The order, issued December 19, 2025, in Crowvision, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, maintains the asset restraints previously imposed by a temporary restraining order. The injunction prohibits defendants from using Crowvision’s intellectual property or distributing unauthorized products.
Judge Pitman determined that Crowvision demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding its claims of trademark and copyright infringement. The court found that consumers are likely to be confused by defendants’ use of counterfeits, reproductions, or colorable imitations of Crowvision’s registered marks and copyrights.
The ruling also addresses the procedural complexity of joining numerous defendants in a single action. While the court granted the injunction, it expressed skepticism regarding the appropriateness of permissive joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a).
The court noted that while defendants’ products may appear similar, this similarity does not necessarily prove they acted in concert prior to the litigation. The court observed that defendants’ use of a tracking website to monitor the lawsuit appeared to indicate coordination only after the case was filed.
Despite these doubts, the court allowed the joinder to proceed for now, citing the broad nature of Rule 20(a) and the weak evidence to the contrary at this stage. However, the order imposes an ongoing obligation on Crowvision to supplement the record with discovery evidence supporting or refuting the joinder allegations.
The preliminary injunction explicitly commands third-party providers, including online marketplaces and payment processors, to assist in the enforcement of the order. Providers such as eBay, Amazon, Alibaba, Wish.com, PayPal, and Alipay must locate and restrain accounts connected to the defendants’ seller aliases.
These third parties are ordered to disable advertisements associated with the defendants’ counterfeit goods within seven calendar days of receiving notice. They must also provide expedited discovery regarding the defendants’ identities, sales history, and financial accounts within fourteen days.
The court set a bond of $10,000, which it deemed sufficient to cover potential damages if the injunction is later found to have been improperly issued. The court also ordered the unsealing of its earlier temporary restraining order, unless parties file meritorious objections by January 5, 2026.