APPLE CORPS LIMITED
v.
THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE "A"
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from manufacturing, selling, or distributing infringing products and from concealing assets.
[1] A preliminary injunction requires a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury if relief is not granted, that the threatened injury outweighs the…
[2] Trademark infringement occurs when a defendant's use of a mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source or sponsorship of goods or services.
Previewing 2 of 9 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs, owners of the BEATLES Marks and YELLOW SUBMARINE Mark, sued defendants for trademark counterfeiting and infringement. An investigation con…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”), ECF No. . The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the record in this case, and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. By the instant Motion, Plaintiffs, Apple Corps Limited and Subafilms Limited (collectively “Plaintiffs”), move for entry of a preliminary injunction against Defendants,1 for alleged violations of the Lanham Act,15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a). The Court held a hearing by video conference on October13, 2020, which was attended by counsel for Plaintiffs only. During the hearing, Plaintiffs directed the Court to evidence supporting the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Prior to the hearing, Plaintiffs notified the Court that it had received an email inquiry from Defendant Number 182 to which Plaintiffs provided notice of the hearing and
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND3
Plaintiff, Apple Corps Limited, is the owner of the following trademarks which are valid and registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “BEATLES Marks”):
Registration Registration Trademark Class(es) / Good(s) Number Date
IC 025 - Headwear, sweatshirts, t-shirts,
February 16, shirts.
THE BEATLES1,752,120
1993
IC 026 - Belt buckles.
IC 006 – Key rings and key chains. September8,
BEATLES3,680,063
2009 IC 026 – Ornamental buckles for clothing.
BEATLES4,373,956 July 30, 2013 IC 009 - Decorative refrigerator magnets; computer keyboard accessories,
However, counsel or Defendants have not entered any formal appearance or filed any response with the Court as of this date.
IC 014 - Jewelry; horological and chronometric instruments, namely, watches and clocks; cuff links, bracelets, pendants, medallions, trinkets being jewelry, charms being jewelry, ornamental pins.
IC 015 – Musical instruments.
IC 018 - Luggage, clutch bags, rucksacks, backpacks, umbrellas; bags, namely, handbags, shoulder bags, all-purpose sports bags, carry-on flight bags, suitcases, school bags, satchels, gym bags, tote bags, textile shopping bags.
IC 025 - Footwear and headgear, namely, hats and caps; clothing, namely, shirts, polo shirts, t-shirts, sweatshirts; jackets, Case No. 20-cv-61916-BLOOM/Valle
coats; scarves; neck-ties; socks; long- sleeved shirts and long sleeved t-shirts; fleece tops; thermal tops; jerseys; tank tops; swim wear; slippers; cloth babies' bibs.
See Declaration of Paul Cole, ECF No. [9-1], at 4-5; ECF No. [1-2] (containing Certificates of Registrations for the BEATLES Marks at issue). The BEATLES Marks are used in connection with the manufacture and distribution of quality goods in the categories identified above. See Declaration of Paul Cole, ECF No. [9-1], at 4-5. Plaintiff, Subafilms Limited, is the owner of the following trademark which is valid and registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “YELLOW SUBMARINE Mark”):
Registration Registration
IC 025 - Shirts; polo shirts; t- shirts; long-sleeved shirts and long-sleeved t-shirts; sweatshirts; jackets; pullovers; vests; scarves; neck-ties; hats; caps; sock; ; November6, . YELLOW SUBMARINE3,328,170 3007 thermal tops; jerseys; sweaters; tank tops; pajamas; clothing for toddlers, infants and babies namely, one piece garments for infants and toddlers, sleep suits, t- shirts and long-sleeved t-shirts. See Declaration of Paul Cole, ECF No. [9-1], at 10-11; ECF No. [1-3] (containing Certificate of Registration for the YELLOW SUBMARINE Mark at issue). The YELLOW SUBMARINE Mark is used in connection with the manufacture and distribution of quality goods in the category identified above. See Declaration of Paul Cole, ECF No. [9-1], at 10-11.
Defendants, by operating commercial Internet websites and Internet based e-commerce stores operating under Defendants’ respective domain names and seller identification names identified on Schedule “A” hereto (the “Subject Domain Names and Seller IDs”), have advertised, promoted, offered for sale, or sold goods bearing and/or using what Plaintiffs have determined to be counterfeits, infringements, reproductions or colorable imitations of the
BEATLES Marks and/or the YELLOW SUBMARINE Mark (collectively “Plaintiffs’ Marks”). See Declaration of Paul Cole, ECF No. [9-1], at 16-20; Declaration of Stephen M. Gaffigan, ECF No. [9-2], at 2; Declaration of Kathleen Burns, ECF No. [9-3], at 4. Although each Defendant may not copy and infringe each of Plaintiffs’ Marks for each category of goods protected, Plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence showing each Defendant has infringed, at least, one or more of Plaintiffs’ Marks. See Declaration of Paul Cole, ECF No. [9-1], at 16-23. Defendants are not now, nor have they ever been, authorized or licensed to use, reproduce, or make counterfeits, reproductions, and/or colorable imitations of Plaintiffs’ Marks. See Declaration of Paul Cole, ECF No. [9-1], at 16, 18-20, 23.
Counsel for Plaintiffs retained Invisible Inc (“Invisible”), a licensed private investigative firm, to investigate the promotion and sale of counterfeit and infringing versions of Plaintiffs’ branded products by Defendants and to obtain the available payment account data for receipt of funds paid to Defendants for the sale of counterfeit versions of Plaintiffs’ branded products. See Declaration of Paul Cole, ECF No. [9-1], at 17; Declaration of Stephen M. Gaffigan, ECF No. [9-2], at 2; Declaration of Kathleen Burns, ECF No. [9-3], at 3. Invisible accessed the Internet websites and Internet based e-commerce stores operating under the Subject Domain Names and Seller IDs and placed orders from each Defendant for the purchase of various products, all bearing4 and/or using counterfeits of, at least, one of Plaintiffs’ trademarks at issue in this action, and requested each product to be shipped to Invisible’s address in the Southern District of Florida. See Declaration of Kathleen Burns, ECF No. [9-3], at 4. Each order was processed entirely online, and following the submission of the orders, Invisible received information for finalizing payment5 for the various products ordered via Amazon Payments, Inc.,6 via
DHpay.com,7 via PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”)8 to Defendants’ respective PayPal accounts and/or via Defendants’ respective payee,9 which are identified on Schedule “A” hereto.10 (See id.) At the
The payee for the orders placed from Defendant Numbers 99-102’s Wish.com Seller IDs identifies “PayPal *Wish,” which is the aggregate PayPal account for purchases made Wish.com. (See Burns Decl. conclusion of the process, the detailed web page captures11 and images of the various Plaintiffs’ branded products ordered via Defendants’ Subject Domain Names and Seller IDs,12 together with photographs of one of the products received, were sent to Plaintiffs’ representative, Paul Cole, for inspection. See Declaration of Paul Cole, ECF No. [9-1], at 18; Declaration of Stephen M. Gaffigan, ECF No. [9-2], at 2.
Plaintiffs’ representative reviewed and visually inspected the detailed web page captures and photographs reflecting Plaintiffs’ branded products Invisible ordered from Defendants through the Internet websites and Internet based e-commerce stores operating under their respective Subject Domain Names and Sellers IDs, and determined the products were not genuine versions of Plaintiffs’ goods. See Declaration of Paul Cole, ECF No. [9-1], at 18-20. On September 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, ECF No. , against Defendants for trademark counterfeiting and infringement, false designation of origin, common law unfair competition, and common law trademark infringement. On September 22, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Ex Parte Application for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction,
and Order Restraining Transfer of Assets, ECF No. . On September 23, 2020, this Court entered a sealed Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. , and temporarily restrained
¶ 4 n.6; Gaffigan Decl. ¶ 9.) The Wish.com platform itself is not the ultimate merchant, but it can tie a particular Seller ID using the seller’s unique merchant identification number to a reported transaction and identify the merchant’s funds held within the aggregate account. (See Gaffigan Decl. ¶ 9.)
Defendants and to divert those funds to a holding account. Pursuant to the Court’s September 23, 2020 Order, Plaintiffs served Defendants with a copy of the Complaint together with copies of the Ex Parte Application for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Order Restraining Transfer of Assets, and the Court’s September 23, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order, thereby providing notice and copies of the September 23, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order and Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Order Restraining Transfer of Assets via email to each Defendant’s corresponding email/online contact form, and by posting copies of the Temporary Restraining Order and all other pleadings and documents on file in this action on the website located at http://servingnotice.com/artfr4/index.html. Thereafter, Certificates of Service were filed confirming service on each Defendant, ECF Nos. and .
II. LEGAL STANDARD
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate “(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).
III. ANALYSIS
The declarations Plaintiffs submitted in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction support the following conclusions of law: A. Plaintiffs have a strong probability of proving at trial that consumers are likely to be confused by Defendants’ advertisement, promotion, sales, offer for sale, and/or distribution of goods bearing and/or using counterfeits, reproductions, or colorable imitations of Plaintiffs’ Marks, and that the products Defendants are selling and promoting for sale are copies of Plaintiffs’ products that bear copies of Plaintiffs’ Marks; B. Because of the infringement of Plaintiffs’ Marks, Plaintiffs are likely to suffer immediate and irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction is not granted. The following specific facts, as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and accompanying declarations on file, that immediate and irreparable loss, damage, and injury will result to Plaintiffs and to consumers because it is more likely true than not that: 1. Defendants own or control Internet websites and Internet based e-
commerce stores operating under their Subject Domain Names and Seller IDs which advertise, promote, offer for sale, and sell products bearing and/or using counterfeit and infringing trademarks in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights; and 2. There is good cause to believe that more counterfeit and infringing products bearing Plaintiffs’ trademarks will appear in the marketplace; that consumers are likely to be misled, confused, and disappointed by the quality of these products; and that Plaintiffs may suffer loss of sales for their genuine products. C. The balance of potential harm to Defendants in restraining their trade in counterfeit and infringing branded goods if a preliminary injunction is issued is far outweighed by the potential harm to Plaintiffs, their respective reputations, and their goodwill as manufacturers and distributors of quality products, if such relief is not issued. D. The public interest favors issuance of the preliminary injunction to protect Plaintiffs’ trademark interests and protect the public from being defrauded by the palming off of counterfeit goods as Plaintiffs’ genuine goods.
E. Under15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), Plaintiffs may be entitled to recover, as an equitable remedy, the illegal profits gained through Defendants’ distribution and sales of goods bearing and/or using counterfeits and infringements of Plaintiffs’ Marks. See Reebok Int’l, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enters., Inc., 970 F. 2d 552, 559 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Fuller Brush Products Co. v. Fuller Brush Co., 299 F. 2d 772, 777 (7th Cir. 1962) (“An accounting 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.’”)). 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 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Federal Trade Commission v. United States Oil and Gas Corp., 748 F. 2d 1431, 1433-34 (11th Cir. 1984)); and G. In light of the inherently deceptive nature of the counterfeiting business, and the likelihood that Defendants have violated federal trademark laws, Plaintiffs have 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
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion, ECF No. , is GRANTED as follows: (1) Each Defendant, its officers, directors, employees, agents, subsidiaries, of this Order are enjoined and restrained until further Order of this Court: a. From manufacturing, importing, advertising, promoting, offering to sell, selling, distributing, or transferring any products bearing and/or using Plaintiffs’ Marks, or any confusingly similar trademarks, other than those actually manufactured or distributed by the Plaintiffs; and
b. From secreting, concealing, destroying, selling off, transferring, or otherwise disposing of: (i) any products, not manufactured or distributed by Plaintiffs, bearing and/or using Plaintiffs’ Marks, or any confusingly similar trademarks; or (ii) any evidence relating to the manufacture, importation, sale, offer for sale, distribution, or transfer of any products bearing and/or using Plaintiffs’ Marks, or any confusingly similar trademarks; or (iii) any assets or other financial accounts subject to this Order, including inventory assets, in the actual or constructive possession of, or owned, controlled, or held by, or subject to access by, any Defendant, including, but not limited to, any assets held by or on behalf of any Defendant.
(2) Each Defendant, its officers, directors, employees, agents, subsidiaries, of this Order shall immediately discontinue, until further Order of this Court, the use of Plaintiffs’ Marks or any confusingly similar trademarks, on or in connection with all Internet websites and Internet based e-commerce stores owned and operated, or controlled by them, including the Internet websites and Internet based e-commerce stores operating under the Subject Domain Names and Seller IDs; (3) Each Defendant, its officers, directors, employees, agents, subsidiaries, of this Order shall immediately discontinue, until further Order of this Court, the use of Plaintiffs’ Marks, or any confusingly similar trademarks within domain name extensions, metatags or other markers within website source code, from use on any webpage (including as the title of any web page), from any advertising links to other websites, from search engines’ databases or cache memory, and any other form of use of such terms that are visible to a computer user or serves to direct computer searches to Internet websites and Internet based e- commerce stores registered, owned, or operated by any Defendant, including the Internet websites and Internet based e-commerce stores operating under the Subject Domain Names and
Seller IDs; (4) Each Defendant shall not transfer ownership of the Internet websites or Internet based e-commerce stores operating under their Subject Domain Names and Seller IDs during the pendency of this action, or until further order of the Court; (5) Each Defendant shall continue to preserve copies of all computer files relating to the use of any of the Internet websites or Internet based e-commerce stores under their Subject Domain Names and Seller IDs and shall take all steps necessary to retrieve computer files relating to the use of the Internet websites or Internet based e-commerce stores under their Subject Domain Names and Seller IDs that may have been deleted before the entry of this Order;
(6) Upon receipt of notice of this Order, the Defendants and all financial institutions, payment processors, banks, escrow services, money transmitters, or marketplace platforms, including but not limited to, Amazon Payments, Inc. (“Amazon”), Dunhuang Group which operates the DHgate.com and DHPay.com platforms, Camel FinTech Inc., PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”), SIA Joom, which operates the Joom.com platform (“Joom”), ContextLogic, Inc., which operates the Wish.com website (“ContextLogic”), and their related companies and affiliates shall (i) to the extent not already done, (i) immediately identify and restrain all funds in all financial accounts and/or sub-accounts associated with the Internet websites and Internet based e-commerce stores operating under the Subject Domain Names and Seller IDs, merchant identification numbers, and/or the e-mail addresses identified on Schedule “A” hereto, as well as any other related accounts of the same customer(s); (ii) identify all other accounts which transfer funds into the same financial institution account(s) or any of the other financial accounts subject to this Order; (iii) restrain the transfer of all funds, as opposed to ongoing account activity, held or received for their benefit or to be transferred into their respective financial accounts, and any other financial accounts tied thereto; and (iv) immediately divert those restrained funds to a holding account for the trust of the Court. (7) Upon receipt of notice of this Order, the Defendants and all financial institutions, payment processors, bank, escrow services, money transmitters, or marketplace platforms receiving notice of this Order, including but not limited to, Amazon, Dunhuang Group which operates the DHgate.com and DHPay.com platforms, Camel FinTech Inc., PayPal, Joom, ContextLogic, and their related companies and affiliates, shall further, to the extent not already done, provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with all data that details (i) an accounting of the total funds restrained and identify the financial account(s) and sub-account(s) which the restrained funds are related to, and (ii) the account transactions related to all funds transmitted into the financial account(s) and sub-account(s) which have been restrained. No funds restrained by this Order shall be transferred or surrendered by any financial institution, payment processor, bank, escrow service, money transmitter, or marketplace website, including but not limited to, Amazon, Dunhuang Group which operates the DHgate.com and DHPay.com platforms, Camel FinTech Inc., PayPal, Joom, ContextLogic, and their related companies and affiliates for any purpose (other than pursuant to a chargeback made pursuant to their security interest in the funds) without the express authorization of this Court; (8) This Order shall apply to the Subject Domain Names and Seller IDs, associated websites and e-commerce stores, and any other domain names, seller identification names, websites, e-commerce stores, or financial accounts which are being used by Defendants for the purpose of counterfeiting Plaintiffs’ Marks at issue in this action and/or unfairly competing with the Plaintiffs;
(9) 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; (10) As a matter of law, this Order shall no longer apply to any Defendant or associated e-commerce store, photo album, or domain name dismissed from this action, or as to which Plaintiffs have withdrawn their request for a preliminary injunction; (11) Pursuant to15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(5)(D) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), Plaintiffs shall maintain its previously posted bond in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($10,000.00), as payment of 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 an application be made in the interest of justice; (12) Additionally, for the purpose of providing additional notice of this proceeding, and all other pleadings, orders, and documents filed herein, the owners, operators and/or administrators of the Internet marketplace websites and/or financial institutions, payment processors, banks, escrow services, money transmitters, and marketplace platforms, including but not limited to Amazon, Dunhuang Group which operates the DHgate.com and DHPay.com platforms, Camel FinTech Inc., PayPal, Joom, ContextLogic, and their related companies and affiliates shall, to the extent not already done, at Plaintiffs’ request, provide Plaintiffs’ counsel Case No. 20-cv-61916-BLOOM/Valle with any e-mail address known to be associated with the Defendants’ respective Subject Domain Names and Seller IDs; (13) This Order shall remain in effect during the pendency of this action, or until further Order of this Court. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October13, 2020
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record via E-mail.
SCHEDULE A: DEFENDANTS BY NUMBER, SELLER ID, SUBJECT DOMAIN NAME,
ASSOCIATED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS, ASIN AND E-MAIL ADDRESS
Def. Defendant / Subject Amazon Item ASIN or E- No. Financial Account Information Domain Name / Seller ID Mail Address1 bagani.mobi [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 2 pretty-shirt.com [email protected] [email protected]3 Art Fish A27I3WBO2K55RU B0871FG7SP4 DIEU LINH NGUYEN A3I79ZTDZ340QO B089YFF4HH5 fresrddtgf A3NSCKLC2P2SBP B086ZQ6S5X
B086MXVHFH
6 Hthygy A3TDLBV3PO80H0 B086MXKH7M
B084QFBWQX
7 Ielzpmd13dt A3FLVF333045P6 B084Q5F8NB8 Robert Dtesta A26T708L9VJWO3 B086TT4NBQ tengzhoushilongquandongc9 henglifadian ALP606MTO5XVT B08DN8G4XQ10 Wildwear 14774358 11 ahmamuqorrobi_0 [email protected]12 armalag0 [email protected]
26 nxhstore1994 37660833KR429173Y 27 revay0 [email protected] 28 siriz-16 [email protected] 29 skinny14680 [email protected] 30 sukmdevia [email protected] 31 tri-j28 [email protected] 32 trph-6912 [email protected] 33 tru-9394 [email protected] 34 winkel.99 [email protected]
35 wybeads-fine-jewelry 867530313C923941J 36 yususety_0 [email protected] 37 3 Idiots 5d458ec91436d4030122195c 38 antelope 5d52835f28fc710301a00a8e 39 Arbutus-34 5b51a4768b2c370353deec85 1517884686413800174-140-5-709- 40 Baby dress 2672229233 41 Bangkok a/k/a Bangkok29 5af0100b1436d40316ec6fed 42 Bennet a/k/a Bennet28 5afa4ce08b2c370317df95eb 43 Berlin a/k/a Berlin42 5af012358b45130383483864 44 Betelnut06 5afa48041436d403aa69de51 1513587289219863090-86-3-709- 45 Better time 3245415502 46 Cabbage a/k/a Cabbage47 5afa50c38b4513036342ffd4 47 Cefef 5da414d01436d40301cf884d 48 confer15 5df6fc2328fc710301c5d270 49 CowboyJean 5bc978bf28fc7103172e72e3 50 Desert Rose-19 5b51a1518b451303bc8c112a 51 DM Decor 5d9e9d231436d40301c40569 52 Dusty Miller-25 5b51a2278b2c370353dec79e 53 eight octopus 5d5e817f8b2c3703019caf83 54 ERNX 5d9b587836b54d03012c2c64 Fashion 3C Phone Case 55 Store 5d171fcd1436d403019bf6bc 56 flashlight07 5df6fb781436d40301f25ec0 57 found303 5e09697f8b45130301d4c189 58 Golden Bamboo-26 5b51a25a8b451303bc8c1ad7 59 guard309 5e0969d08b2c37030172df09 60 House Yami 5dc386a28b451303011fbe05 61 hung304 5e09698936b54d03010f6d5e 62 JO186 5db712118b2c3703013b84d4 63 JO427 5de557b328fc710301599fbb 64 Laomeng05 5df6fb4e8b2c370301fb66be 65 Les choristes 5d458edd8b2c370301c36350 66 LiliumL-3 5b5199ea8b2c370353de6958 67 Melon a/k/a Melon41 5afa4f5a8b4513036342e94a 68 Mens-Clothes04 5acf1de11436d40371bd0258 69 Mexico City 5af0103f1436d40316ec714e 70 Mini Malls 5bdc29ec8b2c37032676b0f0 71 Montreal a/k/a Montreal45 5af012798b45130383483be3 72 Music Bar01 5aced10b1436d40371b8684a 73 Nectarine a/k/a Nectarine27 5afa4c318b2c370317df8928 74 out52 5e0da2711436d403015c64c5 75 out61 5e0da56836b54d03019facd0 76 Pagoda Tree-20 5b51a16e1436d40366ca7262 77 Peach 5afa49dc8b2c370317df6a15 78 Pineapple a/k/a Pineapple18 5afa49f58b2c370317df6b9a 79 Pitaya a/k/a Pitaya19 5afa4a028b2c370317df6bff 80 realize12 5df6fbed1436d40301f27fc7 81 SDGI 5d9b543436b54d03012bc4ec 82 Shopping Night 5d9ad3c38b2c3703012267cf 83 Sky of shop 5db81be628fc7103019508de 84 Smart Watches05 5acf38eb8b2c37035e9540b6 85 Star Cluster-32 5b51a3131436d40366ca872e 86 stripping306 5e0969ad28fc71030121f6bd 87 SuperModel 5cac51b68b45130301702b34 88 template03 5df6fb1328fc710301c58091 89 Titanic 5d458e728b45130301192fcf 90 Tokyo a/k/a Tokyo04 5af00ea88b4513038347df3b 91 TopKitchen World 5d7f422736b54d0301b14ff1 92 vanished302 5e0969731436d40301cc7b6c 93 vast300 5e09695d8b45130301d4bbcc 94 Vovlo Office 5cb4296736b54d0301ead15f 95 Vwiwi 5da417278b2c370301700e09 96 Walnut a/k/a Walnut21 5afa4a508b4513036342a2d9 97 willnot11 5df6fbcc8b451303011e7816 98 withdrawn301 5e0969698b2c37030172cd5c 99 WDRDIEV 5d58b8449373f45fb03a865f 100 YIJIN03 5d5020a07ad2420b0af72029 101 YIJIN18 5d54e6d23db43e584e3583a6 102 ZHOUJIE56 5d5776f1560eca3980ed6b5e
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Schiavo v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2005)
- Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int'l Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982 (11th Cir. 1995)
- Fed. Trade Comm'n v. U.S. OIL & GAS Corp., 748 F.2d 1431 (11th Cir. 1984)
- Reebok Int'l v. Marnatech Enters., Inc., 970 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1992)
- Fuller Prods. Co. v. The Fuller Brush Co., 299 F.2d 772 (7th Cir. 1962)