OPINION & ORDER On April 28, 2023, Plaintiff The Wave Studio, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Wave Studio”) filed a complaint against trivago N.V., trivago Services US, LLC, Trip.com Group Limited, Trip.com Travel Singapore Pte. Ltd., Skyscanner Ltd., MakeMyTrip India Pet. Ltd., and MakeMyTrip.com, Inc. (together, the “Defendants”) alleging copyright infringement against all defendants (17 U.S.C. §101 et seq.), contributory copyright infringement against all defendants (17 U.S.C. §101 et seq.),and vicarious copyright infringement against all defendants (17 U.S.C. §101 et seq.). (ECF No. 1.) An amended complaint (“AC”) was filed later that same day. (ECF No. 6.) On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff submitted to the Court a proposed Order to Show Cause for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the “Application”). (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff filed its amended materials in support of its Application on May 8, 2023. (ECF No. 17.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an Order to Show Cause for its Application that same day and set a Show Cause Hearing for May 12, 2023 (the “Hearing”). (ECF No. 24.) Defendants trivago N.B. and trivago Services US, LLC (the “trivago Defendants”) opposed the Application, filing papers in opposition to the Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 27-28.) The other Defendants, most of which are foreign entities, did not submit opposition papers, nor have they entered appearances as of the date of this instant Order and Opinion. At the Hearing, Plaintiff and the trivago Defendants indicated that they had agreed to work out a settlement, and that Plaintiff no longer sought to direct its Application against the trivago Defendants. Plaintiff, however, indicated that it wanted to continue pursuing its Application as to the remaining Defendants. Because most of the remaining Defendants (hereinafter, the “Remaining Defendants”) are foreign entities, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in support of its argument that the Court has jurisdiction over the foreign Defendants (hereinafter, the “International Defendants”). The International Defendants are Trip.com Group Limited, Trip.com Singapore Pte. Ltd., Skyscanner Ltd., and MakeMylrip India Pvt. Ltd. On May 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed its memorandum of law arguing that the Court has jurisdiction over the International Defendants. (ECF No. 33.) The Application seeks to enjoin Defendants, and anyone acting in concert with them, from: (1) continuing to use any photograph that is copyrighted and owned by Wave (as defined below) for any purpose, including but not limited to use on websites, mobile sites, mobile apps, Image Distribution Hubs, storage mechanisms, content delivery networks, and other electronic means. (2) The specific copyright registrations (the “Copyright Registrations”) owned by Wave at issue on the motion include the following: Registration Number Title of Work VA 1-432-332 The Wave Design Pte. Ltd. Photographs 2005 VA 1-432-324 Wave-s Photographs 2001 VA 1-432-325 Wave-s Photographs 2002 VA 1-432-326 The Wave Design Pte. Ltd. Photographs 2007 (A) VA 1-432-328 Wave-s Photographs 2003 VA 1-432-329 Wave-s Photographs 2004 VA 1-432-331 The Wave Pte. Ltd. Photographs 2005 (A) VA 1-758-524 Wave-s Photographs 2004 (B) VAu 1-055-458 The Wave Design Pte. Ltd. Unpublished photographs 2005 (C) setai429 — setai803 The Court has carefully reviewed the submissions and considered the arguments that were made at the Hearing. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the submissions in support of the Application, including Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the declaration of Gabriel Berg (Plaintiff’s counsel) and accompanying exhibits (“Berg Decl.”) (ECF No. 19), the declaration of Plaintiff’s owner and principal Lee Kar Yin and accompanying exhibits (“Lee Decl.”) (ECF No. 15); Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law and Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Application (“Pl.’s Mem.” and “Reply Mem.,” respectively, (ECF Nos. 18, 29.)),1 and Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of the Court’s Jurisdiction Over International Defendants (“Pl.’s Supp. Mem. (ECF No. 33)). In addition, the following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. See Park Irmat Drug Corp. v. OptumRx, Inc. 152 F.Supp.3d 127, 132 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“In deciding a motion for [a] preliminary injunction, a court may consider the entire record including affidavits and other hearsay evidence.”); see also 725 Eatery Corp. v. City of New York, 408 F.Supp.3d 424, 455 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Charette v. Town of Oyster Bay, 159 F.3d 749, 755 (2d Cir. 1998)) (noting that, for purposes of a preliminary injunction, “a party is not entitled to have the court accept its untested representations as true if they are disputed”). I. THE PARTIES Wave, a photograph studio, makes the instant Application because Remaining Defendants, all of which maintain hotel and/or travel websites, are allegedly using Plaintiff’s copyrighted works to promote and advertise hotels in their booking businesses, without Plaintiff’s authorization. Plaintiff has one sole owner, member, and manager, Lee Car Yin (“Ms. Lee”), who is a Malaysian citizen and permanent resident of Singapore. (AC 15.) Plaintiff’s photographs are U.S. copyrighted and used by businesses worldwide for promotion materials and branding campaigns. (Id. 6.) Plaintiff is a New York incorporated entity, with principal place of business in New York. (Id. 15.) The Remaining Defendants’ places of incorporation and business are as follows: Trip.com Group Limited, a Cayman incorporated with principal place of business in China; Trip.com Travel Singapore Pte. Ltd. is a Singapore corporation; Skyscanner Ltd. a UK corporation with principal place of business in Florida; MakeMyTrip India Pet. Ltd. is an Indian business; MakeMyTrip.com, Inc. a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in NY. (See AC
17-21.) II. DISPUTE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND GENERAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT LTD. (“GHM”) Over a period of several years, Wave and its affiliated entities were commissioned to create marketing materials, including photographs, for hotels managed by GHM, an entity that manages a small group of upscale hotels and resorts primarily in Southeast Asia. (AC 2.) There was no single master contract between GHM and the Wave entities. See Wave Studio, LLC v. Gen. Hotel Mgmt. Ltd., No. 13-CV-9239 (CS), 2017 WL 972117, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2017), aff’d, 712 F. App’x 88 (2d Cir. 2018). As early as 2006, GHM provided photographs produced by Wave to third parties (traveling magazines, booking cites, etc.) in order to promote its hotels. Id. at *3. Wave alleged that this third-party dissemination was against its rights under its Copyright Registrations. On December 31, 2013, Wave sued non-party GHM in a case before Judge Cathy Seibel. See The Wave Studio, LLC v. General Hotel Management Ltd. et al., Case No., 7:13-cv-09239-CS-PED. Plaintiff subsequently commenced around ten other lawsuits against these third parties from 2013 to 2021, which were all consolidated with The Wave Studio, 7:13-cv-09239-CS-PED. There are now roughly 100 other defendants in that case. (See AC 2). In The Wave Studio, 7:13-cv-09239-CS-PED, there are seventeen copyright registrations (including the ones at issue in this instant Application) which Plaintiff alleged that GHM and various defendants violated by using and disseminating images covered by those copyright registrations without Plaintiff’s authorization. See Wave Studio, LLC, 2017 WL 972117, at *3 n.7. That case proceeded to discovery from 2013 to 2016. (AC 29.) On summary judgment, Judge Seibel found that there was a question regarding whether Plaintiff and its affiliated entities reserved the intellectual property copyright to all of its materials produced for GHM, or if GHM could disseminate the materials produced by Wave to third parties. Wave Studio, LLC, 2017 WL 972117, at *10. In an Order and Opinion dated March 10, 2017, Judge Seibel dismissed the claims against GHM on forum non conveniens grounds, finding that both Plaintiff and GHM had insufficient connections to NY and that the issue of liability between the parties instead should be litigated in Singapore, which Judge Seibel found was an adequate forum to litigate copyright disputes. Id. at **4-10. Seibel severed the case as the parties all agreed that Plaintiff’s claims against all defendants therein but GHM should be stayed pending resolution of the issue of copyright infringement against GHM. Id. at *10. The case remains stayed as to those other defendants in that case. Plaintiff, GHM, and other entities proceeded to litigated their claims before the Courts in Singapore. (AC
