Motion For TRO and PI

Case 3:18-cv-01165-SI Document 12 Filed 07/06/18 Page 1 of 39
Kenneth R. Davis II, OSB No. 971132

davisk@lanepowell.com
Kelsey M. Benedick, OSB No. 173038
benedickk@lanepowell.com
LANE POWELL PC
601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100
Portland, Oregon 97204-3158
Telephone: 503.778.2100
Facsimile: 503.778.2200
David J. Stewart, pro hac vice

David.Stewart@alston.com
Mary Grace Gallagher, pro hac vice
MaryGrace.gallagher@alston.com
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 4900
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Telephone: 404.881.7000
Facsimile: 404.881.7777
Attorneys for Plaintiff Helen of Troy Limited
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
HELEN OF TROY LIMITED, Case No. 3:18-cv-01165-SI
Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
BESTCUPSHOP.COM;
BESTCUPSSALE.COM; BOMOSFIT.COM; ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
CAMOGYM.COM;
CHEAPERBOTTLE.COM;
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
LANE POWELL PC
601 SW SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2100
PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3158
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
CHEAPHYDROFLASK.COM; CHENJIAJIN
D/B/A HYDROFLASKEN.COM;
DEALHYDRO.COM;
FANACTICSCUP.COM; FENGZHU E-
COMMERCEHOLDINGS LLC;
GUO TANG D/B/A
HYDROFLASKOUTLET.COM;
HFTUMBLERS.COM; HOU SU PING D/B/A
EFOAQ.COM; HUA SHUNG HU D/B/A
FINYP.COM; HYDROASK.COM;
HYDROEFLASK.COM;
HYDROFLASKC.COM;
HYDROFLASKCUP.COM;
HYDROFLASKCUPS.COM;
HYDROFLASKDEAL.COM;
HYDROFLASKDEALS.COM;
HYDROFLASKI.COM;
HYDROFLASKOFFICIAL.COM;
HYDROFLASKSALE.COM;
HYDROFLASKSALES.COM;
HYDROFLASKSELL.COM;
HYDROFLASKSHOPUS.COM;
HYDROFLASKSTORE.COM;
HYDROFLASKTUMBLER.COM;
HYDROFLASKUS.COM;
HYDROFLSAK.COM;
HYDROOFLASK.COM;
HYDROSFLASK.COM; IEKASHOP.COM;
CUPSDEAL.COM; JIMMY LI (D/B/A
CUPSTOREONLINE.COM,
FLASKHYDRO.COM, FLASK-
HYDRO.COM, FLASK-HYDRO-
FLASK.COM, HYDROCUPFLASK.COM,
HYDROFLASK-BOTTLES.COM, HYDRO-
FLASK-BOTTLES.COM,
HYDROFLASKBOTTLES.STORE,
HYDROFLASK-CUP.COM,
HYDROFLASKHYDRATION.COM,
HYDROFLASK-OFFICIAL.COM,
HYDROFLASKOFFICIALSTORE.COM);
JINKUN CHEN D/B/A
JACKETGOOSE.COM;
KEAOUTLET.COM; LI CHAOQUN (D/B/A
HYDROFLASK.BIZ,
HYDROFLASKCHEAP.COM,

INJUNCTION
LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
HYDROFLASKCOFFEE.COM. HYDRO-
FLASK-CUP.COM,
HYDROFLASKFORSALE.COM, HYDRO-
FLASK-SHOP.COM, HYDRO-FLASK-
STORE.COM,
HYDROFLASKTUMBLERS.COM,
XHYDROFLASK.COM); LIFEIDA
ELECTRONIC BUSSINESS CO., LTD;
MEILIAN LLC; MIERFITNESS.COM;
NANCHANG LANJUNDE INDUSTRIA CO.;
OFFICIALCUPSTORE.COM;
OFFICIALHYDROFLASK.COM;
ONLINECUP.STORE;
SHOPHYDROFLASK.COM; SMARK JOHN
D/B/A/ BUYFLASKINFO.COM;
ZENGXIANGHUA D/B/A/ GKMSF.COM; and
ZONG ZHOU, each an Individual, Partnership,
Business Entity or Unincorporated Association,
Defendants.

INJUNCTION
LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MOTION......................................................................................................................................... 1
MEMORANDUM .......................................................................................................................... 3
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 4

A. Helen of Troy and Its HYDRO FLASK Marks. ..................................................... 4
B. Defendants and Their Unlawful Conduct. .............................................................. 6
1. The Infringing Websites. ............................................................................ 8
2. Customs Seizures. ..................................................................................... 16
III. ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................... 17

A. All Defendants are Subject to Jurisdiction in this Court....................................... 17
B. Helen of Troy is Entitled to Temporary and Preliminary Injunctive Relief ......... 19
1. Helen of Troy is Substantially Likely to Succeed on the Merits of
its Claims. ................................................................................................. 19
a. Helen of Troy is Substantially Likely to Prevail on its
Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Claims............ 19
b. Helen of Troy is Substantially Likely to Prevail on the
Merits of its Cyberpiracy Claim. .................................................. 23
2. Helen of Troy will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent the Requested
Relief. ........................................................................................................ 23
3. The Balance of Equities Strongly Favors Helen of Troy. ......................... 25
4. The Public Interest Favors an Immediate Injunction. ............................... 26
IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 26
PAGE i - TABLE OF CONTENTS AND TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
2Die4Kourt v. Hillair Capital Mgmt., LLC,

692 F. App’x 366 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................24, 25, 26
adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc.

149 F.Supp.3d 1222 (D. Or. 2016), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 890 F.3d 747
(9th Cir. 2018) ...........................................................................................................................26
adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc.

890 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................24
AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats,

599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) .......................................................................................20, 21, 22
Bosley Med. Inst. Inc. v. Kremer,

403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................................................23
Brookfield Commc’ns., Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp.,

174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) .....................................................................................20, 21, 26
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,

471 U.S. 462 (1985) ...........................................................................................................18, 19
Calder v. Jones,
465 U.S. 783 (1984) ...........................................................................................................17, 18
Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. All Prof’l Realty, Inc.,

No. CIV. 2:10-2751, 2011 WL 221651 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2011) .........................................26
Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc.,

242 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................20
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.,

314 F.2d 149 (9th Cir. 1963) ...................................................................................................22
Gucci America, Inc. v. Duty Free Apparel, Ltd.,

286 F. Supp. 2d 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)......................................................................................21
Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Florida Entm’t Mgmt. Inc.,

736 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2013), cert denied, 135 S. Ct. 57 (2014) ...........................................24
PAGE ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS AND TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, Inc.,

638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................21
Omeluk v. Langsten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S,

52 F.3d 267 (9th Cir. 1995) .....................................................................................................17
Optinrealbig.com, LLC v. Ironport Sys., Inc.,

323 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ...................................................................................25
Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen,

141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) .....................................................................................17, 18, 19
People of State of Cal. Ex rel. Van De Kamp v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency,
766 F. 2d 1319 (9th Cir.), amended, 775 F.2d 998 (9th Cir. 1985) ..........................................27
Phillip Morris USA, Inc. v. Shalabi,

352 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ...................................................................................21
Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp.

354 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................23
Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink,

284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................................18, 19
SATA GmbH & Co. KG v. Wenzhou New Century Int’l. Ltd.

2015 WL 6680807 (C.D. Cal. Oct.19, 2015) ........................................................21, 24, 25, 27
Sierra Forest Legacy v. Mark Rey,

577 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................19
Warner Bros. Entm’t v. Glob. Asylum, Inc.

CV 12–9547 PSG CWX, 2012 WL 6951315 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012) ...............................26
Wetzel’s Pretzels, LLC v. Johnson,

797 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ...................................................................................25
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

555 U.S. 7 (2008) ...............................................................................................................19, 23
RULES
Or. R. Civ. P. 4 (L).........................................................................................................................17
STATUTES
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) .................................................................................................20
PAGE iii - TABLE OF CONTENTS AND TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1065 ........................................................................................................6
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1072 ......................................................................................................20
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) .................................................................................................19
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b) ...................................................................................................6
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) .................................................................................................19
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) .............................................23
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1127 ......................................................................................................20
PAGE iv - TABLE OF CONTENTS AND TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
MOTION
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, plaintiff Helen of Troy Limited (“Helen of Troy”) moves for
temporary and preliminary injunctions against each of the Defendants to put a stop to their blatant acts
of trademark counterfeiting through their use of Helen of Troy’s well-known HYDRO FLASK mark
to advertise, offer for sale, sell, and/or distribute counterfeit Hydro Flask products. Temporary and
preliminary injunctive relief is justified and necessary in this case because of the immediate and
irreparable injury Helen of Troy has suffered and will continue to suffer as a result of Defendants’
actions, as well as the substantial ongoing harm Defendants’ actions are causing members of the public
who are being duped into buying substandard products on the mistaken belief that they are buying
genuine Hydro Flask products. This Motion is supported by Helen of Troy’s Verified Complaint and
the supporting memorandum of law attached hereto.
Helen of Troy moves the Court to immediately restrain and enjoin the Defendants, their
affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives, and all persons acting for,
with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them, from:
1. Using in any manner any of the HYDRO FLASK Marks or any company name, trade
name, trademark, or service mark that consists of, or is confusingly similar to, any of the HYDRO
FLASK Marks in connection with the manufacturing, advertising, promotion, offering for sale, sale,
or distribution of any goods or services not authorized by Helen of Troy;
2. Using in any manner any domain name or social media account name that consists in
whole or in part of the HYDRO FLASK mark or any confusingly similar term, including the following:
cheaphydroflask.com; hydroflasken.com; hydroflaskoutlet.com; hftumblers.com; hydroask.com;
hydroeflask.com; hydroflaskc.com; hydroflaskcup.com; hydroflaskcups.com; hydroflaskdeal.com;
hydroflaskdeals.com; hydroflaski.com; hydroflaskofficial.com; hydroflasksale.com;
hydroflasksales.com; hydroflasksell.com; hydroflaskshopus.com; hydroflaskstore.com;
hydroflasktumbler.com; hydroflaskus.com; hydroflsak.com; hydrooflask.com; hydrosflask.com;
flaskhydro.com; flask-hydro.com; flask-hydro-flask.com; hydrocupflask.com; hydroflask-
PAGE 1 - PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
bottles.com; hydro-flask-bottles.com; hydroflaskbottles.store; hydroflask-cup.com;
hydroflaskhydration.com; hydroflask-official.com; hydroflaskofficialstore.com; hydroflask.biz;
hydroflaskcheap.com; hydroflaskcoffee.com; hydro-flask-cup.com; hydroflaskforsale.com; hydro-
flask-shop.com; hydro-flask-store.com; hydroflasktumblers.com; xhydroflask.com;
officialhydroflask.com; and shophydroflask.com;
3. Using the following domain names, which Defendants are using or have recently used
to advertise, offer for sale, or sell counterfeit Hydro Flask products: bestcupshop.com;
bestcupssale.com; bomosfit.com; camogym.com; cheaperbottle.com; dealhydro.com;
fanacticscup.com; efoaq.com; finyp.com; iekashop.com; cupsdeal.com; cupstoreonline.com,
jacketgoose.com; keaoutlet.com; mierfitness.com; officialcupstore.com; onlinecup.store;
buyflaskinfo.com; and gkmsf.com; and
4. Otherwise falsely representing that Defendants, individually or collectively, are in any
way connected with, sponsored by, endorsed by, associated with, or affiliated with Helen of Troy or
any of its affiliates.
Helen of Troy further moves that:
1. The registrars and registries through which each of the domain names identified above
are registered be ordered to immediately disable and lock each domain name so that it cannot be used
or transferred during the pendency of this action; and
2. The privacy services through which the following domain names are registered be
ordered to provide to Helen of Troy’s counsel, within ten (10) days of the entry of the Court’s order
on this Motion, the name and all known contact information for the registrant of each domain name:
bomosfit.com, camogym.com, hftumblers.com, hydroask.com, hydroflaskcup.com,
hydroflaskcups.com, hydroflaski.com, hydroflaskofficial.com, hydroflasktumbler.com,
hydroflaskus.com, hydrooflask.com, hydrosflask.com, keaoutlet.com, mierfitness.com,
officialcupstore.com, and onlinecup.store.

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
Helen of Troy requests waiver of the requirement for posting security for payment of any costs
or damages incurred by Defendants as a result of entry of the requested temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction because of the clear and flagrant nature of the Defendants’ violation of
Helen of Troy’s trademark rights. A proposed form of temporary restraining order is submitted with
this motion. Hydro Flask requests a hearing on this Motion at the Court’s earliest convenience.
The undersigned counsel has provided notice of this Motion to Defendants by email to all
known email addresses for each Defendant, and Helen of Troy represents that, for reasons stated in the
following memorandum of law, email to these email addresses is the method most likely to provide
actual notice of this Motion to the Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Helen of Troy Limited (“Helen of Troy”) files this Memorandum of Law in Support
of its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against the individuals,
partnerships, business entities, and unincorporated associations identified in the caption (collectively
“Defendants”).
I. INTRODUCTION
Helen of Troy is the owner of the well-known and highly regarded HYDRO FLASK line of
vacuum insulated, stainless steel beverage and food bottles marketed and distributed in the United
States through its affiliate Steel Technology, LLC d/b/a Hydro Flask. Defendants are online
counterfeiters located in China who have created websites designed to mimic the appearance of the
official Hydro Flask website. Through these websites, Defendants are advertising, offering for sale,
and selling low quality knockoffs of Helen of Troy’s products. Many of the Defendants’ websites are
located at domain names that include the HYDRO FLASK mark in a further effort to pass off their
websites as being genuine Hydro Flask sites. Numerous consumers have purchased products from the
Defendants under the mistaken belief that they were buying genuine Hydro Flask bottles only to be
disappointed to receive poor quality counterfeits.

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
Defendants’ unauthorized use of the HYDRO FLASK mark constitutes trademark
infringement, unfair competition, and cyberpiracy under the Federal Lanham Act. For the reasons set
forth below, Helen of Troy is substantially likely to prevail on the merits of its claims, and both Helen
of Troy and the public will suffer substantial and continuing irreparable harm unless and until the
Defendants are temporarily and thereafter preliminarily enjoined from their conduct. Helen of Troy
therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion and enter the Proposed Order submitted
herewith.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Helen of Troy and Its HYDRO FLASK Marks.

Helen of Troy is a corporation organized under the laws of Barbados with its principal address
at The Phoenix Centre George Street, Belleville St. Michael, Barbados. (Verified Complaint, ¶ 1.)
Helen of Troy is the owner of the well-known HYDRO FLASK trademark which, through licensed
affiliates, Helen of Troy uses to identify vacuum insulated stainless steel water bottles and other high
quality insulated products sold to consumers throughout the United States. (Id.) Helen of Troy’s
affiliate Steel Technology, LLC d/b/a Hydro Flask, an Oregon limited liability company with
headquarters in Bend, Oregon, founded the HYDRO FLASK brand and product line in 2009 and today
is the North American marketer and distributor of HYDRO FLASK-branded products. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.)
(Helen of Troy and Hydro Flask are hereinafter referred to collectively as Helen of Troy unless
otherwise indicated.)
The Hydro Flask line-up includes more than 100 products in four different categories:
hydration, coffee, beer, and food. (Id. ¶ 10.) Every Hydro Flask bottle features TempShield™ double
wall vacuum insulation to keep beverages at the desired temperature, 18/8 prograde stainless steel to
ensure pure taste, and durable powder coating to make the bottles easy to grip. (Id.) Hydro Flask
bottles are BPA-free, recyclable, and backed by a lifetime warranty. (Id.) Images of select Hydro
Flask products are attached as Exhibit 1 to the Verified Complaint.

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
Because of their high quality and durability, Hydro Flask products have developed a loyal
following among consumers throughout the United States and substantial, favorable consumer
goodwill, including in this judicial district. (Id. ¶ 11.) Helen of Troy has generated significant sales of
its products nationwide, including in this judicial district. (Id. ¶ 12.) Hydro Flask is the number one
American water bottle brand in Sporting Goods and Outdoor according to Sports One Source SSI
reporting. (Id.)
Hydro Flask products have garnered numerous awards and industry recognitions over the
years. (Id. ¶ 13.) In 2017 alone, Hydro Flask products were awarded the Best Tumbler award by
Wirecutter magazine (a New York Times publication); Best Water Bottles by Outdoor Gear Lab; Gear
of the Show – Soft Cooler Backpack by Outdoor magazine; Editor’s Choice: Spring Gear Guide –
Tumbler by Backpacker magazine; GOOD DESIGN awards for the Hydro Flask Growler and Flex
Cap from the Chicago Athenaeum Museum of Architecture and Design and Metropolitan Arts Press
Ltd.; and Gear of the Year by Men’s Journal for Hydro Flask’s My Hydro program, a service whereby
consumers can mix and match different bottles and caps. (Id.)
Helen of Troy promotes and sells its products through a heavily trafficked Internet website
located at the domain name <hydroflask.com>. (Id. ¶ 14.) A true and correct copy of the home page
and select pages of the website are attached to the Verified Complaint as Exhibit 2. Helen of Troy also
sells its products through numerous, well-known online and offline retailers, including REI, Whole
Foods Market, The Container Store, Nordstrom, L.L. Bean, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Wegman’s, and
Amazon.com. (Id. ¶ 15.)
Helen of Troy, on its own and through its predecessors in interest, has continuously and
exclusively used the HYDRO FLASK mark in interstate commerce since at least as early as 2009. (Id.
¶ 16.) Since at least as early as 2009, Helen of Troy has also continuously and exclusively used the
distinctive design mark shown below (the “Hydro Flask Design”) in interstate commerce to identify
its many HYDRO FLASK-branded products, and the design appears prominently on all Hydro Flask

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
products and in all advertising and marketing materials for the products (collectively with the HYDRO
FLASK word mark, the HYDRO FLASK Marks) (id. ¶¶ 17-18):
Through substantial advertising, promotion, and use, the Hydro Flask Marks serve to identify
products that originate from Helen of Troy alone, and the Hydro Flask Marks are assets of significant
value to Helen of Troy as symbols of Helen of Troy’s substantial consumer goodwill. (Id. ¶ 19.)
In recognition of Helen of Troy’s exclusive right to use the HYDRO FLASK Marks in
commerce in the United States, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued Helen of Troy
numerous registrations for the HYDRO FLASK Marks, including those identified in Paragraph 20 of
the Verified Complaint. True and correct copies of the certificates of registration for the registered
HYDRO FLASK Marks are attached as Exhibit 3 to the Verified Complaint. Each registration was
duly and legally issued, and is valid and subsisting in law. (Id. ¶ 22.) Federal registration number
4,055,784 is incontestable pursuant to Section 15 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. § 1065)
and, pursuant to Section 33(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)), constitutes conclusive evidence of
Helen of Troy’s exclusive right to use the mark in commerce in the United States. (Id. ¶ 23.)
B. Defendants and Their Unlawful Conduct.

The Defendants are trademark counterfeiters who are advertising, offering for sale, selling,
and/or distributing counterfeit HYDRO FLASK-branded products to consumers throughout the United
States, including in Oregon. (Id., ¶ 3.) A chart identifying each of the Defendants is attached to the
Verified Complaint as Exhibit 4. Included in the chart, where available, are street and email addresses
for each Defendant derived from domain name registration records, the Defendants’ websites,
consumer communications, and/or communications Helen of Troy has received from U.S. Customs

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
and Border Protection (“CBP”). Additional documents regarding each Defendant are attached as
Exhibit 5 to the Verified Complaint and discussed further below.
Helen of Troy has identified most of the Defendants as a result of their sale of counterfeit Hydro
Flask products through fully interactive commercial websites that are designed to look like an official
Hydro Flask website or the website of an authorized or approved Hydro Flask retailer or distributer
(the “Infringing Websites”). (See id., Exs. 4, 5.) These websites are located at 65 different domain
names, the majority of which include the HYDRO FLASK mark or confusingly similar variations
thereof. As discussed more fully below, these Defendants have provided false names and/or street
address information to their domain name registrars, or have registered their domain names through
privacy services that hide their identities. (Id.) Helen of Troy therefore knows these Defendants at
this time only by their domain names. In the few instances where the Defendants may have provided
their real name or a pseudonym by which they appear to do business (e.g., “Jimmy Li”), Helen of Troy
has identified the Defendant by this name as well as its domain name in the case caption.
Helen of Troy has identified the remaining Defendants through PayPal receipts, email
communications with customers, or seizure notices provided to Helen of Troy by CBP. Helen of Troy
has been unable to find any information that any of these companies are valid company names or
businesses, or that any street addresses they have provided are valid. (See id.) These companies are:
Fengzhu E-Commerce Holdings LLC: Identified as the merchant on the PayPal receipt
consumer Katrina Boswell received for an order placed through <HydroFlaskTumblers.com>, a
domain name owned by Li ChaoQun a/k/a “Jimmy Li.” (See id., ¶¶ 42-49 and Ex. 7.)
Lifeida Electronic Bussiness Co., Ltd: Identified on a PayPal refund notice Ms.
Boswell received for her order and listed with the same email address
(<guofengzhu1204@outlook.com>) as Fengzhu E-Commerce Holdings LLC; accordingly these two
entities appear to be the same entity or the names are DBAs for the same person. (Id.)

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
Meilian LLC: Identified as the merchant on the payment authorization details that
consumer Sandra Tucker received for an order she placed through <hydroflaskcoffee.com>, a domain
name owned by Li ChoaQun a/k/a/ “Jimmy Li.” (See Ex. 6.)
Nanchang Nanjunde Industria Co.: Identified by the Albany, New York office of the
CBP as the shipper of counterfeit Hydro Flask bottles. (Id., ¶¶ 64-66 and Ex. 11.)
Zong Zhou: Identified by the Hawaii office of the CBP as the shipper of counterfeit
Hydro Flask bottles ordered by Charles Bowen through <hydrooflask.com>, a domain name owned
by Li ChaoQun a/k/a/ “Jimmy Li” (Id., ¶¶ 67-70 and Ex. 12.)
None of the Defendants have registered to do business in this State. More detailed information
regarding the Infringing Websites and CBP seizures are addressed separately below.
1. The Infringing Websites.
Through reports from numerous consumers and its own investigations, Helen of Troy has
identified numerous Defendants that are promoting and/or selling counterfeit HYDRO FLASK-
branded products through websites located at 65 different domain names (the “Defendant Domain
Names”). (Id. ¶ 27.) With only one exception, all of the Defendants appear to have registered their
domain names under fictitious names or through privacy services to hide their true identities. (Id. ¶
28.) The one exception is an individual in China named Guo Tang who has registered and is using the
domain name <hydroflaskoutlet.com> to advertise and sell counterfeit Hydro Flask products. (Id.)
Other than Tang, it appears that all of the other Defendant Domain Name owners have also either
provided false postal address information in their domain name registration records or have registered
their domain names through privacy services that hide their locations. (Id. ¶ 29.) For each domain
name, the chart attached as Exhibit 4 to the Verified Complaint summarizes why each registrant name
and/or street address provided by the Defendants in their domain name registration records is false,
and true and correct print-outs of webpages showing that the addresses are false are included by domain
name as part of the documents in collective Exhibit 5 to the Verified Complaint.

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
Although the Defendants have hidden their true identities and locations, all of the email
addresses the Defendants have listed for themselves in their domain name registrations appear to be
valid because Helen of Troy’s counsel has sent cease-and-desist letters to each of the email addresses,
and none of the emails have bounced back as undeliverable. (Id. ¶ 31.) Upon information and belief,
Defendants need to include valid email addresses in their domain name registrations to receive critical
email communications from their registrars regarding domain name registration and renewal issues.
(Id. ¶ 32.) Helen of Troy has identified additional email addresses for some of the Defendants through
their communications with customers and through information provided on their Infringing Websites.
These email address are included in Exhibit 4 and, on information and belief, are valid because
Defendants appear to use these addresses to communicate with customers. (See id., Ex. 5.)
Helen of Troy has no association or affiliation of any kind with any of these Defendants, their
domain names, websites, or businesses, and Helen of Troy has never authorized any of the Defendants
to use any of the HYDRO FLASK Marks or sell any Hydro Flask products. (Id. ¶ 33.)
Forty-six of the Defendant Domain Names consist in whole or in part of the HYDRO FLASK
mark, misspellings of the mark, or the initials of the HYDRO FLASK mark (collectively the
“Infringing Domain Names”). (Id. ¶ 34.) These domain names are as follows:
Flaskhydro.com Flask-hydro.com Flask-hydro-flask.com

hftumblers.com hydroask.com Hydrocupflask.com
hydroflask.biz Hydroflask-bottles.com Hydro-flask-bottles.com
Hydroeflask.com Hydroflaskbottles.store Hydroflaskc.com
hydroflaskcheap.com hydroflaskcoffee.com Hydroflask-cup.com
hydroflaskcup.com hydro-flask-cup.com hydroflaskcups.com
Hydroflaskdeal.com hydroflaskdeals.com hydroflasken.com
hydroflaskforsale.com Hydroflaskhydration.com Hydroflaski.com
Hydroflaskofficial.com Hydroflask-official.com Hydroflaskofficialstore.com
hydroflaskonsale.com hydroflaskoutlet.com hydroflasksale.com
hydroflasksales.com Hydroflasksell.com Hydro-flask-shop.com
Hydroflaskshopus.com hydroflaskstore.com hydro-flask-store.com
hydroflasktumbler.com Hydroflasktumblers.com hydroflaskus.com
Hydroflsak.com hydrooflask.com hydrosflask.com
officialhydroflask.com Shophydroflask.com xhydroflask.com

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
All of the Infringing Websites are designed to appear to be official Hydro Flask websites, and
all make prominent use of the HYDRO FLASK mark. (Id. ¶ 35.) Most of the websites use the same
images, layout, and/or color schemes as Hydro Flask’s website in an effort to pass the websites off as
closely as possible as the official Hydro Flask website. (Id.) Comparison examples of portions of the
Hydro Flask website and an infringing site formerly located at the domain name <flask-hydro-
flask.com> are set forth below (id.):

Official Hydro Flask Website

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
<flask-hydro-flask.com> Website
True and correct copies of the WHOIS registration information for each of the Defendant
Domain Names, together with true and correct printouts of the home pages of the Infringing Websites
located at each domain name, are attached as Exhibit 5 to the Verified Complaint. (Id. ¶ 36.) A few
of the Defendants discontinued use of their domain names before Helen of Troy and its counsel were
able to save screen shots of the websites formerly operated at the domain names, but all of the
Defendant Domain Names have been used within the past three months as the addresses for websites
that appear similar to the Hydro Flask website and through which the Defendants have promoted and/or
sold counterfeit Hydro Flask products without Helen of Troy’s knowledge or consent. (Id. ¶ 36.)
Several of the Defendant Domain Names redirect (or formerly redirected) to Infringing Websites
located at other Defendant Domain Names; accordingly, the content at these domain names is the
content of the redirected site. (Id. ¶ 37.)
Helen of Troy has succeeded in getting registrars for a few of the Defendant Domain Names
to deactivate the names. (Id. ¶ 38.) However, most of the registrars have refused to take any action in

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
response to clear evidence from Hydro Flask of the infringing nature of the domain names and websites
being operated at the names. (Id. ¶ 38.) (Defendant Domain Names that are no longer in active use
are identified in Exhibit 4 to the Verified Complaint.) Many of the websites are still active, and, even
as to those that are not, the owners of the domain names could move them to new registrars and renew
the infringing uses until the domain name registrations are locked by order of this Court. Accordingly,
immediate injunctive relief is needed as to each of the domain names, whether currently active or not.
Many of the Defendants are driving traffic to their Infringing Websites through Facebook and
other social media advertisements that are designed to appear as if they originate from Hydro Flask or
an authorized Hydro Flask retailer. (Id. ¶ 39.) An example of once such post from the owner of the
Defendant Domain Name <hydroflaskstore.com> is set forth below (id.):
True and correct copies of social media advertisements Defendants have published are
included in Exhibit 5 to the Verified Complaint with the Defendant Domain Name to which they relate.
(Id. ¶ 40.)
Numerous consumers have been misled by Defendants and their Infringing Websites and
social media posts into believing that the Defendants are Helen of Troy or an authorized retailer or

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
distributor of Hydro Flasks products, and many of these individuals have purchased products from
Defendants’ websites in the mistaken belief that they were buying genuine Hydro Flask products. (Id.
¶ 41.) These consumers have been sadly disappointed to receive poor-quality counterfeits. True and
correct copies of communications and Internet posts from a number of these consumers are attached
to the Verified Complaint as Exhibit 6. (Id. ¶ 41.)
One such consumer, Katrina Boswell of Bend, Oregon, placed on order on April 11, 2018
through the website <HydroFlaskTumblers.com> for what she believed to be three genuine Hydro
Flask products (a 10 oz. wine tumbler and lid and a 32 oz. wide mouth tumbler) and paid $56.88
through PayPal for the order. (Id. ¶ 42.) The registrant of <HydroFlaskTumblers.com> is “Li
ChaoQun” with a registered address of 3337 Crossfield, Duluth, California 30096. (Id. ¶ 43.) This is
a patently bogus address as there is no Duluth, California (see documents included in Exhibit 5 to the
Verified Complaint). Upon information and belief, Li ChaoQun (“Li”) is actually located in China.
The PayPal receipt Ms. Boswell received for her order (a true and correct copy of which is included in
Exhibit 7 to the Verified Complaint) lists the merchant as “Fengzhu E-Commerce Holdings LLC” and
states that her order would be sent by China Post. (Id. ¶ 44.) Furthermore, all of the emails Li sent
Ms. Boswell regarding her order include Chinese characters. (Id. ¶ 44, Ex. 7.)
By May 4, 2018 when Ms. Boswell had not yet received her order, she sent an email to
<hydroflaskshop@outlook.com> (the email address in the PayPal notice she received) inquiring about
the status of her order. (Id. ¶ 45.) She received a response the next day from an individual named
“Jimmy,” who agreed to give her a refund only on the tumbler lid. (Id. ¶ 45.) Upon information and
belief, “Jimmy” is Li ChaoQun (who also appears to go by the pseudonym “Jimmy Li”), the registrant
of a number of other Infringing Domain Names. (Id. ¶ 46.) Helen of Troy has been unable to locate
an accurate street address for Li in China or elsewhere, and Helen of Troy has also been unable to
locate any information about a company named “Fengzhu E-Commerce Holdings LLC,” including its
place of business or the nature of its business. (Id.)

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
Ms. Boswell eventually received the products she ordered, but both are counterfeit. (Id. ¶ 48.)
True and correct images of the products she received are included in the Verified Complaint as Exhibit
7. (Id.) The products can be identified as counterfeit in a number of ways, but one of the easiest ways
is the stamp on the bottom of the bottles. An image of the stamp on the bottom of a genuine Hydro
Flask product is shown below on the left, and the stamp on the bottom of the counterfeit bottle Ms.
Boswell received is on the right. The counterfeiter did not include the “Made in China” designation
that appears on the bottom of all genuine Hydro Flask products and instead added the statement
“Designed in Bend, OR” in a clear attempt to pass the product off as genuine. (Id. ¶ 48.)
Another consumer, Melissa Hughes of Kelseyville, California, reported to Hydro Flask that
she ordered a 32 oz. bottle and a child’s cup through <camogym.com> because of an ad she saw on
Facebook for the website, which she believed to be selling genuine Hydro Flask products based on the
website content. (Id. ¶ 50, Ex. 8.) Instead, she received counterfeits that bear the HYDRO FLASK
Marks and, like the product Ms. Boswell received, include the stamp “Designed in Bend, OR” on the
bottom. (Id.) Ms. Hughes could tell that the products were counterfeits because they “reek like
plastic.” (Id., Ex. 8.) The <camogym.com> domain name is registered through a privacy service, so

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
the identity of the registrant is unknown. (Id. ¶ 51.) However, because the bottle Ms. Hughes received
bears the same stamp on the bottom as the product Ms. Boswell received, it is likely that Li or another
person in China is behind the site and sale.
A third consumer, Lindy Henshaw of Poulsbo, Washington, reported to Helen of Troy that she
ordered a Hydro Flask bottle through the Infringing Domain Name <hydroflaskstore.com>. (Id. ¶ 52,
Ex. 9.) The registrant of <hydroflaskstore.com> is identified in the registration record as “Karolin
Schultz” with an address of “Ansbacher Strasse 32, Dahnen Germany 54689” (Id., Ex. 5.) This is a
false address, as shown by the documents included in Exhibit 5 to the Verified Complaint. Upon
information and belief, “Karolin Schultz” is a pseudonym for an unknown individual who actually
resides in China. The email address listed in the domain name registration is <doudt986@sina.com>.
(Id. ¶ 53.) Sina.com is an Internet service provider headquartered in Beijing. (Id.) The shipping receipt
Ms. Henshaw received with her order lists the shipper as “zong zhou” with an address of “Unit A, 27th
Floor, China, Resources Times Plaza, 500, Zyhangyang Road, Pudong”. (Id., Ex. 9.) Helen of Troy
has been unable to find any information about a company named “zong zhou” at this address in China;
accordingly, this company name also appears to be fictitious. (Id. ¶ 54.) The product Ms. Henshaw
received is a counterfeit, as identified by the stamp “Designed in Bend, OR” on the bottle bottom. (Id.
¶ 55, Ex. 9.) (Exhibit 9 includes a photo of the product Ms. Henshaw received next to a genuine Hydro
Flask bottle.)
An employee of Steel Technology, Robbie Williams of Bend, Oregon, placed an order through
the website located at the domain name <hydroflasktumblers.com> on May 1, 2018 for a 20 oz. coffee
Hydro Flask bottle and a 32 oz. wide mouth Hydro Flask bottle. (Id. ¶ 57, Ex. 10.) The registrant of
<hydroflasktumblers.com> is “Li ChaoQun,” who is addressed above. (See id. Ex. 4.) Mr. Williams
paid for the order through PayPal, and the PayPal receipt he received lists the merchant as “Fengzhu
E-Commerce Holdings LLC” with a telephone number of +86 13015970562. (Id. ¶ 58, Ex. 10.) “86”
is the telephone country code for China. (Id.) This information further confirms that Li is in China.
The products Mr. Williams received are clear counterfeits and are of inferior materials and production

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
quality to genuine Hydro Flask products. (Id. ¶ 59.) The products bear the HYDRO FLASK Marks
and, like the products Ms. Hughes received, bear a “Designed in Bend, OR” stamp on the bottom. (Id.
¶ 59, Ex. 10.)
The materials used in the counterfeit products the foregoing individuals received are unknown,
but if they contain BPA or other substances that the FDA has determined to be harmful, the products
could harm consumers who use them. Because of the poor quality of the products, consumers who
buy the products but do not recognize them as counterfeits are likely to be disappointed by the quality
of the products and attribute the poor quality and performance of the products to Helen of Troy, thereby
tarnishing the substantial goodwill Helen of Troy has labored to build in its HYDRO FLASK Marks
and associated products.
2. Customs Seizures.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has notified Helen of Troy of the detention of at
least two shipments of counterfeit Hydro Flask products. On May 9, 2018, the Albany, New York
office of the CBP notified Helen of Troy that it had detained a suspected shipment of counterfeit
HYDRO FLASK bottles that were shipped by Nanchang Lanjunde Industria Co. of Nanchang, China
(“Nanchang”) to an individual named Zhang Xia of Guilderland, New York. (Id. ¶ 64, Ex. 11.) Helen
of Troy has confirmed that the bottles that Nanchang sent are counterfeits. (Id. ¶ 65.) Helen of Troy
has no business association of any kind with either Nanchang or Xia, nor has Helen of Troy ever
authorized or licensed either Nanchang or Xia to use the HYDRO FLASK Marks in connection with
any goods or services. (Id. ¶ 66.)
On May 8, 2018, the Hawaii office of the CBP notified Helen of Troy that it had detained a
shipment of suspected counterfeit HYDRO FLASK bottles shipped by Zong Zhou of Pudong, China
to Charles Bowen of Kapolei, Hawaii. (Id. ¶ 67, Ex. 12.) Helen of Troy has confirmed that the Zong
Zhou products CBP seized are counterfeit. (Id. ¶ 68.) Helen of Troy contacted Mr. Bowen regarding
the shipment, and he stated that he bought the products through the website located at the domain name
<hydrooflask.com> believing the products were genuine. (Id. ¶ 69.) The <hydrooflask.com> domain

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
name is registered through a privacy service, so the identity of the registrant is hidden. (Id., Exs. 4, 5.)
Nevertheless, because the product was shipped by Zong Zhou, the same shipper that shipped
counterfeit product to Lindy Henshaw that was ordered through the website at the
<hydroflaskstore.com> domain name owned by Li, Li is almost certainly the registrant of
<hydrooflask.com> as well and responsible for the shipment. As noted above, Helen of Troy has no
business association of any kind with Zong Zhou, and Helen of Troy has never authorized or licensed
Zong Zhou or Li ChaoQun to use the HYDRO FLASK Marks in connection with any goods or
services.
III. ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES
A. All Defendants are Subject to Jurisdiction in this Court.

The Oregon long-arm statute extends to the limits of due process. Or. R. Civ. P. 4 (L).
Accordingly, jurisdiction exists over the Defendants in this Court if the exercise of jurisdiction satisfies
the requirements of due process. Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir.
1998).
This Court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant if the following three part test
is met: (1) the nonresident defendant does some act or consummates some transaction with the forum
or performs some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting
activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim arises
out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is
reasonable. Id. at 1320 (citing Omeluk v. Langsten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S, 52 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir.
1995)).
The first requirement, purposeful availment, can be satisfied in trademark cases by application
of the effects test enunciated by the Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984).
Panavision, 141 F.3d at 1321. Under the effects test, personal jurisdiction exists based upon
“(1) intentional actions (2) expressly aimed as the forum state (3) causing harm, the brunt of which is

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
suffered—and which the defendant knows is likely to be suffered—in the forum state.” Id. (citation
omitted).
In this case, the Defendants’ actions are clearly intentional in that they are engaging in the
knowing sale of counterfeit Hydro Flask products. The Defendants’ conduct is expressly aimed at this
forum through their promotion and sale of counterfeit products to consumers in Oregon through fully
interactive commercial websites and social media ads that are made to appear to be from Helen of Troy
or from an authorized Helen of Troy retailer. At least two individuals in Oregon have purchased
products from Defendants. The Defendants’ actions are causing substantial irreparable harm to Helen
of Troy, the brunt of which is felt in Oregon where the Hydro Flask business is headquartered. The
Defendants surely knew that the harm would be felt by Helen of Troy in Oregon because of their clear
knowledge of Hydro Flask, its products and its business, as shown by the fact that Defendants are
marking their counterfeit products with the stamp “Designed in Bend, Oregon.” The exercise of
jurisdiction over the Defendants in this Court therefore satisfies the purposeful availment element of
the specific jurisdiction test. Id. at 1321-22; accord Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d
1007, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2002).
Helen of Troy’s claims against the Defendants’ specifically arise out of and relate to the
Defendants’ forum-related activities, thus satisfying the second element of the specific jurisdiction test.
In determining whether the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable, courts consider the following factors:
“(1) the extent of a defendant's purposeful interjection; (2) the burden on the defendant in defending in
the forum; (3) the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendant's state; (4) the forum state's
interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy; (6) the
importance of the forum to the plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective relief; and (7) the
existence of an alternative forum.” Panavision, 141 F.3d at 1323 (citing Burger King Corp. v.
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476 (1985)). These factors weigh overwhelmingly in favor of the exercise
of jurisdiction by this Court over the Defendants.

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
The Defendants’ acts are aimed at the Hydro Flask business, and Defendants knew the harm
from their conduct would be felt in this state where the Hydro Flask business is located and where
Defendants are targeting consumers with the sale of their counterfeit goods. Helen of Troy is aware
of no conflict with Chinese sovereignty that would interfere with this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction,
and Oregon has a strong interest in providing an effective means of redress for its citizens that have
been tortiously injured by the Defendants’ conduct. This forum is the most effective and convenient
for Helen of Troy because of the presence of the Hydro Flask business and witnesses here, and there
is no other forum in the U.S. that would provide an effective alternative forum. The exercise of
jurisdiction over the Defendants in this Court therefore fully comports with “fair play and substantial
justice.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476 (1985); accord Panavision, 141 F. 3d at
1322-23; Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1021.
B. Helen of Troy is Entitled to Temporary and Preliminary Injunctive Relief

To obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, the moving party must
establish that: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) a temporary restraining
order or preliminary injunction is in the public interest. Sierra Forest Legacy v. Mark Rey, 577 F.3d
1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).
Helen of Troy’s motion meets each of these elements.
1. Helen of Troy is Substantially Likely to Succeed on the Merits of its Claims.
Helen of Troy has asserted claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition under
Sections 34(1) and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and cyberpiracy under the federal Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act. Helen of Troy is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of each claim.
a. Helen of Troy is Substantially Likely to Prevail on its Trademark
Infringement and Unfair Competition Claims.
To establish trademark infringement under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §
1114), or unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), Helen of Troy “must

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
establish that [Defendants are] using a mark confusingly similar to a valid, protectable trademark of
[Helen of Troy’s].” Brookfield Commc’ns., Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1046 (9th
Cir. 1999). Section 32(1) applies to federally registered marks, and Section 43(a) applies to both
registered and unregistered marks. Id. A defendant engages in the sale of counterfeit products when
it uses “a spurious mark which is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a
registered mark.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
Through its substantial and exclusive use of the HYDRO FLASK Marks since 2009, Helen of
Troy owns valid and enforceable common law rights in the marks. Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc.,
242 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Service marks and trademarks are covered by identical
standards, and thus like with trademarks, common law rights are acquired in a service mark by
adopting and using the mark in connection with services rendered.” (internal citation omitted)).
Helen of Troy’s federal registrations for the HYDRO FLASK Marks, each of which is valid and
subsisting in law and was duly and legally issued, constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the
marks and of Helen of Troy’s ownership thereof pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1057(b) and 1072.
The Ninth Circuit has identified the following “Sleekcraft” factors to be considered in
determining whether confusion is likely: (1) strength of the plaintiff’s mark; (2) proximity of the
parties’ goods; (3) similarity of the parties’ marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing
channels used; (6) type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser;
(7) defendant’s intent in selecting its mark; and (8) likelihood of expansion of product lines. AMF,
Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-54 (9th Cir. 1979). These factors are pliant; some factors
are more important than others, and the relative importance of each individual factor will be case-
specific. Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1054.
In this case, Defendants are attempting to pass themselves off as being Hydro Flask or an
authorized retailer or distributor of Hydro Flask products, and Defendants are selling counterfeit
HYDRO FLASK-branded products. Consumers therefore cannot help but be confused by Defendants’
actions into believing that the Defendants are Hydro Flask or are associated or affiliated with, or

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
sponsored or endorsed by, Helen of Troy. Accordingly, there is little need to consider the Sleekcraft
factors to determine that confusion is likely. See Phillip Morris USA, Inc. v. Shalabi, 352 F. Supp.
2d 1067, 1073 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (“Counterfeits, by their very nature, cause confusion.” (citing
Gucci America, Inc. v. Duty Free Apparel, Ltd., 286 F. Supp. 2d 284, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2003))).
Nevertheless, consideration of the factors only further supports the clear likelihood of confusion
that exists in this case.
The HYDRO FLASK Marks are conceptually and commercially strong. Network Automation,
Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137, 1149 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting a mark’s strength is
evaluated by (1) conceptual strength, involving classification on the spectrum of increasing inherent
distinctiveness, namely generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful, and (2) commercial
strength, based on actual marketplace recognition). The HYDRO FLASK word mark is no less than
suggestive and is properly categorized as arbitrary because it does not describe or clearly suggest the
nature of the products sold under the marks. The HYDRO FLASK design mark is an original design
that is fanciful. Accordingly, all of the HYDRO FLASK Marks should be awarded a wide scope of
protection from infringing use. Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1058 (“The stronger a mark—meaning the
more likely it is to be remembered and associated in the public mind with the mark's owner—the
greater the protection it is accorded by the trademark laws.”). The HYDRO FLASK mark is
commercially strong due to Helen of Troy’s substantial advertising and sale of services under the mark
for nearly a decade. Accordingly, this factor weighs strongly in Helen of Troy’s favor.
Defendants are using Helen of Troy’s HYDRO FLASK Marks to advertise and sell counterfeit
products through the Internet, a marketing channel Helen of Troy likewise uses to promote and sell its
products. The second, third and fifth Sleekcraft factors therefore also weigh in Helen of Troy’s favor.
Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 348 n. 10 (stating proximate or related goods are those “products which would
be reasonably thought by the buying public to come from the same source if sold under the same
mark”); id. at 353 (stating convergent marketing channels increase the likelihood of confusion); see
also SATA GmbH & Co. Kg v. Wenzhou New Century Int'l, Ltd., No. CV 15-08157-BRO (EX),

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
2015 WL 6680807, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015) (finding the proximity of goods factor favored
plaintiff where defendants sold counterfeit goods even though the counterfeit products were not of
the same quality as the genuine products sold by plaintiff because “the goods are complementary
and have the same use and function” and were sold to the same class of purchasers).
Helen of Troy has discovered numerous instances of actual confusion already, as referenced
above and as further shown in the examples attached as Exhibit 6 to the Verified Complaint. Helen of
Troy suspects there are many more confused consumers that have been duped into buying the
Defendants’ counterfeits that Helen of Troy has yet to discover. “Evidence that use of the two marks
has already led to confusion is persuasive proof that future confusion is likely.” Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d
at 352. Thus, this factor also weighs heavily in Helen of Troy’s favor.
With regard to the type of goods and degree of consumer care, Defendants are engaged in a
sophisticated scheme to pass of their products as being genuine Hydro Flask products through the use
of professional looking fully interactive websites and through sophisticated social media
advertisements. Defendants are further using actual images of Hydro Flask products in their
advertising and marketing materials. Consumers therefore could not help but be confused into
believing that the Defendants are selling genuine Hydro Flask products. Additionally, consumers
typically exercise only moderate care in the purchase of these types of products over the Internet. This
factor therefore also weighs in Helen of Troy’s favor.
With regard to intent, Defendants have built their businesses around the knowing, unauthorized
use, and counterfeiting of the HYDRO FLASK Marks. One consumer, Serena Wade, complained that
the product she purchased from <camogym.com> was a counterfeit, and the Defendant owner of the
domain name continued to try to get her to believe it was genuine by responding “We are selling high
quality Hydro Flask.” (Verified Compl., Ex. 6 at 17-18.) “When the alleged infringer knowingly
adopts a mark similar to another’s, reviewing courts presume that the defendant can accomplish his
purpose: that is, that the public will be deceived.” Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 354 (citing Fleischmann

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 314 F.2d 149, 157-58 (9th Cir. 1963)). The intent element
therefore weighs strongly in Helen of Troy’s favor.
The final factor, expansion of product lines, is irrelevant in this case since Defendants are
purporting to sell actual Hydro Flask products. See Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Commc'ns
Corp., 354 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Because the [parties’ goods] are already
related * * * [the likelihood of expansion of product lines] factor is irrelevant.”).
Based on the foregoing, the balance of the Sleekcraft factors weighs overwhelmingly in favor
of a finding that confusion is likely. Helen of Troy is therefore substantially likely to succeed on the
merits of its claims under Sections 32(1) and 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
b. Helen of Troy is Substantially Likely to Prevail on the Merits of its
Cyberpiracy Claim.
Under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), a
“person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark . . . if, without regard to the goods or
services of the parties, that person (i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark . . .; and (ii)
registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that is confusingly similar to another’s mark or dilutes
another’s famous mark.” Bosley Med. Inst. Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672, 680 (9th Cir. 2005).
The Defendants who have registered the Infringing Domain Names have each registered and
used a domain name that is confusingly similar to the HYDRO FLASK mark through the registration
and use of domain names that include the mark in whole, a misspelling of the mark, or the initials of
the mark in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, and/or sale of counterfeit Hydro Flask
products. These Defendants’ clear intent is to profit from their unauthorized use of Helen of Troy’s
marks. Such conduct constitutes textbook cyberpiracy under the ACPA. See id. at 680. Accordingly,
Helen of Troy is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of its ACPA claim.
2. Helen of Troy will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent the Requested Relief.
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that it is likely to suffer
irreparable harm. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The harm

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
identified may not be speculative, and must be grounded in evidence, not in conclusory or
speculative allegations of harm. Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Florida Entm’t Mgmt, Inc., 736 F.3d
1239, 1248-1252 (9th Cir. 2013), cert denied, 135 S. Ct. 57 (2014). “Evidence of loss of control
over business reputation and damage to goodwill [can] constitute evidence of irreparable harm.”
Id. at 1250; accord adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc., 890 F.3d 747, 756 (9th Cir. 2018). The
sale of counterfeit or unauthorized goods has been found to evidence loss of control by a trademark
owner over its reputation and damage to its goodwill. See SATA, 2015 WL 6680807 at *8
(enjoining sale of lower quality counterfeit goods); see also 2Die4Kourt v. Hillair Capital Mgmt.,
LLC, 692 F. App'x 366, 369 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that evidence that defendant used the
plaintiffs’ trademark after the termination of an agreement between the parties “to release an
unapproved line of cosmetic products” was enough to support a finding on a motion for
preliminary injunction that the plaintiffs “likely will lose some measure of control over their
business reputation in the absence of injunctive relief”).
Helen of Troy has worked hard for nearly a decade to earn a reputation as a company that
sells high quality, durable products that are safe for consumer use, and Hydro Flask’s products
have been recognized through numerous third-party awards for their high quality and design.
(Verified Compl., ¶¶ 8, 10-13.) Hydro Flask products have developed a loyal following among
consumers throughout the United States and substantial, favorable consumer goodwill. (Id., ¶¶
11-12.)
Defendants are passing themselves off as Helen of Troy and selling counterfeit products
that are of significantly inferior quality. As noted above, consumer Melissa Hughes of Kelseyville,
California reported to Hydro Flask that the counterfeit products she received from defendant
<camogym.com> “reek like plastic,” (Verified Compl., Ex. 8), and Sandra Tucker reported that
the lids on her products “would not screw on right.” (Id., Ex. 6.) It is unclear whether the
counterfeit products the Defendants are selling are safe for consumer use, but given that they “reek
like plastic,” there appears to be reason to be concerned about the consumer safety of the products.

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
If Defendants are allowed to continue to promote and sell their counterfeit products, Helen
of Troy will lose its ability to control the goodwill associated with its marks, and the stellar
reputation Helen of Troy has worked for years to build in its products will be destroyed. It is
difficult to envision a situation where the harm to a brand owner is more real and immediate than
under the facts of this case, and no amount of monetary damages could repair the harm to Helen
of Troy’s goodwill if the Defendants’ conduct is not immediately enjoined. See Optinrealbig.com,
LLC v. Ironport Sys., Inc., 323 F. Supp. 2d 1037, 1050 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (“Damage to a business’
goodwill is typically an irreparable injury because it is difficult to calculate.”); see also
2Die4Kourt, 692 F. App'x at 369; SATA, 2015 WL 6680807 at *8.
Helen of Troy has acted promptly in seeking the relief it requests as it has only learned of
the Defendants and their conduct over the course of the past approximately three months as Helen
of Troy has received consumer complaints and conducted investigations into the sale of the
counterfeit products addressed by the Verified Complaint. Helen of Troy therefore submits that
its Motion satisfies the irreparable injury prong of the temporary restraining order standard.
3. The Balance of Equities Strongly Favors Helen of Troy.
Where, as here, Defendants have chosen to intentionally create a false association between
themselves and their products and Helen of Troy and its products, the balance of equities strongly
favors the entry of injunctive relief. Immediate injunctive relief will do nothing more than require
Defendants to cease use of marks they had no legal right to use in the first place. Thus, Defendants
can claim no legitimate harm if they are enjoined from continuing to infringe Helen of Troy’s rights
during the pendency of this case. See Wetzel’s Pretzels, LLC v. Johnson, 797 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1028-
29 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“While it is apparent that Defendants would suffer a loss of revenue and that
its employees would, in all likelihood, lose their employment, it is Defendants who brought on
those risks [by using Plaintiff’s marks without authorization from Plaintiff].”).

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
4. The Public Interest Favors an Immediate Injunction.
Defendants’ conduct is inducing the public to purchase counterfeit Hydro Flask products under
the mistaken belief that they are purchasing genuine products. Exhibits 6-10 of the Verified Complaint
show numerous examples of consumers who have been duped by the Defendants’ conduct. There are
no doubt many more who have been duped by the Defendants’ conduct. The public interest in
preventing such confusion and deception in the marketplace weighs strongly in favor of protecting
registered trademarks. See Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1066. Indeed, one of the essential purposes of the
Lanham Act is to protect the consuming public from being misled as to the source of goods. See
adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc., 149 F. Supp. 3d 1222, 1251 (D. Or. 2016), aff'd in part,
rev'd in part, 890 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[T]he most basic public interest at stake in all Lanham
Act cases [is] the interest in prevention of confusion, particularly as it affects the public interest in
truth and accuracy.” (quoting Warner Bros. Entm't v. Glob. Asylum, Inc., No. CV 12–9547 PSG
CWX, 2012 WL 6951315, at *23 (C.D.Cal. Dec. 10, 2012), aff'd sub nom. Warner Bros. Entm't,
Inc. v. Glob. Asylum, Inc., 544 Fed.Appx. 683 (9th Cir.2013))); Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. All
Prof'l Realty, Inc., No. CIV. 2:10-2751, 2011 WL 221651, at *13 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2011) (“In
the trademark context, the public interest is usually the right of the public not to be deceived or
confused.”). Public interest is especially strong when a federal statute expressly forbids the conduct
in question. Here, Defendants are acting in flagrant disregard of federal trademark laws. The public
interest will thus be served by an immediate injunction to prevent Defendants’ confusing use of the
HYDRO FLASK Marks.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reason set forth above, Helen of Troy respectfully requests that this Court enter a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as set forth in the Proposed Order filed
concurrently herewith. Because of Helen of Troy’s clear likelihood of success on the merits of its
claims, it submits that no bond should be required. See 2Die4Kourt, 692 F. App'x at 370 (“[T]he
likelihood of success on the merits, as found by the district court, tips in favor of a minimal bond

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
or no bond at all.” (quoting People of State of Cal. ex rel. Van De Kamp v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning
Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1326 (9th Cir. 1985), amended, 775 F.2d 998 (9th Cir. 1985))). However,
if the Court determines that a bond is necessary, Helen of Troy requests that it be set an amount no
greater than $10,000. See SATA, 2015 WL 6680807 at *8 (setting bond at $10,000).
DATED: July 6, 2018
LANE POWELL PC
By s/Kelsey M. Benedick
Kenneth R. Davis II, OSB No. 971132
Kelsey M. Benedick, OSB No. 173038
Telephone: 503.778.2100
Facsimile: 503.778.2200
ALSTON & BIRD LLP

David J. Stewart, pro hac vice
Mary Grace Gallagher, pro hac vice
One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 4900
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Telephone: 404.881.7000
Facsimile: 404.881.7777
Attorneys for Plaintiff Helen of Troy Limited

LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 6, 2018, I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing
INJUNCTION on the following person(s) and/or entities in the manner indicated below at the
following address(es):
Bestcupshop.com
Email: yuanxd214@sina.com
service@vipcupsshop.com
Bestcupssale.com
Email: yanping47591@sina.com
Bomosfit.com
Email: pw-2d54aeb2eaa92fdfe4b2d9107a306f18@privacyguardian.org
Buyflaskinfo.com
Email: smarkjohn5@gmail.com
Camogym.com
Email: Pw-71eda6c2e20fbea0f81778f069018da7@privacyguardian.org
hydroflask@vipofservice.com
guofengzhu@outlook.com
Cheaperbottle.com
Email: ganqu400@sina.com
Cheaphydroflask.com
Email: Jiuyt534@sina.com
Cupsdeal.com
Email: Shenko714@sina.com
Dealhydro.com
Email: xunsn310@sina.com
service@officiallyhydroflask.com
Efoaq.com
Email: yizijia1891380@163.com
Fanaticscup.com
Email: xiansw231@sina.com
service@officialhydroflask.com
PAGE 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
Fengzhu E-Commerce Holdings LLC

Email: hydroflaskshop@outlook.com
guofengzhu1204@outlook.com
Finyp.com
Email: Zitanjiaoba537581@163.com
Gkmsf.com
Email: Guanganlu677064@163.com
Hftumblers.com
Email: yuming@yinsibaohu.aliyun.com
Hydroask.com
Hydroeflask.com
Email: Kuyue13013@sina.com
Hydroflaskc.com
Email: Daoyan73535@sina.com
Hydroflaskcup.com
hydroflaskcup@gmail.com
Hydroflaskcups.com
Email: pw-0cd301b789b3ff513cc85b6e316c5ecb@privacyguardian.org
Hydroflaskdeal.com
Email: Luowx262@sina.com
Hydroflaskdeals.com
Email: cidb391@sina.com
Hydroflasken.com
Email: registrar@mail.com.top
Hydroflaski.com
Email: pw-253b4c8c505187d6a254cea139ad0cbf@privacyguardian.org
Hydroflaskofficial.com
Email: info@chinacapital.com
Hydroflaskonsale.com
Email: 2672336560@qq.com
Hydroflaskoutlet.com
c/o Guo Tang
Email: tang007@foxmail.com
LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
Hydroflasksale.com
Email: shiou189@sina.com
Hydroflasksales.com
Email: lianme290@sina.com
Hydroflasksell.com
Email: shanyong68460@sina.com
Hydroflaskshopus.com
Email: Hegj557@sina.com
Hydroflaskstore.com
Email: doudt986@sina.com
Hydroflasktumbler.com
Email: info@chinacapital.com
Hydroflaskus.com
Email: pw-e79c8b068f01d12a7d191e94bbd827fa@privacyguardian.org
Hydroflsak.com
Email: Daovd562@sina.com
Hydrooflask.com
Email: pw-5e5241ed36e0fa04859f6df5d5c1a0d8@privacyguardian.org
Hydrosflask.com
Email: pw-5e5241ed36e0fa04859f6df5d5c1a0d8@privacyguardian.org
Hydrostoreusa.com
Email: Rexie572682@163.com
Iekashop.com
Email: huanawin@gmail.com
Jacketgoose.com
Email: sharecheng@aol.com
hydroflaskbottles@gmail.com
LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
Jimmy Li dba Cupstoreonline.com, Flaskhydro.com, Flask-hydro.com, Flask-hydro-flask.com,

Hydrocupflask.com, Hydroflask-bottles.com, Hydro-flask-bottles.com, Hydroflaskbottles.store,
Hydroflask-cup.com, Hydroflaskhydration.com, Hydroflask-official.com,
Hydroflaskofficialstore.com
Email: skatesshoes@outlook.com; hydroflaskr@gmail.com; hoverkicks@outlook.com;
Hydroflask-bottles.com; hydro-flask@hotmail.com; hydroonlinecup.com; hydro-flask-
cup@outlook.com
Keaoutlet.com
Email: pw-989c1df02aed2f3a8788da77f33006cd@privacyguardian.org
Li ChaoQun dba Hydroflask.biz, hydroflaskcheap.com, Hydroflaskcoffee.com, Hydro-flask-
cup.com, Hydroflaskforsale.com, Hydro-flask-shop.com, Hydro-flask-store.com,
Hydroflasktumblers.com, Xhydroflask.com
Email: zeroshop@ifreest.com; hydroflaskr@gmail.com; hoverkicks@outlook.com;
cupshop@outlook.com; hydroflaskstore@outlook.com; hydroflaskshop@outlook.com;
hydroonlinecup@gmail.com; hydro-flask-cup@outlook.com
Lifeida Electronic Bussiness Co,.Ltd.
Email: Guofengzhu1204@outlook.com
MeiLian, LLC
Email: chenmeilian58@outlook.com
Mierfitness.com
Email: pw-5bdc5191752223b7cd9a1daf4d96dfdc@privacyguardian.org
Nanchang Lanjunde Industria Co.
Jingdong Ave 1189, NC, Jiangxi
Nanchang
CN 330000
By First Class Mail
Officialcupstore.com
Email: pw-989c1df02aed2f3a8788da77f33006cd@privacyguardian.org
hydroflaskr@gmail.com
hoverkicks@gmail.com
Officialhydroflask.com
Email: xiewd931@sina.com
Onlinecup.store
Email: Onlinecup.store@domainsbyproxy.com
hydroonlinecup@gmail.com
hydro-flask-cup@outlook.com
Shophydroflask.com
Email: xingju871@sina.com
LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200
Zong Zhou
Email: doudt986@sina.com
by CM/ECF
by Electronic Mail
by Electronic Mail (e-mail agreement in place)
by Facsimile Transmission
by First Class Mail
by Hand Delivery
by Overnight Delivery
s/Kelsey M. Benedick
Kelsey M. Benedick
LANE POWELL PC
503.778.2100 FAX: 503.778.2200

Motion For TRO and PI

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Motion For TRO and PI

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 3:18-cv-01165-SI Document 12 Filed 07/06/18 Page 1 of 39

Kenneth R. Davis II, OSB No. 971132

David J. Stewart, pro hac vice

Attorneys for Plaintiff Helen of Troy Limited

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

HELEN OF TROY LIMITED, Case No. 3:18-cv-01165-SI

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 4

III. ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................... 17

IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 26

PAGE i - TABLE OF CONTENTS AND TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2Die4Kourt v. Hillair Capital Mgmt., LLC,

adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc.

adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc.

AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats,

Bosley Med. Inst. Inc. v. Kremer,

Brookfield Commc’ns., Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp.,

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,

Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. All Prof’l Realty, Inc.,

Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc.,

Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.,

Gucci America, Inc. v. Duty Free Apparel, Ltd.,

Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Florida Entm’t Mgmt. Inc.,

PAGE ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS AND TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, Inc.,

Omeluk v. Langsten Slip & Batbyggeri A/S,

Optinrealbig.com, LLC v. Ironport Sys., Inc.,

Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen,

Phillip Morris USA, Inc. v. Shalabi,

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp.

Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink,

SATA GmbH & Co. KG v. Wenzhou New Century Int’l. Ltd.

Sierra Forest Legacy v. Mark Rey,

Warner Bros. Entm’t v. Glob. Asylum, Inc.

Wetzel’s Pretzels, LLC v. Johnson,

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

Or. R. Civ. P. 4 (L).........................................................................................................................17

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) .................................................................................................20

PAGE iii - TABLE OF CONTENTS AND TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1065 ........................................................................................................6

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1072 ......................................................................................................20

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) .................................................................................................19

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b) ...................................................................................................6

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) .................................................................................................19

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) .............................................23

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1127 ......................................................................................................20

PAGE iv - TABLE OF CONTENTS AND TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

the supporting memorandum of law attached hereto.

with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them, from:

or distribution of any goods or services not authorized by Helen of Troy;

cheaphydroflask.com; hydroflasken.com; hydroflaskoutlet.com; hftumblers.com; hydroask.com;

hydroeflask.com; hydroflaskc.com; hydroflaskcup.com; hydroflaskcups.com; hydroflaskdeal.com;

hydroflaskdeals.com; hydroflaski.com; hydroflaskofficial.com; hydroflasksale.com;

hydroflasksales.com; hydroflasksell.com; hydroflaskshopus.com; hydroflaskstore.com;

hydroflasktumbler.com; hydroflaskus.com; hydroflsak.com; hydrooflask.com; hydrosflask.com;

flaskhydro.com; flask-hydro.com; flask-hydro-flask.com; hydrocupflask.com; hydroflask-

PAGE 1 - PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND

bottles.com; hydro-flask-bottles.com; hydroflaskbottles.store; hydroflask-cup.com;

hydroflaskhydration.com; hydroflask-official.com; hydroflaskofficialstore.com; hydroflask.biz;

hydroflaskcheap.com; hydroflaskcoffee.com; hydro-flask-cup.com; hydroflaskforsale.com; hydro-

flask-shop.com; hydro-flask-store.com; hydroflasktumblers.com; xhydroflask.com;

officialhydroflask.com; and shophydroflask.com;