Crowvision, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

Crowvision · United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division · December 19, 2025 · No. 1:25-CV-1697-RP

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas grants Crowvision, Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction in an action alleging trademark and copyright infringement by defendants identified on Schedule A. The order continues temporary restraints on the defendants’ alleged infringing activities and assets, authorizes expedited discovery, and directs third-party providers to disable advertisements and restrain connected funds. The court also requires Crowvision to supplement the record concerning permissive joinder and sets a deadline for objections to unsealing the temporary restraining order.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff established the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief, including a likelihood of success on its trademark- and copyright-infringement claims, likely irreparable harm, favorable balancing of the equities, and a public interest favoring protection against counterfeit goods; the preliminary injunction was therefore granted.
  2. The Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants identified on Schedule A.
  3. At the preliminary-injunction stage, the Court allowed the Schedule A defendants to remain joined, but required Plaintiff to continue supplementing the record regarding its joinder allegations and reserved the possibility of severance.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff established the requirements for a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
  2. Whether the Court had personal jurisdiction over the Schedule A defendants based on alternative service and defendants' targeted commercial activity directed at Texas consumers.
  3. Whether the defendants were properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2).
  4. Whether the temporary asset restraints, expedited discovery, and related relief should remain in effect during the litigation.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (11)

  • Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board, 118 F.3d 1047, 1050 (5th Cir. 1997)(followed)
  • Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)(followed)
  • PCI Transportation Inc. v. W. R.R. Co., 418 F.3d 535, 545 (5th Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise International Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 987 (11th Cir. 1995)(followed)
  • Reebok International, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc., 970 F.2d 552, 559 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966)(followed)
  • Arrington v. City of Fairfield, 414 F.2d 687, 693 (5th Cir. 1969)(followed)
  • Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 187 (N.D. Ill. 2020)(followed)
  • Viahart, L.L.C. v. GangPeng, No. 21-40166, 2022 WL 445161, at *4 (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2022)(distinguished)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…