HONG KONG LEYUZHEN TECHNOLOGY CO. LIMITED v. THE INDIVIDUALS CORPORATIONS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:25-cv-23740-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026 Page 1 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 1:25-23740-CIV-MARTINEZ
HONG KONG LEYUZHEN TECHNOLOGY CO. LIMITED,
Plaintiff,
V.
THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE "A",
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 27.1 Plaintiff seeks the entry of a preliminary injunction, including the entry of an order restraining assets, against Defendants PEHMEA, YUENCH Online, XOOPIT, and Butterfly Island (collectively, "Defendants"),2 based on alleged copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
1 The Honorable Jose E. Martinez referred Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction to the undersigned. ECF No. 28.
2 The Motion for Preliminary Injunction originally sought relief against the ten defendants referred to in the Complaint as the Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A. See ECF No. 1; ECF No. 20. Schedule A can be found on the docket, including as an attachment to the Complaint. See ECF No. 20-1. However, six of the ten defendants (Useagrey, BessCops, SperLucky, MANGOUSTARD, ink2055, and weinuoerkeji) have since been dismissed. ECF No. 40; see also ECF Nos. 24, 29, 30, 38. Accordingly, this Report and Recommendation addresses Plaintiff's requests for relief only as to Defendants PEHMEA, YUENCH Online, XOOPIT, and Butterfly Island (collectively, "Defendants"). A Revised Schedule A listing the Defendants who are the subject of this Report and Recommendation is attached hereto.
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

2
The Court held a hearing on February 17, 2026, at which only counsel for Plaintiff was
present and available to provide evidence supporting Plaintiff’s motion. 	Defendants have not
responded to Plaintiff’s motion, have not made any filings in this case, and have not appeared in
this matter, either individually or through counsel. 	Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the
pertinent portions of the record, and the relevant legal authorities, and for the reasons discussed
below, 	the 	undersigned 	RESPECTFULLY 	RECOMMENDS 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	for
Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 27, be GRANTED.
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is the owner of copyright registrations issued by the United States Copyright
Office for specific images related to Plaintiff’s Rotita brand product line (the “Copyrighted
Photographs”), 	which 	bear 	the 	following 	federal 	registration 	numbers: 	VA0002380492,
VA0002413190, VA0002379930, VA0002413192, VA0002379934, and VA0002413200. 	ECF
No. 10-5 at ¶¶ 4-5; ECF No. 20-2. Plaintiff uses the Copyrighted Photographs in connection with
the promotion, marketing, and sale of Plaintiff’s women’s clothing and apparel products. ECF No.
10-5 at ¶¶ 5-9; see also id at ¶¶ 12-15. Plaintiff, the owner and lawful assignee of all right, title,
and interest in the Copyrighted Photographs, has not licensed the Copyrighted Photographs to
Defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 10-11.
Defendants, operating under the seller names identified on Schedule A through online
storefronts on the Amazon.com e-commerce platform,3 have promoted, advertised, marketed,
distributed, offered for sale, and sold competing products by using Plaintiff’s Copyrighted
Photographs on their online storefronts, identified on Schedule A. ECF No. 10-4 at ¶ 3; ECF No.
10-5 at ¶¶ 17-18. Specifically, Defendants sell competing products through the unauthorized use,
3 The e-commerce store URL for each Defendant is listed on the Revised Schedule A, attached
hereto, under the Link to Seller’s Online Store heading. See also, e.g., ECF No. 20-1.
Case 1:25-cv-23740-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026 Page 2 of 11

3
employment, digital incorporation, or other online display of the Copyrighted Photographs on their
online storefronts. 	ECF No. 10-1 at ¶¶ 10-11. 	On those storefronts, Defendants offer for sale
and/or sell their competing products to consumers in Florida and throughout the United States.
ECF No. 10-5 at ¶ 17; ECF No. 10-4 at ¶¶ 3-4; ECF No. 10-1 at ¶ 10. Defendants’ unauthorized
use of the Copyrighted Photographs has and continues to irreparably harm Plaintiff through
diminished goodwill and brand confidence, damage to Plaintiff’s reputation, loss of exclusivity,
and loss of future sales, including through the diversion of customers. ECF No. 10-5 at ¶¶ 22-23.
Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence showing that each Defendant has used,
displayed, and/or digitally incorporated the Copyrighted Photographs into their online storefront(s)
in connection with the sale of competing products. 	Specifically, Plaintiff has submitted
screenshots of the Copyrighted Photographs and unauthorized reproductions or derivatives thereof
that are displayed on each Defendants’ storefronts, see ECF No. 20-3, as well as proof that
Defendants accepted orders on storefronts displaying these images and shipped the corresponding
products into the state of Florida, see ECF No. 10-4.
On August 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants for copyright
infringement (Count I) and for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. (Count II). 	See ECF No. 1; ECF No. 20. 	On September 5, 2025,
Plaintiff filed a Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Including a
Temporary Asset Restraint, ECF No. 10, and an Ex Parte Motion for Alternate Service of Process,
ECF No. 11. On December 29, 2025, the Court entered an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Renewed Ex
Parte Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 14, and an Order Authorizing
Alternate Service of Process, ECF No. 15.
Pursuant to the December 29, 2025 Orders, Plaintiff served each Defendant, by e-mail and
through Plaintiff’s designated serving notice website, with a copy of the complaint, the Court’s
Case 1:25-cv-23740-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026 Page 3 of 11

4
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order,
and other filings in this matter. ECF No. 26. Plaintiff subsequently served each Defendant by e-
mail with a copy of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the Court’s Order Setting
Preliminary Injunction Hearing and Briefing Schedule. See ECF No. 34.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. To
obtain a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must establish “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on
the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the
threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) that the
entry of the relief would serve the public interest.” Schiavo ex. rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d
1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l Trading Inc., 51 F.3d
982, 985 (11th Cir. 1995).
A copyright infringement action requires a plaintiff to prove (1) ownership of a valid
copyright, and (2) actionable copying by the defendants. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv.
Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991).
As outlined below, Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidentiary support to warrant enjoining
Defendants from engaging in the alleged infringing activities. See e.g., Louis Vuitton Malletier,
S.A. v. Lin, No. 10-61640-CIV-HUCK, 2010 WL 11550032 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 2010) (granting
preliminary injunction against the defendants who failed to respond or appear in the case after the
plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of infringing activity to support its motion for preliminary
injunction).
III. 	ANALYSIS
The declarations and exhibits that Plaintiff submitted in support of its motion support the
following conclusions of law:
Case 1:25-cv-23740-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026 Page 4 of 11

5
A. Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. Plaintiff has
a strong probability of proving at trial that Plaintiff is the owner of valid copyrights for
the Copyrighted Photographs, and that the Defendants advertise, promote, offer for
sale, sell, and/or distribute products bearing or using unauthorized reproductions or
derivatives of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted photographs.
B. Because of the infringement upon the Copyrighted Photographs, Plaintiff is likely to
suffer immediate and irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction is not granted. The
following specific facts, as set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint, the instant motion, and the
declarations and exhibits accompanying Plaintiff’s Renewed Ex Parte Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order Including a Temporary Asset Restraint, ECF No. 10,
demonstrate that immediate and irreparable loss, damage, and injury will result to
Plaintiff and to consumers if a preliminary injunction is not issued:
i. 	Defendants own or control interactive e-commerce stores on Amazon.com
operating under their respective seller names which advertise, promote, offer
for sale, and sell products bearing and/or using the Copyrighted Photographs,
in violation of Plaintiff’s rights; and
ii. 	There is good cause to believe that more counterfeit and infringing products
will 	appear 	in 	the 	marketplace 	bearing 	and/or 	using 	the 	Copyrighted
Photographs to sell those products; that consumers are likely to be misled,
confused, and/or disappointed by the quality of these products; and that Plaintiff
may suffer loss of sales for its genuine products.
C. The balance of potential harm to Defendants in restraining their trade in counterfeit
branded goods using the Copyrighted Photographs if a preliminary injunction is issued
Case 1:25-cv-23740-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026 Page 5 of 11

6
is far outweighed by the potential harm to Plaintiff, its intellectual property rights, its
reputation, and its goodwill if such relief is not issued.
D. The public interest favors issuance of a preliminary injunction to protect Plaintiff’s
copyright interests, to encourage respect for the law, and protect the public from being
defrauded by the palming off, through the unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted
Photographs, of counterfeit products as Plaintiff’s genuine and unique products.
E. 	Requesting equitable relief “invokes the district court’s inherent equitable powers to
order preliminary relief, including an asset freeze, in order to assure the availability of
permanent relief.” 	Levi Strauss & Co., 51 F.3d at 987 (citing Federal Trade
Commission v. United States Oil & Gas Corp., 748 F.2d 1431, 1433-34 (11th Cir.
1984)).
F. 	In light of the inherently deceptive nature of the counterfeiting business, and the
likelihood that Defendants have violated federal copyright laws, Plaintiff has good
reason to believe that Defendants will hide or transfer their ill-gotten assets beyond the
jurisdiction of this Court unless those assets are restrained.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDS that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 27, be GRANTED. 	The undersigned
further recommends that the preliminary injunction provide as follows:
(1) 	Each Defendant, their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys,
confederates, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert
with them shall be preliminarily enjoined and restrained from:
a. 	using or displaying Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Photographs, in any medium,
whether it be print, digital, or otherwise, in connection with the distribution,
Case 1:25-cv-23740-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026 Page 6 of 11

7
marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product that is not a
genuine product of Plaintiff’s or is not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in
connection with Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Photographs;
b. 	passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a
genuine product of Plaintiff’s or any other product produced by Plaintiff through
the use or display of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Photographs;
c. 	committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defendants’
products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of
Plaintiff or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff;
and
d. 	manufacturing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, transferring or otherwise
moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any
manner, products or inventory not manufactured by or for Plaintiff, nor
authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered for sale through the use or display of
Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Photographs.
(2) 	Defendants with notice of this Order shall be preliminarily restrained and enjoined
from transferring or disposing of any money or other assets associated with
Defendants’ seller accounts until further ordered by this Court.
(3) 	The domain name registries for the Defendants’ domain names (“Defendant Domain
Names”), including, but not limited to, VeriSign, Inc., Neustar, Inc., Afilias Limited,
CentralNic, Nominet, and the Public Interest Registry, and the domain name
registrars, including, but not limited to, GoDaddy Operating Company LLC,
Name.com, PDR LTD. d/b/a/ PublicDomainRegistry.com, Cloudfare Inc, Oracle
Corp., Amazon Inc., Alibaba Group d/b/a/ Alibaba Cloud.com, Namesilo, LLC d/b/a
Case 1:25-cv-23740-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026 Page 7 of 11

8
privacuguardian.org, and Namecheap Inc., within seven (7) calendar days of receipt
of this Order or prior to the expiration of this Order, whichever date shall occur first,
shall 	disable 	the 	Defendant 	Domain 	Names 	and 	make 	them 	inactive 	and
untransferable until further order of the Court.
(4) 	Within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order, any associated third-party
providers, including PayPal, Alipay, Ant Financial, Wish, Afterpay, Klarna, and
Amazon Pay, shall, to the extent not already done, for any of Defendants or any of
Defendants’ online storefronts:
a. 	locate all accounts and funds connected to Defendants’ seller aliases, including,
but not limited to, any financial accounts connected to the information listed in
Schedule A hereto, and any e-mail addresses provided for Defendants by third
parties; and
b. 	restrain and enjoin any such accounts or funds from transferring or disposing of
any money or other of Defendants’ assets until further ordered by this Court.
(5) 	Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), Plaintiff
shall maintain its previously posted bond in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars
and Zero Cents ($5,000.00), to pay for any costs or damages to which any party may
be entitled for a wrongful injunction or restraint, during the pendency of this action,
or until further order of the Court. In the Court’s discretion, the bond may be subject
to increase should a motion be made in the interest of justice.
(6) 	Any of the Defendants that are subject to this Order may appear and move to dissolve
or modify the Order on two-days’ notice to Plaintiff or on shorter notice as set by
this Court, as permitted by and in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Southern District of Florida Local Rules.
Case 1:25-cv-23740-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026 Page 8 of 11

9
(7) 	Any third party impacted by this Order may move for appropriate relief.
(8) 	Any Defendant or financial institution account holder subject to this Order may
petition the Court to modify the asset restraint set out in this Order.
(9) 	This Preliminary Injunction shall remain in effect during the pendency of this action
or until such further date set by the Court.
(10) 	This Preliminary Injunction shall apply to the Seller’s Names identified in the
Revised Schedule A attached hereto, associated e-commerce stores and websites,
and any other seller identification names, domain names, e-commerce stores,
websites, or financial accounts which are being used by Defendants for the purpose
of offering for sale, selling, or distributing products through the unauthorized use of
Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Photographs.
(11) 	This Preliminary Injunction shall no longer apply to any Defendant or associated e-
commerce store name dismissed from this action or as to which Plaintiff has
withdrawn its request for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff’s counsel SHALL SERVE a copy of this Report and Recommendation on
Defendants by no later than February 19, 2026 and shall file proof of service thereof.
Pursuant to Local Magistrate Rule 4(b), the Court finds good cause to EXPEDITE the
period to serve and file written objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, with the
Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge. Accordingly, the parties shall have until
February 23, 2026 to file and serve any written objections to this Report and Recommendation.
Failing to file timely objections will bar a de novo determination by the District Judge of any issue
addressed in the Report and Recommendation, will constitute a waiver of a party’s “right to
challenge 	on 	appeal 	the 	district 	court’s 	order 	based 	on 	unobjected-to 	factual 	and 	legal
conclusions,” and will only allow appellate review of the district court order “for plain error if
Case 1:25-cv-23740-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026 Page 9 of 11

10
necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); see also Harrigan v.
Metro-Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 2020).
RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on this 18th day
of February 2026.
___________________________________
EDUARDO I. SANCHEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: 	Hon. Jose E. Martinez
Counsel of Record
Case 1:25-cv-23740-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026 Page 10 of 11

Case 1:25-cv-23740-JEM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026 Page 11 of 11
REVISED SCHEDULE A
NO.
SELLER'S NAME
LINK TO SELLER'S ONLINE STORE
VA0002380492; VA0002379930, VA0002379934, VA0002413190, VA0002413192, VA0002413200
2
PEHMEA
https://www.amazon.com/sp?ie=UTF8&seller=A2CB96A8THXVUR&a sin=BOB4WFLBW2&ref _= dp_merchant_link&isAmazonFulfilled=1
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/seller/at-a-
3
YUENCH Online
glance.html/ref=dp_merchant_link?ie=UTF8&seller=A36FBKRK2QWV KJ&asin=BOCPD8NTHL&ref =dp_merchant link
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/seller/at-a-
5
XOOPIT
glance.html/ref=dp_merchant_link?ie=UTF8&seller=A36PEAQ9B6LCI 4&asin=BOCKTNBV5P&ref =dp_merchant link
7
Butterfly Island
https://www.amazon.com/sp?ie=UTF8&seller=A7KKYW5MJMVM9& asin=BOD921WHKG&ref =dp_merchant_link
11