

for the benefit of any one or more of Defendants. 

This Court has broad authority to grant such an order. The Supreme Court has provided 

that district courts have the power to grant preliminary injunctions to prevent a defendant from 

transferring assets in cases where an equitable interest is claimed. Grupo Mexicano de 

Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 144 L. Ed. 2d 319, 119 S. Ct. 1961 

(1999). Moreover, almost every Circuit has interpreted Rule 65 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure to grant authority to courts to freeze assets pendente lite. See Mason Tenders Dist. 

Council Pension Fund v. Messera, 1997 WL 223077 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 1997) (acknowledging 

that "[a ]lmost all the Circuit Courts have held that Rule 65 is available to freeze assets pendente 

lite under some set of circumstances"). 

In light of the illicit nature ofthe Defendants' business, along with the ability of 

infringers to practically eliminate their evidentiary trails by conducting their business entirely 

over the Internet, courts in the Ninth Circuit, among others, have particularly noted the 

significance of such asset freezes in cases involving infringing defendants. See, ~ Reebok 

Int'l Ltd. v. Mamatech Enter., 737 F. Supp. 1515 (S.D. Cal. 1989), affd, 970 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 

1992); see also Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int'l Trading, 51 F.3d 982 (11th Cir. 1995). 

In Reebok v. Mamatech, for instance, the District Court granted Reebok a limited 

restraint of the defendants' assets for the purpose of preserving those assets, thus ensuring the 

availability of a meaningful accounting after trial. Reebok lnt'l Ltd., 737 F. Supp. at 559. In 

Page 6- PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER 

RESTRAINING TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN SUPPORT THEREOF 

Case 3:14-cv-01275-BR Document 4 Filed 08/07/14 Page 6 of 11
affirming the decision, the Ninth Circuit determined that the plaintiff met its burden of 

demonstrating: ( 1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) immediate and irreparable harm as a 

result of defendants' infringing activities; and (3) that defendants might hide their allegedly illgotten profits if their assets were not frozen. Reebok Int'l Ltd., 970 F.2d 552, 563 (9th Cir. 

1992). Moreover the Court reasoned: "because the Lanham Act authorizes the District Court to 

grant Reebok an accounting of [Defendant's] profits as a form of final equitable relief, the 

District Court has the inherent power to freeze [Defendant's] assets in order to ensure the 

availability of that final relief." Reebok Int'l Ltd., 970 F.2d. at 559. See also Republic of 

Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355, 1364 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1035 (1989) 

("[a] court has the power to issue a preliminary injunction in order to prevent a defendant from 

dissipating assets in order to preserve the possibility of equitable remedies"). 

Similarly, in Levi Strauss, the Eleventh Circuit upheld an order granting an asset restraint 

against an alleged counterfeiter where the complaint included a request for a permanent 

injunction and the equitable remedy of disgorgement of the alleged counterfeiter's profits under 

15 U.S.C. § 1117. Levi Strauss, 51 F.3d at 987. Distinguishing Levi Strauss from two earlier 

cases not involving Lanham Act claims, the Court emphasized the necessity of the freeze holding 

that a "request for 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." ld. (citing Federal Trade Commission v. United States Oil and Gas Corp., 748 F.2d 

1431, 1433-34 (lith Cir. 1984) (district court may exercise its full range of equitable powers, 

including a preliminary asset freeze, to ensure that permanent equitable relief will be possible)). 

In multiple recent cases similar to this matter, courts have entered the form of relief sought 

herein. See Chanel, Inc. v. The Unincorporated Association, 2:11-cv-03780-GAF-PJW (C.D. 

Page 7- PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER 

RESTRAINING TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN SUPPORT THEREOF 

Case 3:14-cv-01275-BR Document 4 Filed 08/07/14 Page 7 of 11
Cal. July 29, 2011) (Order freezing PayPal accounts used to receive monies from the sale of 

counterfeit goods); Acushnet Company v. Thomas Allan Thiede, et al., CV 12-02508-PHX-JAT 

(D. Ariz. Dec. 5, 2012) (Order restraining financial institution and Paypal accounts). 

Using the power to issue provisional remedies ancillary to their authority to provide final 

equitable relief, numerous courts have granted orders restraining defendants from transferring 

their assets under trademark infringement claims. See, e.g., Reebok Int'l Ltd., 970 F.2d at 559; 

Levi Strauss, 51 F.3d at 987. See also United States of America ex. rel. v. Rahman, M.D., 198 

F.3d 489, at 498-99 at n.2 (4th Cir. 1999) (acknowledging that a district court has authority to 

freeze assets to satisfy an equitable award of profits in actions alleging trademark infringement); 

Diane Von Furstenberg Studio v. Snyder, 2007 WL 3143690, at *2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 23, 2007) 

(upholding the restraint on alleged trademark infringer's assets).' 

Courts in this Circuit have done the same in cases of alleged copyright infringement. See 

Datatech Enters. LLC v. FF Magnat Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131711, at *14-15 (N.D. Cal. 

Sept. 14, 2012) (issuing preliminary injunction and freezing assets based on plaintiffs claim for 

disgorgement ofprofits involved an equitable remedy under§ 504(b) ofthe Copyright Act; 

stating "Upholding copyright protections is in the public interest. . . . Absent the requested 

equitable relief, Datatech may well be entirely denied effective remedy for Magnat's alleged 

infringements.") (citations omitted)); Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. FF Magnat Ltd., 2012 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86663, at *2-3 (D. Nev. June 21, 2012) ("Freezing the domain names and any 

1 See also, Balenciaga America, Inc. v. Dollinger, Case l0-cv-2912(LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 

201 0) (holding court had equitable power to freeze alleged infringer's assets to award Lanham 

Act claims); North Face Apparel Corp. v. TC Fashions, Inc., Case 05-cv-9083(RMB) (S.D.N.Y. 

Mar. 30, 2006) (upholding restraint on alleged trademark infringer's assets); Lorillard Tobacco 

Co. v. Montrose Wholesale Candies, Case Nos. 03-cv-4844, 03-cv-5311 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2005) 

(same); Animale Group Inc. v. Sunny's Perfume Inc., Case 07-cv-40200 (5th Cir. Dec. 5, 2007) 

(same). 

Page 8- PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER 

RESTRAINING TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN SUPPORT THEREOF 

Case 3:14-cv-01275-BR Document 4 Filed 08/07/14 Page 8 of 11
U.S. funds protects Plaintiffs ability to receive any possible relief. There is also a genuine 

public interest in upholding copyright protections .... ) (citations omitted)). 

Moreover, to provide complete equitable relief, courts have granted such orders without 

providing notice to defendants. Specifically, federal courts have held that where advance notice 

of an asset freeze is likely to cause a party to alienate the assets sought to be frozen, a temporary 

restraining order may be issued ex parte. See F.T. Int'l Ltd v. Mason, 2000 WL 1514881, at *3 

(E.D. Pa. 2000) (granting ex parte TRO freezing Defendants' bank accounts upon finding that 

advance notice would likely have caused the Defendants to secret or alienate funds); CSC 

Holdings, Inc. v. GreenleafElec., Inc., 2000 WL 715601 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (granting ex parte TRO 

enjoining cable television pirates and freezing pirates' assets). 

In this case, Defendants' blatant violations of federal trademark and copyright laws 

warrant an ex parte order restraining the transfer of their ill-gotten assets. Moreover, as 

Defendants' business is conducted almost entirely over the Internet, Plaintiffs have additional 

cause for ex parte relief, as Defendants may easily secret or transfer their assets without the 

Court's or Plaintiffs' knowledge. 

B. A Bond Should Secure the Injunction. 

Because of the strong and unequivocal nature of Plaintiffs' evidence of infringement, 

Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court require it to post a bond of no more than ten thousand 

dollars ($1 0,000.00) in connection with this Application and the contemporaneously filed 

Application for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order, subject to increase should the restrained 

funds exceed $10,000.00. The posting of security upon issuance of a temporary or permanent 

injunction is vested in the Court's sound discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). 

Page 9- PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER 

RESTRAINING TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN SUPPORT THEREOF 

Case 3:14-cv-01275-BR Document 4 Filed 08/07/14 Page 9 of 11
CONCLUSION 

In view ofthe foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court enter an order 

restraining transfer of assets in the form submitted herewith. 

DATED this Ji_ day of August, 2014. 

newmal6\398671 

MARKOWITZ, HER 

&MEH AF, P. 

By: 

at ew A. Levin, OSB #003054 

(503) 295-3085 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Page 10- PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER 

RESTRAINING TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN SUPPORT THEREOF 

Case 3:14-cv-01275-BR Document 4 Filed 08/07/14 Page 10 of 11
; 

SCHEDULE "A" 

SUBJECT DOMAIN NAMES 

Domain Number Domain Name 

1 WEBPINOYTAMBA Y AN.COM 

2 W ATCHFILIPINOTV.COM 

3 WATCHFILIPINOMOVIES.COM 

4 PINOY-TVKO.COM 

5 PINOYTVKO.BIZ 

6 PINOY-TUBE.COM 

7 MYPINOYTUBETV.COM 

8 PINOYTALAGA.COM 

9 PINOYSTREAMING.COM 

10 PINOYMOVIEFAN.COM 

11 PINOYTVEPISODES.NET 

12 PINOYTVEPISODES.INFO 

Page 11- PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER 

RESTRAINING TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN SUPPORT THEREOF 

Case 3:14-cv-01275-BR Document 4 Filed 08/07/14 Page 11 of 11