NFL Secures Injunction Against 200 Unknown Defendants
Counsel for Does 1 through 200 could not be identified or reached for comment.
February 01, 2019 at 03:49 PM
2 minute read
A Fulton County judge has ordered that law enforcement and agents of the National Football League may seize counterfeit tickets and merchandise from 200 unknown people expected to violate the trademarks of the league, the Los Angeles Rams and the New England Patriots in the days just before and after Sunday's Super Bowl in Atlanta.
Superior Court Chief Judge Robert McBurney held that “Does 1 Through 200, inclusive” would cause “immediate, continuous, and irreparable injury, loss, and damage in the form of infringement of Plaintiffs' trademarks and injury to Plaintiffs' reputation and property rights.”
Counsel for Does 1 through 200 could not be identified or reached for comment. If they existed, they might say they appreciated this warning from McBurney, in bold, italicized type: “Nothing in this Order authorizes the use of force against or the seizure or detention of any person solely on the basis of possessing or trafficking in Counterfeit Merchandise and/or Counterfeit Tickets.”
Counsel for the NFL, Charlie Henn of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, said he filed the pleadings Monday morning, and after a hearing, McBurney issued the injunction around noon. It is effective from Thursday through Monday.
Henn said Georgia's anti-counterfeiting statute allows ex parte relief because, “The nature of counterfeit trade is also criminal.” That is, if defendants were told in advance that agents believed their products to be fake, the evidence would quickly disappear.
The trademarks include various versions of the NFL, Rams and Patriots names, along with: “SUPER SUNDAY,” “ON FIELD,” “ATLIII,” “MOB SQUAD,” “BELLESTRATOR,” “DO YOUR JOB,” “NO DAYS OFF” and “UNEQUIVOCALLY THE SWEETEST.”
The order says defendants will receive a receipt for their seized items in case they challenge the seizure. The NFL has posted a $30,000 bond to compensate defendants if a court finds their property has been wrongfully restrained.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A 58-Year-Old Engine That Needs an Overhaul': Judge Wants Traffic Law Amended
3 minute readFulton Jury Returns Defense Verdict After Pedestrian Killed by MARTA Bus
8 minute read'The Best Strategy': $795K Resolution Reached in Federal COVID-Accommodation Dispute
8 minute readPopulation and Caseload Boom Birth New West Georgia Judicial Circuit
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250