Bridlington Bud Ltd. v. The Partnerships, Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses Bridlington Bud Ltd.’s motion for a preliminary injunction against five online sellers alleged to have infringed and counterfeited its GJX trademark on Walmart.com. The magistrate judge recommends granting injunctive relief, including restrictions on infringing activity, an asset freeze, restraints directed to third-party payment and marketplace providers, and continuation of a $5,000 bond. The recommendation was issued on December 9, 2025, with objections due by December 12, 2025.

Holdings

1. A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable injury absent relief, that the threatened injury outweighs the harm to the nonmovant, and that the injunction serves the public interest.
2. Plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success because the evidence showed that defendants advertised, offered, and sold products using counterfeit or infringing versions of plaintiff's GJX trademark in a manner likely to confuse consumers.
3. The evidence supported a finding that plaintiff would suffer immediate and irreparable injury without an injunction, that the balance of harms favored plaintiff, and that the public interest favored preventing consumer confusion and protecting legitimate trademark interests.
4. The court could recommend an asset freeze and related restraints as preliminary equitable relief to preserve the availability of a potential accounting of defendants' profits and other permanent relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff established the requirements for a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
2. Whether the evidence established a substantial likelihood of success on plaintiff's trademark-infringement and false-designation claims.
3. Whether plaintiff showed likely irreparable injury, favorable balancing of harms, and that an injunction would serve the public interest.
4. Whether the court could preliminarily restrain defendants' assets and related third-party accounts to preserve the availability of equitable relief.
5. What scope of injunctive relief, notice procedures, and bond were appropriate.

Disposition

other