Bigfoot 4x4, Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto

(#32) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: In light of the continued applicability of the circumstances that justified entry of the initial TRO, the Plaintiff's extension motion on the TRO #31 is granted through 05/03/2023. The tracking status hearing of 04/21/2023 is reset to 05/05/2023 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Instead, the Plaintiff shall file a status report and the motion for preliminary injunction (if appropriate) by 04/28/2023. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 04/19/2023)

(#31) MOTION by Plaintiff Bigfoot 4x4, Inc. for extension of time Plaintiff's Ex Parte motion to Extend the Temporary Restraining Order (Hierl, Michael) (Entered: 04/14/2023)

(#30) SURETY BOND in the amount of $ 10,000 posted by Bigfoot 4x4, Inc. (Document not scanned.) (lw, ) (Entered: 04/11/2023)

RESTRICTED

(#28) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: (1.) On review of the memorandum on joinder and the accompanying exhibit, R. 26, 27, although it remains a close question on whether the limits on joinder are satisfied by the Amended Schedule A, it is a sufficiently close question that adversarial presentation would be needed before requiring another narrowing of the Defendants. It is true that the narrower set of Defendants are accused of infringing the same trademark, but of course that alone would be insufficient. The narrowed Defendants do appear to use the same advertising image, and the advertising image apparently is somewhat unique, and some of the words used in the advertising text are unique enough to warrant a further inference of proper joinder. As noted earlier, the question is close enough that adversarial presentation would be needed before requiring further amendment. So joinder is satisfied for purposes of the early stage of the case. (2.) The Plaintiff's motion #10 for temporary restraining order and other relief is granted. An order will be entered under seal separately. Although the Court again expresses its concern about restraining assets before judgment, Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308, 331 (1999), the Plaintiff does invoke a statutory remedy, namely, an accounting of profits (that is, disgorgement of profits) under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), which is not a mere common-law equitable claim and thus could allow for pre-judgment restraint. Indeed, trademark owners need only "prove defendant's sales only; defendant must prove all elements of costs or deduction claimed." 15 U.S.C. 1117(a). To the extent that the restraint might be too broad, the Defendants may appear and file challenges to the scope of the TRO. The balance of factors tips in favor of Plaintiff being able to freeze the assets without advance warning to the Defendants, who likely would seek to transfer the money elsewhere. The Plaintiff's motion #6 for leave to file under seal is granted in light of the asset-restraint goal, and the extra-pages motion #9 is also granted. By 04/12/2023, The Plaintiff shall email a redacted version of the TRO that can be entered publicly (redacting the names of Defendants and omitting Amended Schedule A). To track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called), a status hearing is set for 04/21/2023 at 8:30 a.m. The Plaintiff shall file the TRO extension motion (or a preliminary injunction motion) no later than 04/14/2023. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 04/05/2023)

RESTRICTED

(#26) MEMORANDUM by Bigfoot 4x4, Inc. Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Joinder (Hierl, Michael) (Entered: 03/30/2023)

(#28) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: (1.) On review of the memorandum on joinder and the accompanying exhibit, R. 26, 27, although it remains a close question on whether the limits on joinder are satisfied by the Amended Schedule A, it is a sufficiently close question that adversarial presentation would be needed before requiring another narrowing of the Defendants. It is true that the narrower set of Defendants are accused of infringing the same trademark, but of course that alone would be insufficient. The narrowed Defendants do appear to use the same advertising image, and the advertising image apparently is somewhat unique, and some of the words used in the advertising text are unique enough to warrant a further inference of proper joinder. As noted earlier, the question is close enough that adversarial presentation would be needed before requiring further amendment. So joinder is satisfied for purposes of the early stage of the case. (2.) The Plaintiff's motion #10 for temporary restraining order and other relief is granted. An order will be entered under seal separately. Although the Court again expresses its concern about restraining assets before judgment, Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308, 331 (1999), the Plaintiff does invoke a statutory remedy, namely, an accounting of profits (that is, disgorgement of profits) under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), which is not a mere common-law equitable claim and thus could allow for pre-judgment restraint. Indeed, trademark owners need only "prove defendant's sales only; defendant must prove all elements of costs or deduction claimed." 15 U.S.C. 1117(a). To the extent that the restraint might be too broad, the Defendants may appear and file challenges to the scope of the TRO. The balance of factors tips in favor of Plaintiff being able to freeze the assets without advance warning to the Defendants, who likely would seek to transfer the money elsewhere. The Plaintiff's motion #6 for leave to file under seal is granted in light of the asset-restraint goal, and the extra-pages motion #9 is also granted. By 04/12/2023, The Plaintiff shall email a redacted version of the TRO that can be entered publicly (redacting the names of Defendants and omitting Amended Schedule A). To track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called), a status hearing is set for 04/21/2023 at 8:30 a.m. The Plaintiff shall file the TRO extension motion (or a preliminary injunction motion) no later than 04/14/2023. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 04/05/2023)

(#28) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: (1.) On review of the memorandum on joinder and the accompanying exhibit, R. 26, 27, although it remains a close question on whether the limits on joinder are satisfied by the Amended Schedule A, it is a sufficiently close question that adversarial presentation would be needed before requiring another narrowing of the Defendants. It is true that the narrower set of Defendants are accused of infringing the same trademark, but of course that alone would be insufficient. The narrowed Defendants do appear to use the same advertising image, and the advertising image apparently is somewhat unique, and some of the words used in the advertising text are unique enough to warrant a further inference of proper joinder. As noted earlier, the question is close enough that adversarial presentation would be needed before requiring further amendment. So joinder is satisfied for purposes of the early stage of the case. (2.) The Plaintiff's motion #10 for temporary restraining order and other relief is granted. An order will be entered under seal separately. Although the Court again expresses its concern about restraining assets before judgment, Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308, 331 (1999), the Plaintiff does invoke a statutory remedy, namely, an accounting of profits (that is, disgorgement of profits) under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), which is not a mere common-law equitable claim and thus could allow for pre-judgment restraint. Indeed, trademark owners need only "prove defendant's sales only; defendant must prove all elements of costs or deduction claimed." 15 U.S.C. 1117(a). To the extent that the restraint might be too broad, the Defendants may appear and file challenges to the scope of the TRO. The balance of factors tips in favor of Plaintiff being able to freeze the assets without advance warning to the Defendants, who likely would seek to transfer the money elsewhere. The Plaintiff's motion #6 for leave to file under seal is granted in light of the asset-restraint goal, and the extra-pages motion #9 is also granted. By 04/12/2023, The Plaintiff shall email a redacted version of the TRO that can be entered publicly (redacting the names of Defendants and omitting Amended Schedule A). To track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called), a status hearing is set for 04/21/2023 at 8:30 a.m. The Plaintiff shall file the TRO extension motion (or a preliminary injunction motion) no later than 04/14/2023. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 04/05/2023)

(#8) NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Bigfoot 4x4, Inc. (Hierl, Michael) (Entered: 02/24/2023)

RESTRICTED

(#28) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: (1.) On review of the memorandum on joinder and the accompanying exhibit, R. 26, 27, although it remains a close question on whether the limits on joinder are satisfied by the Amended Schedule A, it is a sufficiently close question that adversarial presentation would be needed before requiring another narrowing of the Defendants. It is true that the narrower set of Defendants are accused of infringing the same trademark, but of course that alone would be insufficient. The narrowed Defendants do appear to use the same advertising image, and the advertising image apparently is somewhat unique, and some of the words used in the advertising text are unique enough to warrant a further inference of proper joinder. As noted earlier, the question is close enough that adversarial presentation would be needed before requiring further amendment. So joinder is satisfied for purposes of the early stage of the case. (2.) The Plaintiff's motion #10 for temporary restraining order and other relief is granted. An order will be entered under seal separately. Although the Court again expresses its concern about restraining assets before judgment, Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308, 331 (1999), the Plaintiff does invoke a statutory remedy, namely, an accounting of profits (that is, disgorgement of profits) under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), which is not a mere common-law equitable claim and thus could allow for pre-judgment restraint. Indeed, trademark owners need only "prove defendant's sales only; defendant must prove all elements of costs or deduction claimed." 15 U.S.C. 1117(a). To the extent that the restraint might be too broad, the Defendants may appear and file challenges to the scope of the TRO. The balance of factors tips in favor of Plaintiff being able to freeze the assets without advance warning to the Defendants, who likely would seek to transfer the money elsewhere. The Plaintiff's motion #6 for leave to file under seal is granted in light of the asset-restraint goal, and the extra-pages motion #9 is also granted. By 04/12/2023, The Plaintiff shall email a redacted version of the TRO that can be entered publicly (redacting the names of Defendants and omitting Amended Schedule A). To track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called), a status hearing is set for 04/21/2023 at 8:30 a.m. The Plaintiff shall file the TRO extension motion (or a preliminary injunction motion) no later than 04/14/2023. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 04/05/2023)