Florida Court Denies Hybe's Motion for Nationwide Injunction Over Failure to Identify Specific Concert Venues

A federal judge in Florida has denied a motion for reconsideration of a temporary restraining order that blocked the sale of unauthorized merchandise at an upcoming BTS concert in Tampa, declining to extend the injunction's reach to other venues due to plaintiffs' failure to identify specific dates and locations for those additional concerts.

The order, filed April 22 in Hybe Co. Ltd. et al v. John Does 1-100 et al, addresses the scope of relief available under the Lanham Act when a plaintiff seeks to stop bootleg sales at multiple concert dates.

The underlying dispute centers on unauthorized vendors planning to sell bootleg merchandise at an upcoming BTS concert at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida.

Plaintiffs initially obtained a temporary restraining order that enjoined the sale, distribution, or manufacture of such merchandise at that specific Tampa event.

However, the court denied plaintiffs' request to enjoin anticipated bootleg activity at subsequent concerts outside this district.

Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of that denial, arguing the Lanham Act impliedly authorizes a nationwide injunction and that other courts have entered similar relief.

They also contended that a single nationwide injunction is more efficient and less costly than seeking relief in each jurisdiction, citing newly discovered evidence of unauthorized vendors' intentions.

The court denied the motion, holding that while the Lanham Act authorizes a nationwide injunction, it does not require one.

The court noted that plaintiffs failed to identify the specific venues and dates of the other concerts in their motion for a TRO, proposed order, or reconsideration motion.

This omission, the court ruled, precluded relief with the requisite specificity as a practical matter.

The judge also held that plaintiffs' concerns regarding the cumulative cost of repeated motions were mitigated by the fact that neither the earlier TRO nor this order prejudices their ability to request a nationwide TRO in another jurisdiction.

The court noted that plaintiffs could pursue such relief with more exhaustive supporting papers and with more time.