Emoji V Schedule A - Ria Christie Collections PI Opp'n
Emoji V Schedule A - Ria Christie Collections PI Opp'n
Defendants.
Defendant Ria Christie Collections (Defendant #22) (“RCC”) files this preliminary
opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. This response is preliminary because
Plaintiff has ignored repeated requests to provide information of what is being accused of
infringement, so RCC has no idea what is accused of infringement. RCC is a legitimate bookseller
located in London, England, that sells books online obtained from legitimate book distributors.
Plaintiff’s refusal to provide any information to RCC on the accusation of infringement prevents
RCC from defending itself against such allegations and necessitates denial of the preliminary
obtained copies of books and maintains its own online store. (see
tried to conceal its identity and clearly identifies itself as the seller of the books. (Id.). RCC
obtains its books from legitimate book distributors, such as Penguin Random House and Ingram
Content Group, and Gardners Books. (Ex. E at 1-2). Contrary to the allegations in the complaint
1
Case: 1:23-cv-14925 Document #: 69 Filed: 12/28/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:1942
(Dkt. 1 at ¶13), RCC does not reside in the People’s Republic of China and there is no reason that
RCC should be joined with unrelated companies of which RCC has no knowledge.
Defendant was surprised when it was contacted by the online marketplace Fruugo on
December 6, 2023, stating that a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) was entered, and
Defendant’s account was frozen. (Ex. A at 1-2). Later that day, RCC reached out to Plaintiff
requesting detailed descriptions of the intellectual property that was allegedly infringing and
specific examples of the infringement so that RCC could conduct its own investigation. (See Ex.
B-E). Plaintiff did not respond to this email. RCC then contacted Plaintiff again on December 7,
8, and 18, 2023. (Id.). Plaintiff did not respond to any of these emails which asked for details of
RCC then hired its counsel of record, who contacted Plaintiff to get copies of the Complaint
and evidence of infringement on December 21 and December 27, 2023. (Ex. F). Plaintiff never
responded to those emails. Plaintiff has provided no information to RCC to justify either the TRO
or a preliminary injunction.
A “preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be
granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v.
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). Further, the preliminary injunction should also be tailored
to the violation. Commodity Fut. Trading Comm. v. Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. Ltd., 496 F.3d 769,
772 (7th Cir. 2007). In order to properly receive a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must have
demonstrated by a clear showing that “(1) the threat of irreparable harm for which there is no
adequate remedy at law; (2) that the threatened injury to plaintiff outweighs the harm an injunction
might inflict on the defendant; (3) that the plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of success on the
merits; and (4) that the issuance of a preliminary injunction would not disserve the public interest.”
2
Case: 1:23-cv-14925 Document #: 69 Filed: 12/28/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:1943
Am. Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321-22 (7th Cir. 1984), citing, In re Uranium Antitrust
Litigation, 617 F.2d 1248, 1261 (7th Cir. 1980). The movant “bears the burden of persuasion with
regard to each factor in the preliminary injunction relief analysis” and if it “fails to meet just one
of the prerequisites for a preliminary injunction, the injunction must be “denied” Smith v. Foster,
No. 16-cv-84-pp, at *5 (E.D. Wis. May 4, 2016), quoting, Cox v. City of Chicago, 868 F.2d 217,
Plaintiff has not provided RCC with any explanation of the basis for asserting infringement
against RCC. RCC is a legitimate reseller of books obtained from legitimate distributors. RCC’s
sales through Fruugo should not be entirely shut down and frozen based on a yet unidentified
allegedly infringing product. Furthermore, RCC is not part of any business located in the People’s
Republic of China nor is it part of any cabal of “fly-by-night” businesses in China. Plaintiff has
failed to show that it suffers the threat of irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy
at law, as it has failed to identify any threat from RCC thus far. Plaintiff has failed to show that
the threatened injury outweighs the harm currently suffered by RCC. RCC is unable to respond
and defend itself from Plaintiff’s obfuscated and hidden allegations. As Plaintiff has failed to
identify RCC’s alleged infringement Plaintiff has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success
on the merits. Finally, Plaintiff has failed to show that issuance of a preliminary injunction would
not disserve the public interest. Using the United States Court system, Defendant is being held up
and locked out of its legitimate legal business while Plaintiff awaits a preliminary injunction to
injunction should be narrowly tailored to that specific product rather than restraining all RCC’s
funds in Fruugo. This Court should limit the asset restraint to the amount that may possibly be
3
Case: 1:23-cv-14925 Document #: 69 Filed: 12/28/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:1944
recovered as profits through an equitable accounting of profits. The Supreme Court has held that
district courts generally lack the authority “to issue a preliminary injunction preventing [defendant]
from disposing of [its] assets pending adjudication” of a [plaintiff’s claim] for money damages.”
Grupo Mexicano de Dessarrolo v. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308, 333 (1999). It is “incumbent
on a district court to match the scope of its injunction to the most probable size of the likely
judgment, thereby sparing the defendant from undue hardship.” Id. at 341 (internal quotes
removed). Here, RCC has been unable to pay suppliers of legitimate book products because of the
frozen account. (Ex. E at 1-2). Applying these principles, any prejudgment asset freeze should be
limited to amounts that Plaintiff is reasonably likely to recover pursuant to an equitable accounting
of profits in this case. Plaintiff has not identified any products to RCC for which any recovery is
appropriate. Because RCC is a legitimate business, a further restraint of money is not appropriate.
Defendant Ria Christe Collections therefore respectfully requests that the Court deny
Plaintiffs’ Motion for entry of preliminary injunction. Furthermore, if Plaintiff ever provides
evidence of the alleged infringement, RCC requests the opportunity to supplement this response
and/or file a surreply to any reply by Plaintiff to its motion for a preliminary injunction.
4
Case: 1:23-cv-14925 Document #: 69 Filed: 12/28/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:1945
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 28, 2023, I caused a true and correct copy of the
foregoing pleading to be filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system
which sent notification of such filing to all attorneys of record who have consented to such
notifications.