Bartley Forbes v. Jingjingwang, et al.

Forbes · United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania · December 19, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-01494

Summary

This preliminary injunction order grants continuing injunctive relief in a copyright infringement action brought by Bartley Forbes against Jingjing Wang and other defendants. The order restrains the defendants from using the plaintiff's copyrighted works, preserves and freezes specified assets and online marketplace accounts, authorizes discovery, and imposes related obligations on third-party service providers and financial institutions. The court found that the plaintiff was likely to prevail, would suffer irreparable harm absent relief, and had posted a $5,000 bond.

Holdings

  1. A preliminary injunction was warranted because plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the copyright claims, likely immediate and irreparable harm, that the balance of harms favored plaintiff, and that the public interest favored protecting consumers and plaintiff's intellectual-property interests.
  2. The court had authority to impose a prejudgment asset restraint because plaintiff sought monetary relief under the Copyright Act and equitable relief, and the restraint was necessary to preserve potential recovery and partial satisfaction of a judgment.
  3. Defendants and persons acting in concert with them who had notice of the order were prohibited from using, distributing, selling, transferring, concealing, or otherwise dealing with plaintiff's copyrighted works and specified related assets, accounts, storefronts, and records during the pendency of the litigation or until further order.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction against defendants' alleged copyright infringement.
  2. Whether the court had authority under Pennsylvania law, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, and the Copyright Act to restrain defendants' assets before judgment.
  3. What injunctive, asset-restraint, expedited-discovery, and preservation measures were warranted to prevent continuing infringement and preserve potential monetary and equitable relief.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (5)

  • Phillip Morris USA Inc. v. Bros. Grocery Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112274, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)(followed)
  • New York City Triathlon, LLC v. NYC Triathlon Club, Inc., 704 F. Supp. 2d 305, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)(followed)
  • Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc. v. WTV Sys., 824 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1014-15 (C.D. Cal. 2011)(followed)
  • Concrete Mach. Co. v. Classic Lawn Ornaments, Inc., 843 F.2d 600, 612 (1st Cir. 1988)(followed)
  • Helene Curtis Industries v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., 560 F.2d 1325, 1333 (7th Cir. 1977)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…