Bridlington Bud LTD v. The Partnerships, Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 1:25-24856-CIV-MARTINEZ
BRIDLINGTON BUD LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE PARTNERSHIPS AND
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
IDENTIFIED ON 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 Entry of Preliminary Injunction.
ECF No. 26.1 Plaintiff seeks the entry of a preliminary injunction, including the entry of an order
restraining assets, against Defendants CozyPaws Living, NovaFindsA, Huanyou Co. Ltd,
lukeshop, 	fengsongstore, 	qiangleshop, 	and 	ZHENGZHENG 	Co., 	Ltd 	(collectively,
“Defendants”),2 based on alleged trademark infringement, pursuant to the Court’s inherent
authority, 15 U.S.C. § 1116, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
The Court held a hearing on February 10, 2025, 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
1 The Honorable Jose E. Martinez referred Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Preliminary Injunction
to the undersigned. ECF No. 27.
2 Defendants are listed in the Complaint as the Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations
Identified on Schedule A. ECF No. 1. Schedule A is attached hereto, and it can also be found on
the docket, including at ECF No. 10. See also, e.g., ECF No. 26 at 16.
Case 1:25-cv-24856-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 1 of 10

2
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 Entry of
Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 26, be GRANTED.
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is the owner of the federally registered trademark (the “AUQ Trademark”)
identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint and in Paragraph 3 of the Declaration of Yongkang Du. ECF
No. 1 at ¶ 8; ECF No. 1-1; ECF No. 13-3 at ¶ 3; ECF No. 13-1. The AUQ Trademark, used in
connection with various pillow covers, dishcloths, curtains, blankets, rugs, table linen, towels,
fabric furniture covers, and related products, was registered with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office on February 23, 2021 and remains in effect, ECF No. 13-3 at ¶¶ 3-4; ECF No.
13-1.
Defendants, operating under the seller aliases identified on Schedule A (the “Seller
Aliases”) through fully interactive online storefronts on the Walmart.com e-commerce platform,3
have advertised, promoted, offered for sale, and/or sold infringing and counterfeit products bearing
or using the AUQ Trademark. ECF No. 13-2 at ¶ 8; ECF No. 13-3 at ¶¶ 8-10; ECF No. 13-4. Each
Defendant expressly offers to ship the infringing products nationwide, including to the State of
Florida. ECF No. 13-3 at ¶ 10.
Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence showing that each Defendant has infringed on
the AUQ Trademark. See ECF No. 13-4; see also ECF No. 13-3 at ¶¶ 8-12; ECF No. 13-2 at ¶¶ 2,
8. 	Defendants are not licensed or authorized to use the AUQ Trademark, and none of the
Defendants are authorized retailers of Plaintiff’s genuine products. ECF No. 13-3 at ¶ 13. Plaintiff
investigated Defendants’ promotion of infringing and counterfeit versions of its branded products
by Defendants. ECF No. 13-3 at ¶¶ 8-13; ECF No. 13-2 at ¶ 2. Plaintiff accessed each of the e-
3 The e-commerce store URL for each Defendant is listed on Schedule A under the Defendants’
Walmart Store URLs heading.
Case 1:25-cv-24856-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 2 of 10

3
commerce stores operated under the Seller Aliases and determined that Defendants were
promoting, advertising, offering for sale, and/or selling counterfeit and infringing products using
the AUQ Trademark. ECF No. 13-2 at ¶ 2; ECF No. 13-3 at ¶¶ 8-12. Specifically, Plaintiff visually
examined the products displayed on Defendants’ storefronts, including the products’ appearance,
listing, description, pricing, and information, and the seller information and domain name for each
Seller Alias, and determined that the products were infringing and counterfeiting. ECF No. 13-3
at ¶¶ 9-12; ECF No. 13-2 at ¶¶ 2, 4.
On October 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants for trademark
infringement, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (Count I), and false designation of origin, in
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count II). ECF No. 1. On November 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed
an Ex Parte Application for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order and Order Restraining Transfer
of Assets, ECF No. 13, and a Motion for Order Authorizing Alternate Service of Process on
Defendants, ECF No. 14. On December 29, 2025, the Court issued an Order Granting Plaintiff’s
Ex Parte Application for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 16, and an Order
granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Authorizing Alternate Service of Process on Defendants,
ECF No. 17.
Pursuant to the December 29, 2025 Orders, Plaintiff served each Defendant, by e-mail and
through Plaintiff’s designated website for serving notice, with a copy of the Complaint, the Order
Granting Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order, and other
filings in this matter. See ECF No. 24. Plaintiff subsequently served each Defendant with a copy
of Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Preliminary Injunction and the Court’s Order Setting Preliminary
Injunction Hearing and Briefing Schedule. See ECF No. 29.
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
Case 1:25-cv-24856-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 3 of 10

4
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).
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:
A. Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. Plaintiff has
a strong probability of proving at trial that consumers are likely to be confused by
Defendants’ advertisement, promotion, offer for sale, sale, or distribution of products
using and/or bearing infringing and counterfeit versions of the AUQ Trademark, and
that the products Defendants are selling and promoting for sale are unauthorized copies
of Plaintiff’s products that use infringing and counterfeit versions of the AUQ
Trademark.
B. Because of the infringement upon the AUQ Trademark, 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
declarations and exhibits accompanying Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Entry of
Case 1:25-cv-24856-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 4 of 10

5
Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 13, 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, operate, and/or control interactive e-commerce stores on
Walmart.com operating under the Seller Aliases which advertise, promote, offer
for sale, and/or sell counterfeit goods to consumers in the United States using
or bearing infringing and/or counterfeit versions of the AUQ Trademark;
ii. 	There is good cause to believe that more counterfeit and infringing products
using or bearing the AUQ Trademark will appear in the marketplace; 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 and an unnatural erosion of the legitimate marketplace in which it
operates.
C. The balance of potential harm to Defendants in restraining their trade in counterfeit and
infringing goods through their e-commerce stores and freezing their ill-gotten profits if
a preliminary injunction is issued is far outweighed by the potential harm to Plaintiff,
its reputation, and its goodwill if such relief is not issued.
D. The public interest favors issuance of a preliminary injunction to prevent consumer
confusion and dispel the false impression that Defendants are operating their e-
commerce stores with Plaintiff’s approval and endorsement, as well as to protect
Plaintiff’s legitimate trademark interests.
E. 	Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), Plaintiff may be entitled to recover, as an equitable remedy,
the illegal profits gained through Defendants’ distribution and sales of goods bearing
and/or using infringing and/or counterfeit versions of the AUQ Trademark. See Reebok
Int’l, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enters., Inc., 970 F.2d 552, 559 (9th Cir. 1992) (“An accounting
Case 1:25-cv-24856-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 5 of 10

6
of profits under § 1117(a) is not synonymous with an award of monetary damages: ‘[a]n
accounting for profits . . . is an equitable remedy subject to the principles of equity.’”
(quoting Fuller Brush Prods. Co. v. Fuller Brush Co., 299 F.2d 772, 777 (7th Cir.
1962)).
F. 	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)).
G. In light of the inherently deceptive nature of the counterfeiting business, and the
likelihood that Defendants have violated federal trademark laws, Plaintiff has good
reason to believe 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 Entry of Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 26, 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 Plaintiff’s AUQ Trademark or any reproductions, counterfeit copies, or
colorable imitations thereof in any manner in connection with the distribution,
marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product that is not a
genuine AUQ product or not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with
Plaintiff’s AUQ Trademark;
Case 1:25-cv-24856-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 6 of 10

7
b. 	Passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a
genuine AUQ product or any other product produced by Plaintiff that is not
Plaintiff’s or not produced under the authorization, control, or supervision of
Plaintiff and approved by Plaintiff for sale under Plaintiff’s AUQ Trademark;
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;
d. 	Further 	infringing 	Plaintiff’s AUQ Trademark 	and/or 	damaging 	Plaintiffs
goodwill; and/or
e. 	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, and which bear Plaintiffs AUQ Trademark or any
reproductions, counterfeit copies, or colorable imitations thereof.
(2) 	Each Defendant and any person in active concert or participation with them who has
actual notice of this Order shall be preliminarily restrained and enjoined from
transferring or disposing of any money or other assets of Defendants until further
ordered by this Court.
(3) 	Within two (2) business days of receipt of this Order, any third-party providers,
including Pay Pal, Payoneer, and Walmart, Inc., shall, to the extent not already done,
for any of Defendants or any of Defendants’ online marketplace accounts or
websites:
a. 	Locate all accounts and funds connected to Defendants, Defendants’ online
marketplace accounts, or Defendants’ websites, including, but not limited to, any
Case 1:25-cv-24856-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 7 of 10

8
financial accounts connected to the information listed in Schedule A attached
hereto and any email addresses provided for Defendants by third parties; and
b. 	Restrain and enjoin any such accounts or funds from transferring or disposing of
money or any other assets belonging to Defendants until further ordered by this
Court.
(4) 	Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(5)(D) 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
Defendants 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.
(5) 	Any Defendant subject to this Preliminary Injunction may appear and move to
dissolve or modify the Preliminary Injunction on two-days’ notice to Plaintiff or on
shorter notice as set by this Court.
(6) 	Any Defendant or financial institution account holder subject to this Preliminary
Injunction may petition the Court to modify the asset restraint set out in this
Preliminary Injunction.
(7) 	This Preliminary Injunction shall remain in effect during the pendency of this action
or until such further date set by the Court.
(8) 	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 11, 2026 and shall file proof of service thereof.
Case 1:25-cv-24856-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 8 of 10

9
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 17, 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
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 10th day
of February 2026.
___________________________________
EDUARDO I. SANCHEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: 	Hon. Jose E. Martinez
Counsel of Record
Case 1:25-cv-24856-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 9 of 10

10
SCHEDULE A
Def. # 	Seller Aliases 	Defendants’ Walmart Store URLs
1 	CozyPaws Living 	https://www.walmart.com/global/seller/101693707
2 	NovaFindsA 	https://www.walmart.com/global/seller/101664799
3 	Huanyou Co. Ltd 	https://www.walmart.com/global/seller/101130950
4 	lukeshop 	https://www.walmart.com/global/seller/102807337
5 	fengsongstore 	https://www.walmart.com/global/seller/102855914
6 	qiangleshop 	https://www.walmart.com/global/seller/102754264
7 	ZHENGZHENG Co., Ltd 	https://www.walmart.com/global/seller/102754995
Case 1:25-cv-24856-JEM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 10 of 10