Taylor Swift v. Malcolm Matthews, et al

Filing 16

MOTION To Extend Temporary Restraining Order and Order of Seizure of Counterfeit Goods re 12 Order by Taylor Swift. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit First Declaration of Frank Travato)(Rose, Natalya)

Download PDF
Taylor Swift v. Malcolm Matthews, et al Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE IN NASHVILLE TAYLOR SWIFT, Plaintiff v. MALCOLM MATTHEWS, et al., Defendants Civil Action No. 3:09-0442 Judge Wiseman Magistrate Judge Griffin FILED UNDER SEAL MOTION TO EXTEND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER OF SEIZURE OF COUNTERFEIT GOODS Plaintiff Taylor Swift ("Plaintiff"), by and through her undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that the Temporary Restraining Order and Order of Seizure of Counterfeit Goods entered by this Court on May 19, 2009 (Document 12) be extended until such time as the Court conducts a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and on continuing the Order of seizure of counterfeit goods. The present action came before this Court on May 18, 2009, when Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint, seeking relief for trademark infringement and trademark dilution, in violation of the Trademark (Lanham) Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., use of counterfeit marks, in violation of the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984, 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d), common law unfair competition, violation of Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-101 et seq., and violation of the Tennessee Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq. Plaintiff also applied to the Court for a Temporary Restraining Order and {00057858.PDF. } Dockets.Justia.com Order of Seizure of Counterfeit Goods, restraining Defendants' infringement of Plaintiff's trademarks TAYLOR SWIFT, TAYLOR SWIFT (Stylized) and FEARLESS ("Plaintiff's Trademarks"), Defendants' use of counterfeits of Plaintiff's Trademarks, Defendants' use of Plaintiff's name and likeness, and Defendants' violation of Plaintiff's personal rights, and for an order of seizure of goods bearing counterfeits of Plaintiff's Trademarks. On May 19, 2009, the Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order and Order of Seizure of Counterfeit Goods (Document 12) ("Order"), enjoining and restraining Defendants from: (a) manufacturing, distributing, offering to distribute, offering for sale, or selling any merchandise and products that bear marks, words and/or names identical or confusingly similar to, or are counterfeits of, Plaintiff's Trademarks ("Counterfeit Goods"); (b) representing by any method that Counterfeit Goods are sponsored, manufactured or licensed by Plaintiff; and (c) otherwise taking any action likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception as to the origin of Counterfeit Goods. The Order also provided that "a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall be set by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned." The Order required that Plaintiff post a bond, in the amount of $10,000.00, "for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully restrained, pending the hearing and determination of the continuation of this Order." Plaintiff posted the required bond with the Court on May 19, 2009. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court extend the Order until the time of a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and on continuing the Order of Seizure of Counterfeit Goods. In support of this Motion, and as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(10)(A), Plaintiff submits First Declaration of Frank Travato, as Exhibit A to this Motion. Section 1116(d)(10)(A) of Title 15 of the United States Code requires Plaintiff to {00057858.PDF. } establish that "the facts supporting findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to support such order are still in effect." Mr. Travato attests that such facts are still in effect: Plaintiff continues to suffer irreparable damage from Defendants' counterfeiting activities at and near Plaintiff's 2009 Tour concert locations, and, absent this Court's continued restraining order and order of seizure of Counterfeit Goods, Plaintiff is unable to effectively combat such activities and enforce her trademark and personal rights, and will not receive adequate cooperation from the local law enforcement officers for her anti-counterfeiting enforcement efforts. In further support of this Motion, Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Injunction, Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Application for Order of Seizure of Counterfeit Goods (Document 4). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves this Court to extend the Temporary Restraining Order and Order of Seizure of Counterfeit Goods until the hearing on Plaintiff's application for the preliminary injunction and continued order of seizure in this matter. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Natalya L. Rose W. Michael Milom (No. 002803) David S. Crow (No. 020699) Natalya L. Rose (No. 021701) MILOM JOYCE HORSNELL CROW PLC 3310 West End Avenue, Suite 610 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone: (615) 255-6161 Facsimile: (615) 254-4490 mmilom@mjhc-law.com dcrow@mjhc-law.com nrose@mjhc-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Taylor Swift {00057858.PDF. } CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of the foregoing Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order and Order of Seizure of Counterfeit Goods is being accomplished through delivery by U.S. Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, this 27 th day of May, 2009, upon the following: Malcolm Matthews 3234 Hunter Drive Orangeburg, South Carolina 29115 Renee Susan Mitchell 2775 NE Expressway, Apartment 53 Atlanta, Georgia Louis Moore 705 Mermaid Avenue Norfolk, Virginia Martin D. Quattlebaum 8556 Kendrick Road Jonesboro, Georgia 30126 Marsha Dyonne Tyler 103 Booker Street Baytown, Texas /s/ Natalya L. Rose Natalya L. Rose {00057858.PDF. }

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?