Judge Jesse M. Furman (S.D.N.Y.) recently denied Plaintiff Chengdu Tops Technology Co., Ltd.’s (“Chengdu”) motion seeking a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against “a slew of merchant Defendants” to enjoin “the manufacture, importation, distribution, sale, offer for sale, and profiting from the sale of [Chengdu’s] patented product in the United States.” Slip Op. at 1. Chengdu alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. D958,222 (the “’222 Patent”) for a “360-degree ‘photobooth.’” Id. The Court explained that, like a preliminary injunction, in order to obtain a TRO, the “movant must show: (1) that it will suffer irreparable harm without the TRO or injunction; (2) that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim; and (3) that the balance of hardships tips in its favor.” Id. In denying Chengdu’s motion, the Court found that Chengdu had failed to show both: (i) “that it will suffer irreparable harm without a TRO” and (ii) “likelihood of success on the merits.” Id. at 2.
On irreparable harm, the Court found Chengdu’s argument that it would “suffer ‘loss of goodwill and reputation’ as a result of ‘consumer confusion between [its] products and Defendants’ competing Accused Products,’” to be “entirely speculative.” Id. Moreover, Chengdu “neither ‘identified its own product that allegedly competes against Defendants’ products’ nor ‘set forth any specific facts or evidence demonstrating that competition against Defendants would harm its goodwill and reputation.’” Id. The Court further noted that Chengdu “delayed in seeking relief” by “wait[ing] years to bring th[e] action” when “Defendants have been selling products in the United States since 2021” and the ’222 Patent issued in 2022. Id. Chengdu further delayed by requesting “that the Court postpone the TRO hearing by a week because Plaintiff’s counsel left for vacation a day after the motion was filed” and requested and received “a three-week extension of its deadline to file a reply in support of its TRO motion.” Id.
On likelihood of success, the Court explained that Chengdu’s complaint “‘does not once name the ’222 Patent, what design it covers, what products Plaintiff sells (if any), or Defendants’ accused products” and Chengdu’s “motion papers do not name the ’222 Patent, Chengdu’s [] products, Defendants’ products, or demonstrate why Defendants’ products infringe the ’222 Patent.” Id. at 3. Because there was “no infringement analysis whatsoever,” the Court concluded that Chengdu did not meet its burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success.
The case is Chengdu Tops Tech. Co. Ltd. v. P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified in Schedule A, No. 25-cv-4345 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2025).
