i 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CHRISTIAN DIOR COUTURE, S.A., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHINABRANDMALL.COM, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 20-cv-02421 

Judge Robert W. Gettleman 

Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR 

ENTRY OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, INCLUDING A TEMPORARY 

INJUNCTION, A TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF THE DOMAIN NAMES, A 

TEMPORARY ASSET RESTRAINT, AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 

Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. (“Plaintiff” or “Dior”) submits this Memorandum 

in support of its Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), 

including a temporary injunction, a temporary transfer of the Domain Names, a temporary asset 

restraint, and expedited discovery (the “Ex Parte Motion”). 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:402
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................... 1

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 2

A. Dior’s Trademarks, Copyrights and Products ............................................................. 2

B. Defendants’ Unlawful Activities ................................................................................. 3

III. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 4

A. Standard for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction ..................... 5

B. Dior Will Likely Succeed on the Merits ...................................................................... 6

i. Dior Will Likely Succeed on Its Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting, 

False Designation of Origin, and UDTPA Claims. ............................................ 6

ii. Dior Is Likely to Succeed on Its Copyright Infringement Claim ....................... 8

C. There Is No Adequate Remedy at Law, and Dior Will Suffer Irreparable Harm in the 

Absence of Preliminary Relief ..................................................................................... 9

D. The Balancing of Harms Tips in Dior’s Favor, and the Public Interest Is Served by 

Entry of the Injunction ............................................................................................... 10

IV. THE EQUITABLE RELIEF SOUGHT IS APPROPRIATE ............................................. 11

A. An Order Immediately Enjoining Defendants’ Unauthorized and Unlawful Use of 

the CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks and Dior Copyrighted Designs Is Appropriate 11

B. Transferring the Defendant Domain Names to Dior’s Control Is Appropriate ......... 12

C. Preventing the Fraudulent Transfer of Assets Is Appropriate ................................... 12

D. Dior Is Entitled to Expedited Discovery .................................................................... 14

V. A BOND SHOULD SECURE THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ............................................ 15

VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 15

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:403
1 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 

 Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. (“Plaintiff” or “Dior”) is requesting temporary ex 

parte relief based on an action for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, false designation of 

origin, and copyright infringement against the defendants identified on Schedule “A” to the 

Amended Complaint (collectively, the “Defendants”). As alleged in Dior’s Amended 

Complaint, Defendants are promoting, advertising, marketing, distributing, offering for sale, and 

selling products, including clothing and fashion accessories, using infringing and counterfeit 

versions of Dior’s federally registered trademarks, unauthorized copies of Dior’s federally 

registered copyrighted designs, or both (collectively, the “Unauthorized Dior Products”), through 

at least the fully interactive, e-commerce stores1

 operating under the seller aliases identified in 

Schedule A to the Amended Complaint (collectively, the “Seller Aliases”). 

Defendants run a sophisticated counterfeiting operation, and have targeted sales to 

Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores using one or more Seller Aliases 

through which Illinois residents can purchase Unauthorized Dior Products. The e-commerce 

stores operating under the Seller Aliases share unique identifiers establishing a logical 

relationship between them. Further, Defendants attempt to avoid and mitigate liability by 

operating under one or more Seller Aliases to conceal both their identities and the full scope and 

interworking of their operation. Dior is forced to file these actions to combat Defendants’ 

counterfeiting of its registered trademarks and infringement of its registered copyrights, as well 

as to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing Unauthorized Dior Products over the 

1

 The e-commerce store urls are listed on Schedule A to the Amended Complaint under the Online 

Marketplaces and Domain Names.

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:404
2 

Internet. Defendants’ ongoing unlawful activities should be restrained, and Dior respectfully 

requests that this Court issue ex parte a Temporary Restraining Order. 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

A. Dior’s Trademarks, Copyrights and Products 

Dior is a world-famous couturier engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of 

prestigious, high-quality, luxury merchandise, including a wide variety of clothing and fashion 

accessories, eyewear, leather goods, jewelry, watches, and other similar items sold throughout 

the United States (collectively, the “Dior Products”), all of which prominently display its 

famous, internationally-recognized and federally-registered trademarks, including CHRISTIAN 

DIOR, DIOR, CD, and (the “Cannage Design”). Declaration of Nicolas Lambert, (the 

“Lambert Declaration”) at ¶ 3. Dior uses its trademarks in connection with the marketing of its 

Dior Products, which are collectively referred to as the “CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks.” Id. 

True and correct copies of the United States registration certificates for the CHRISTIAN DIOR 

Trademarks are attached to the Lambert Declaration as Exhibit 1. The registrations for the 

CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks are valid, subsisting, in full force and effect, and many are 

incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Id. at ¶ 6. The registrations for the CHRISTIAN 

DIOR Trademarks constitute prima facie evidence of their validity and of Dior’s exclusive right 

to use the CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b). 

Dior Products have long been among the most famous and popular of their kind in the 

world and have been extensively promoted and advertised at great expense. Id at ¶ 7. Dior has 

expended millions of dollars annually in advertising, promoting and marketing featuring the 

CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks. Id. Dior Products have also been the subject of extensive 

unsolicited publicity resulting from their high quality and popularity among high profile 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:405
3 

celebrities who don Dior Products at red carpet events. Id. The CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks 

are distinctive when applied to the Dior Products, signifying to the purchaser that the products 

come from Dior and are manufactured to Dior’s quality standards. Id. at ¶ 8. The CHRISTIAN 

DIOR Trademarks have achieved tremendous fame and recognition, which has only added to the 

distinctiveness of the marks. Id. As such, the goodwill associated with the CHRISTIAN DIOR 

Trademarks is of incalculable and inestimable value to Dior. Id. 

Dior has also registered many of its designs with the United States Copyright Office (the 

“Dior Copyrighted Designs”). Id. at ¶ 10. The registrations include, but are not limited to, the 

registrations listed in paragraph 10 to the Declaration of Nicolas Lambert. Id. at ¶ 10. True and 

correct copies of the U.S. federal copyright registration certificates for the Dior Copyrighted 

Designs are attached to the Lambert Declaration as Exhibit 4. Among the exclusive rights 

granted to Dior under the U.S. Copyright Act are the exclusive rights to reproduce, prepare 

derivative works of, distribute copies of, and display the Dior Copyrighted Design to the public. 

B. Defendants’ Unlawful Activities 

 The success of the Dior brand has resulted in its significant counterfeiting. Lambert 

Declaration at ¶ 12. Consequently, Dior has a worldwide anti-counterfeiting program and 

regularly investigates suspicious e-commerce stores identified in proactive Internet sweeps and 

reported by consumers. Id. In recent years, Dior has identified numerous fully interactive ecommerce stores, including those operating under the Seller Aliases, which were offering for 

sale and/or selling Unauthorized Dior Products to consumers in this Judicial District and 

throughout the United States. Id. Dior’s well-pleaded allegations regarding registration patterns, 

similarities among the e-commerce stores operating under the Seller Aliases and the 

Unauthorized Dior Products for sale thereon, and common tactics employed to evade 

enforcement efforts establish a logical relationship among the Defendants and that Defendants 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:406
4 

are an interrelated group of counterfeiters. Id. at ¶ 19. If Defendants provide additional credible 

information regarding their identities, Dior will take appropriate steps to amend the Amended 

Complaint. 

III. ARGUMENT 

 Defendants’ purposeful, intentional, and unlawful conduct is causing and will continue to 

cause irreparable harm to Dior’s reputation and the goodwill symbolized by the CHRISTIAN 

DIOR Trademarks and the Dior Copyrighted Designs. Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure provides that the Court may issue an ex parte TRO where immediate and irreparable 

injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party's attorney 

can be heard in opposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). The entry of a TRO is appropriate because it 

would immediately stop the Defendants from benefiting from their wrongful use of the 

CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks and the Dior Copyrighted Designs and preserve the status quo 

until a hearing can be held. 

 In the absence of a TRO without notice, the Defendants can and likely will register new 

e-commerce stores under new aliases and move any assets to off-shore bank accounts outside the 

jurisdiction of this Court. See Declaration of Justin R. Gaudio (“Gaudio Declaration”) at ¶¶ 5-7. 

Courts have recognized that civil actions against counterfeiters present special challenges that 

justify proceeding on an ex parte basis. See Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Jasso, 927 F. 

Supp. 1075, 1077 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (observing that “proceedings against those who deliberately 

traffic in infringing merchandise are often useless if notice is given to the infringers”). As such, 

Dior respectfully requests that this Court issue the requested ex parte TRO. 

 This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant 

to the provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq., the Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. § 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:407
5 

501, et seq., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a)-(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1391. 

 This Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants since Defendants 

directly target business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, 

through at least the fully interactive, e-commerce stores operating under the Seller Aliases. 

Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating ecommerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases through 

which Illinois residents can purchase Unauthorized Dior Products. See Amended Complaint at 

¶¶ 2, 19, 27, and 28. See, e.g., Christian Dior Couture, S.A. v. Lei Liu et al., 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 158225, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2015) (personal jurisdiction proper over defendants 

offering to sell alleged infringing product to United States residents, including Illinois; no actual 

sale required). Each of the Defendants is committing tortious acts in Illinois, is engaging in 

interstate commerce, and has wrongfully caused Dior substantial injury in the State of Illinois. 

A. Standard for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 

 District Courts within this Circuit hold that the standard for granting a TRO and the 

standard for granting a preliminary injunction are identical. See, e.g. Charter Nat’l Bank & Trust 

v. Charter One Fin., Inc., No. 2001 WL 527404, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2001) (citation 

omitted). A party seeking to obtain a preliminary injunction must demonstrate: (1) that its case 

has some likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that no adequate remedy at law exists; and (3) 

that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. See Ty, Inc. v. The Jones 

Group, Inc., 237 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2001). 

 If the Court is satisfied that these three conditions have been met, then it must consider 

the harm that the nonmoving party will suffer if preliminary relief is granted, balancing such 

harm against the irreparable harm the moving party will suffer if relief is denied. Id. Finally, the 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:408
6 

Court must consider the potential effect on the public interest (non-parties) in denying or 

granting the injunction. Id. The Court then weighs all of these factors, “sitting as would a

chancellor in equity,” when it decides whether to grant the injunction. Id. (quoting Abbott Labs. 

v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6, 11 (7th Cir. 1992)). This process involves engaging in what 

the Court has deemed “the sliding scale approach” – the more likely the plaintiff will succeed on 

the merits, the less the balance of harms need favor the plaintiff's position. Id. 

B. Dior Will Likely Succeed on the Merits 

i. Dior Will Likely Succeed on Its Trademark Infringement and 

Counterfeiting, and False Designation of Origin Claims. 

 A defendant is liable for trademark infringement and counterfeiting under the Lanham 

Act if it, “without the consent of the registrant, use[s] in commerce, any reproduction, copy, or 

colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, 

distribution, or advertising of any goods ... which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to 

cause mistake, or to deceive.” 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). Dior’s Lanham Act claims involve the same 

elements. See Packaging Supplies, Inc. v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., No. 08 C 400, 2011 WL 

1811446, at *5 (N.D. Ill. May 12, 2011). A Lanham Act trademark infringement claim has two 

elements. See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). First, a plaintiff must show “that its mark is protected 

under the Lanham Act.” Barbecue Marx, Inc. v. 551 Ogden, Inc., 235 F.3d 1041, 1043 (7th 

Cir. 2000). Second, plaintiff must show that the challenged mark is likely to cause confusion 

among consumers. Id. 

In this case, Dior’s CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks are distinctive and are registered 

with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Lambert Declaration at ¶¶ 5-6. The 

registrations for the CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks are valid, subsisting, in full force and 

effect, and many are incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065. Id. The registrations for the 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:409
7 

CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks constitute prima facie evidence of their validity and of Dior’s 

exclusive right to use the CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b). 

Furthermore, Dior has not licensed or authorized Defendants to use any of the CHRISTIAN 

DIOR Trademarks, and none of the Defendants are authorized retailers of genuine Dior Products. 

Id. at ¶ 15. Thus, Dior satisfies the first element of its Lanham Act claim. 

The Seventh Circuit has held that where “one produces counterfeit goods in an apparent 

attempt to capitalize upon the popularity of, and demand for, another’s product, there is a 

presumption of a likelihood of confusion.” Microsoft Corp. v. Rechanik, 249 F. App’x 476, 479 

(7th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the Court can presume a likelihood of confusion from Defendant’s 

use of the CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks. The result is the same when considered in light of 

the Seventh Circuit’s seven enumerated factors to determine whether there is a likelihood of 

confusion, which include: (1) similarity between the marks in appearance and suggestion; (2) 

similarity of the products; (3) area and manner of concurrent use; (4) degree of care likely to be 

exercised by consumers; (5) strength of complainant's mark; (6) actual confusion; and, (7) intent 

of the defendants to palm off their products as that of another. AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick, 543 

F.3d 923, 929 (7th Cir. 2008). No one factor is dispositive, but the similarity of the marks, 

actual confusion, and the defendant’s intent are “particularly important.” Id. 

Dior has submitted extensive documentation showing that Defendants are selling 

Unauthorized Dior Products that look similar to genuine Dior Products and use infringing and 

counterfeit marks identical to the CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks. Both Dior and Defendants 

advertise and sell their products to consumers via the Internet, targeting consumers looking for 

genuine Dior Products. Lambert Declaration at ¶¶ 9 and 13. Those consumers are diverse with 

varying degrees of sophistication, and they are likely to have difficulty distinguishing genuine 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:410
8 

Dior Products from Unauthorized Dior Products. Indeed, it appears that Defendants are 

intentionally trying to induce consumers looking for genuine Dior Products to purchase 

Unauthorized Dior Products instead. In that regard, Defendants advertise Unauthorized Dior 

Products using the DIOR Trademarks. Lambert Declaration at ¶¶ 13 and 16. Evidence of actual 

consumer confusion is not required to prove that a likelihood of confusion exists, particularly 

given the compelling evidence that Defendants are attempting to “palm off” their goods as 

genuine Dior products. CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Eng’g, Inc., 267 F.3d 660, 685 (7th Cir. 2001). 

Accordingly, Dior is likely to establish a prima facie case of trademark infringement, 

counterfeiting, and false designation of origin. 

ii. Dior Is Likely to Succeed on Its Copyright Infringement Claim 

The United States Copyright Act provides that “[a]nyone who violates any of the 

exclusive rights of the copyright owner ... is an infringer of the copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 501. 

Among these exclusive rights granted to Dior under the Copyright Act are the exclusive rights to 

reproduce, prepare derivative works of, distribute copies of, and display the Dior Copyrighted 

Designs to the public. 17 U.S.C. § 106. 

To establish a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show: “(1) ownership of 

a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.” JCW 

Invs., Inc. v. Novelty, Inc., 482 F.3d 910, 914 (7th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). 

Copying can be shown through direct evidence, or it can be inferred where a defendant had 

access to the copyrighted work and the accused work is substantially similar. Spinmaster, Ltd. v. 

Overbreak LLC, 404 F. Supp. 2d 1097, 1102 (N.D. Ill. 2005). To determine whether there is a 

substantial similarity that indicates infringement, Courts use the “ordinary observer” test which 

asks whether “an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the defendant unlawfully 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:411
9 

appropriated protectable expression by taking material of substance and value.” Id. A work may 

be deemed infringing if it captures the “total concept and feel of the copyrighted work.” Id. 

With respect to the first element, Dior is the owner of several relevant federally registered 

copyrights. As to the second element, Defendants are willfully and deliberately reproducing the 

Dior Copyrighted Designs in their entirety, and are willfully and deliberately distributing copies 

of the Dior Copyrighted Designs to the public by sale. Defendants’ unauthorized copies are 

identical or substantially similar to the Dior Copyrighted Designs. Such blatant copying 

infringes upon Dior’s exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106. As such, Dior has proved it has a 

reasonable likelihood of success on the merits for its copyright infringement claim. 

C. There Is No Adequate Remedy at Law, and Dior Will Suffer Irreparable Harm 

in the Absence of Preliminary Relief 

The Seventh Circuit has “clearly and repeatedly held that damage to a trademark holder's 

goodwill can constitute irreparable injury for which the trademark owner has no adequate legal 

remedy.” Re/Max N. Cent., Inc. v. Cook, 272 F.3d 424, 432 (7th Cir. 2001) (citing Eli Lilly & 

Co. v. Natural Answers, Inc., 233 F.3d 456, 469 (7th Cir.2000)). Likewise, an injury to a 

copyright holder that is “not easily measurable in monetary terms, such as injury to reputation or 

goodwill, is often viewed as irreparable.” EnVerve, Inc. v. Unger Meat Co., 779 F. Supp. 2d 

840, 844 (N.D. Ill. 2011). Irreparable injury “almost inevitably follows” when there is a high 

probability of confusion because such injury “may not be fully compensable in damages.” 

Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., 560 F.2d 1325, 1332 (7th Cir. 1977) 

(citation omitted). “The most corrosive and irreparable harm attributable to trademark 

infringement is the inability of the victim to control the nature and quality of the defendants’ 

goods.” Int’l Kennel Club of Chicago, Inc. v. Mighty Star, Inc., 846 F.2d 1079, 1092 (7th Cir. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:412
10 

1988). As such, monetary damages are likely to be inadequate compensation for such harm. 

Ideal Indus., Inc. v. Gardner Bender, Inc., 612 F.2d 1018, 1026 (7th Cir. 1979). 

 Defendants’ unauthorized use of the CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks has and continues 

to irreparably harm Dior through diminished goodwill and brand confidence, damage to Dior’s 

reputation, loss of exclusivity, and loss of future sales. Lambert Declaration at ¶¶ 23-27. The 

extent of the harm to Dior’s reputation and goodwill and the possible diversion of customers due 

to loss in brand confidence are both irreparable and incalculable, thus warranting an immediate 

halt to Defendants’ infringing activities through injunctive relief. See Promatek Industries, Ltd. 

v. Equitrac Corp., 300 F.3d 808, 813 (7th Cir. 2002) (finding that damage to plaintiff’s goodwill 

was irreparable harm for which plaintiff had no adequate remedy at law). Dior will suffer 

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage if an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order is 

not issued in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1). Lambert Declaration at 

¶ 28. 

D. The Balancing of Harms Tips in Dior’s Favor, and the Public Interest Is Served 

by Entry of the Injunction 

As noted above, if the Court is satisfied that Dior has demonstrated (1) a likelihood of 

success on the merits, (2) no adequate remedy at law, and (3) the threat of irreparable harm if 

preliminary relief is not granted, then it must next consider the harm that Defendants will suffer

if preliminary relief is granted, balancing such harm against the irreparable harm that Dior will 

suffer if relief is denied. Ty, Inc., 237 F.3d at 895. As willful infringers, Defendants are entitled 

to little equitable consideration. “When considering the balance of hardships between the parties 

in infringement cases, courts generally favor the trademark owner.” Krause Int’l Inc. v. Reed 

Elsevier, Inc., 866 F. Supp. 585, 587-88 (D.D.C. 1994). This is because “[o]ne who adopts the 

mark of another for similar goods acts at his own peril since he has no claim to the profits or 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:413
11 

advantages thereby derived.” Burger King Corp. v. Majeed, 805 F. Supp. 994, 1006 (S.D. Fla. 

1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, the balance of harms “cannot favor a 

defendant whose injury results from the knowing infringement of the plaintiff's trademark.” 

Malarkey-Taylor Assocs., Inc. v. Cellular Telecomms. Indus. Ass’n, 929 F. Supp. 473, 478 

(D.D.C. 1996). 

 As Dior has demonstrated, Defendants have been profiting from the sale of Unauthorized 

Dior Products. Thus, the balance of equities tips decisively in Dior’s favor. The public is 

currently under the false impression that Defendants are operating their e-commerce stores with 

Dior’s approval and endorsement. In this case, the injury to the public is significant, and the 

injunctive relief that Dior seeks is specifically intended to remedy that injury by dispelling the 

public confusion created by Defendants’ actions. As such, equity requires that Defendants be 

ordered to cease their unlawful conduct. 

IV. THE EQUITABLE RELIEF SOUGHT IS APPROPRIATE 

The Lanham Act authorizes courts to issue injunctive relief “according to the principles 

of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable, to prevent the violation of any 

right of the registrant of a mark ....” 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a). 

A. An Order Immediately Enjoining Defendants’ Unauthorized and Unlawful Use 

of the CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks and Dior Copyrighted Designs Is 

Appropriate 

Dior requests a temporary injunction requiring the Defendants to immediately cease all 

use of the CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks, or substantially similar marks and/or copying and 

distribution of the Dior Copyrighted Designs, on or in connection with all e-commerce stores 

operating under the Seller Aliases. Such relief is necessary to stop the ongoing harm to the 

CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks and associated goodwill, as well as harm to consumers, and to 

prevent the Defendants from continuing to benefit from their unauthorized use of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:414
12 

CHRISTIAN DIOR Trademarks and/or copying and distribution of the Dior Copyrighted 

Designs. The need for ex parte relief is magnified in today’s global economy where 

counterfeiters can operate anonymously over the Internet. Dior is currently unaware of both the 

true identities and locations of the Defendants, as well as other e-commerce stores used to 

distribute Unauthorized Dior Products. Many courts have authorized immediate injunctive relief 

in similar cases involving the unauthorized use of trademarks and counterfeiting. See, e.g., 

Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. The Partnerships, et al., No. 15-cv-3249 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 

2015) (unpublished) (order granting ex parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order). 

B. Transferring the Defendant Domain Names to Dior’s Control Is Appropriate 

As part of the TRO, Dior also seeks temporary transfer of the Domain Names to Dior’s 

control in order to disable the counterfeit websites and electronically publish notice of this case 

to Defendants. Defendants involved in domain name litigation easily can, and often will, change 

the ownership of a domain name or continue operating the website while the case is pending. 

Accordingly, to preserve the status quo and ensure the possibility of eventual effective relief, 

courts in trademark cases involving domain names regularly grant the relief requested herein. 

See, e.g., Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. The Partnerships, et al., No. 15-cv-3249 (N.D. Ill. 

April 4, 2015) (unpublished). As such, Dior respectfully requests that, as part of the TRO, the 

Court require the relevant registries and/or registrars for the Domain Names to transfer the 

Domain Names to Dior. 

C. Preventing the Fraudulent Transfer of Assets Is Appropriate 

Dior requests an ex parte restraint of Defendants’ assets so that Dior’s right to an 

equitable accounting of Defendants’ profits from sales of Unauthorized Dior Products is not 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:415
13 

impaired.2 Issuing an ex parte restraint will ensure Defendants’ compliance. If such a restraint 

is not granted in this case, Defendants may disregard their responsibilities and fraudulently 

transfer financial assets to overseas accounts before a restraint is ordered. Specifically, on 

information and belief, the Defendants in this case hold most of their assets in off-shore 

accounts, making it easy to hide or dispose of assets, which will render an accounting by Dior 

meaningless. 

Courts have the inherent authority to issue a prejudgment asset restraint when plaintiff’s 

complaint seeks relief in equity. Animale Grp. Inc. v. Sunny’s Perfume Inc., 256 F. App’x 707, 

709 (5th Cir. 2007). In addition, Dior has shown a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits 

of its trademark infringement and counterfeiting claim, so according to the Lanham Act 15 

U.S.C. § 1117(a)(1), Dior is entitled, “subject to the principles of equity, to recover ... 

defendant’s profits.” Similarly, Dior has shown a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits 

of its copyright infringement claim, and therefore Dior is entitled to recover “...any profits of the 

infringer that are attributable to the infringement.” 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Dior’s Amended 

Complaint seeks, among other relief, that Defendants account for and pay to Dior all profits 

realized by Defendants by reason of Defendants’ unlawful acts. Therefore, this Court has the 

inherent equitable authority to grant Dior’s request for a prejudgment asset freeze to preserve 

relief sought by Dior. 

The Northern District of Illinois in Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Montrose Wholesale 

Candies entered an asset restraining order in a trademark infringement case brought by a tobacco 

company against owners of a store selling counterfeit cigarettes. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. 

Montrose Wholesale Candies, 2005 WL 3115892, at *13 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2005). The Court 

recognized that it was explicitly allowed to issue a restraint on assets for lawsuits seeking 

2

 Dior has filed a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal certain documents for this same reason. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:416
14 

equitable relief. Id. (citing Grupo Mexicano de Desarollo, S.A. v. Aliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 

308, 325 (1999)). Because the tobacco company sought a disgorgement of the storeowner’s 

profits, an equitable remedy, the Court found that it had the authority to freeze the storeowner’s 

assets. Id. 

Dior has shown a likelihood of success on the merits, an immediate and irreparable harm 

suffered as a result of Defendants’ activities, and that, unless Defendants’ assets are frozen, 

Defendants will likely hide or move their ill-gotten funds to off-shore bank accounts. 

Accordingly, an asset restraint is proper. 

D. Dior Is Entitled to Expedited Discovery 

The United States Supreme Court has held that “federal courts have the power to order, at 

their discretion, the discovery of facts necessary to ascertain their competency to entertain the 

merits.” Vance v. Rumsfeld, No. 1:06-cv-06964, 2007 WL 4557812, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21,

2007) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 2380 (1978)). 

Courts have wide latitude in determining whether to grant a party's request for discovery. Id. 

(citation omitted). Further, courts have broad power over discovery and may permit discovery in 

order to aid in the identification of unknown defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). 

 Dior respectfully requests expedited discovery to discover bank and payment system 

accounts Defendants use for their counterfeit sales operations. The expedited discovery 

requested in Dior’s Proposed TRO is limited to include only what is essential to prevent further 

irreparable harm. Discovery of these financial accounts so that they can be frozen is necessary to 

ensure that these activities will be contained. See, e.g., Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. The 

Partnerships, et al., No. 15-cv-3249 (N.D. Ill. April 4, 2015) (unpublished). Dior’s seizure and 

asset restraint may have little meaningful effect without the requested relief. Accordingly, Dior 

respectfully requests that expedited discovery be granted. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:417
15 

V. A BOND SHOULD SECURE THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

The posting of security upon issuance of a temporary restraining order or preliminary 

injunction is vested in the Court’s sound discretion. Rathmann Grp. v. Tanenbaum, 889 F.2d 

787, 789 (8th Cir. 1989). Because of the strong and unequivocal nature of Dior’s evidence of 

counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and copyright infringement, Dior respectfully requests 

that this Court require Dior to post a bond of no more than ten thousand U.S. dollars 

($10,000.00). See, e.g., Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. The Partnerships, et al., No. 15-cv3249 (N.D. Ill. April 4, 2015) (unpublished) ($10,000 bond).

VI. CONCLUSION 

Defendants’ unlawful operations are irreparably harming Dior’s business, its famous Dior 

brand, and consumers. Without entry of the requested relief, Defendants’ sale of Unauthorized 

Dior Products will continue to lead prospective purchasers and others to believe that Defendants’ 

Unauthorized Dior Products have been manufactured by or emanate from Dior, when in fact, 

they have not. Therefore, entry of an ex parte order is necessary. In view of the foregoing and 

consistent with previous similar cases, Dior respectfully requests that this Court enter a 

Temporary Restraining Order in the form submitted herewith. 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:418
16 

Dated this 23rd day of April 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Justin R. Gaudio_______________ 

Amy C. Ziegler 

Justin R. Gaudio 

Allyson M. Martin 

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. 

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

312.360.0080 

312.360.9315 (facsimile) 

aziegler@gbc.law 

jgaudio@gbc.law 

amartin@gbc.law 

 

Counsel for Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 15 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:419