In addition to reconciliation, it is actually more beneficial to actively respond to the lawsuit to reduce losses. Palmer Law Group’s motion PIO was rejected! Case number: 21-cv-62264

With the rapid development of cross-border e-commerce, infringement cases are frequent, and many friends of cross-border e-commerce often express doubts. “I just sell a product, how can it involve trademark and patent infringement?” Because of the alleged “trademark and patent infringement”, he became a defendant unconsciously, and the account funds were frozen. Is this really because the brand is counterfeiting or someone is taking the opportunity to blackmail? What’s wrong with it? Among them, it involves a question of authorization.

Then when you receive the notice of freezing, don’t panic. Since you have received the notice of freezing email and complaint, you can follow legal channels. At this time, some people are thinking, is it necessary for me to actively respond to the lawsuit or settle it out of court? Here, Mai Jia supports the suggestion that there is no need to settle the store with less frozen funds (if the store is not needed), but if you don’t want to give up the store or the frozen amount is large, you must accept out-of-court settlement or actively respond to the lawsuit. Because of the high cost of responding to lawsuits in the United States, when dealing with cross-border infringement cases, most sellers will choose to settle rather than respond to lawsuits. But in fact, responding to the lawsuit in the United States is similar to domestic litigation cases, and the specific process is also very simple, that is, according to legal procedures, the plaintiff’s lawyer submits the corresponding legal documents and appears in court to defend. In the current civil trial, the parties are required to have evidence in court, and the reason is in court. The court makes a judgment after fully listening to the evidence and reasons of both parties. If one party does not actively respond to the lawsuit, the court will inevitably listen to the evidence and reasons of one party unilaterally, and there may be some deviations in the examination and judgment of the evidence, making some judgments that may be unfavorable to the party who does not appear in court. If a judge’s judgment is biased because one party is absent from the court hearing without reason, the consequences are often borne by the party who does not appear in court. Therefore, not appearing in court is harmful to the protection of the rights and interests of the parties. In addition, in fact, actively responding to the lawsuit is conducive to striving for mediation. You can negotiate and settle with the other party in the process of responding to the lawsuit to minimize losses. In the case explained next, the seller successfully made the court reject the plaintiff’s preliminary injunction by actively responding to the lawsuit.

I still remember the case of Portable Door Lock represented by Palmer Law Group in early November. At present, the plaintiff’s application for PIO motion was rejected by the court because the defendant explained the substantive issues about the validity of the “038 patent” to the court during the plaintiff’s application for preliminary temporary injunction and showed the evidence that the patent was invalid.

Basic information of the case:

Time of filing the case: November 2, 2021

Case number: 21-cv-62264

Plaintiff brand: Portable Door Lock portable door lock.

Brand: BAOYING ZHAO

Law firm: Palmer Law Group

Trademark information:

Although only PIO was dismissed in this case, in order to avoid default judgment, all defendants still have to submit their defense before December 27th, but TRO was cancelled and PIO was dismissed, which means that the defendants whose accounts were previously frozen due to temporary injunction (TRO) and preliminary injunction (PI) can get their accounts unfrozen, which is very encouraging. Let those who want to take advantage of “fishing” encounter major setbacks in rights protection cases.

I would like to tell the sellers here that although the obstacles are long, the trip will come, and the future can be expected, and we can still have great strength to fight back! In any case, after being frozen, you need to collect and sort out your own infringement/litigation documents to weigh the pros and cons. Whether you choose to settle or respond to the lawsuit, the ultimate goal is to reduce losses. It is recommended not to unilaterally judge whether to choose to settle or respond to the lawsuit. It is necessary to comprehensively evaluate whether it is true infringement/infringing sales/total cost of responding to the lawsuit and total cost of settlement/time spent, and analyze the specific problems.

That’s all for today. Thank you for reading. Maijia Support continues to bring you the latest infringement news. More exciting content can be found on the WeChat public platform-“Maijia Support” to instantly check the latest trend of your US case, whether there is a default judgment and the counterclaims of other sellers [real-time synchronization of US judicial case system data]. If a seller with frozen funds needs legal assistance in litigation and settlement, you can contact us through WeChat below, and we will provide you with the best legal consulting service.