`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00766
`
`Judge Aleta A. Trauger
`
`Magistrate Judge Chip Frensley
`
`
`
`Music City Metals Co., Inc.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Jingchang Cai d/b/a Xincheng Company, et al.,
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`NASHVILLE DIVISION
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS SHENZHEN HAI PAI INTERNATIONAL WAREHOUSING SERVICES
`LIMITED, HIPACKING, INC., JOLYN LIU, CHUGANG GUAN, JIA NING LIU, HYCO
`INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY LP, BLOOM INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`FENG BAI, AND GUANGZHOU HONGSHUO TRADING CO., LTD.’S RESPONSE TO
`THE COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`690118.1/020170626
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 1 of 38 PageID #: 2963
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 3 
`I. 
`MCM. ...................................................................................................................... 3 
`II. 
`Selling Products on Amazon and eBay. .................................................................. 4 
`III. 
`The Hyco Defendants. ............................................................................................ 6 
`A. 
`Jolyn Liu and Chugang Guan. .................................................................... 6 
`B. 
`HiPacking, Inc............................................................................................. 7 
`C. 
`Shenzhen Hai Pai International Warehousing Services Limited. ............... 7 
`D. 
`Hyco International Trading Company LP. .................................................. 8 
`E. 
`Feng Bai and Bloom International, Inc. ...................................................... 8 
`F. 
`Guangzhou Hongshuo Trading Co., Ltd. .................................................... 9 
`IV.  MCM’s Prior Cases Before This Court. ................................................................. 9 
`V. 
`MCM’s Unreasonable Delay in Bringing this Action for Immediate and
`Extreme Relief. ..................................................................................................... 10 
`ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY .................................................................... 13 
`I. 
`Legal Standard for the Extraordinary Relief of a Preliminary Injunction. ........... 13 
`II.  MCM is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits. ..................................................... 13 
`A. 
`MCM’s Trademark Claims Fail Because the Challenged Uses are
`Descriptive of MCM’s Products, Not Infringing Indicators of
`Source. ...................................................................................................... 13 
`1. 
`The Challenged Uses of the MCM mark and Part Numbers
`Constitute Nominative Fair Use and Do Not Identify MCM as the
`Source of the Grill Parts at Issue. .................................................. 15 
`The Part Numbers Are Descriptive of the Parts, Do Not Function
`as Source Identifiers, and Cannot be Protected as Trademarks. ... 20 
`MCM’s Copyright Claims Fail Because the Individual Elements in
`MCM’s Catalog are Not Entitled to Copyright Protection. ...................... 22 
`1. 
`The Grill Manufacturers’ Brand, Fitment Data and Model
`Numbers are Facts Ineligible for Copyright Protection. ............... 24 
`The Illustrations and Photos in MCM’s Catalog Are Insufficiently
`Original to Warrant Copyright Protection. ................................... 25 
`MCM’s Part Numbers are Functional, Lack Originality, and
`Constitute Short Phrases for Which Copyright is Denied. ........... 26 
`
`2. 
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`690118.1/020170626
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 2 of 38 PageID #: 2964
`
`

`

`IV. 
`
`III.  MCM’s Unreasonable Delay Demonstrates that it Will Not Suffer
`Irreparable Injury if its Motion is Denied. ............................................................ 27 
`Issuing a Preliminary Injunction Will Cause Substantial Harm to the Hyco
`Defendants. ........................................................................................................... 29 
`V. 
`A Preliminary Injunction is Not in the Public Interest. ........................................ 30 
`VI. 
`Bond. ..................................................................................................................... 30 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 30 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`690118.1/020170626
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 3 of 38 PageID #: 2965
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`Advisory Info. & Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. Prime Comput., Inc.,
`598 F. Supp. 76 (M.D. Tenn. 1984) ......................................................................................... 28
`AmMed Direct, LLC v. Liberty Med. Supply, Inc.,
`No. 3:09-00288, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87518 (M.D. Tenn. Sep. 23, 2009) ................... 13, 29
`ATC Distrib. Grp., Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc.,
`402 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................. 25, 26
`Bonnell v. Lorenzo,
`241 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................... 13
`Champions Golf Club, Inc. v. Champions Golf Club, Inc.,
`78 F.3d 1111 (6th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 19
`Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust,
`756 F.2d 273 (2d Cir. 1985) ..................................................................................................... 27
`Falcon Stainless, Inc. v. Rino Cos.,
`572 Fed. Appx. 483 (9th Cir. Cal. 2014) .................................................................................. 21
`Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
`499 U.S. 340 (1991) ................................................................................................................. 22
`Guar. Residential Lending, Inc. v. Homestead Mortg. Co., L.L.C.,
`No. 04-74842, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43640 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2005) ............................. 27
`Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess?, Inc.,
`868 F. Supp. 2d 207 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ...................................................................................... 18
`Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................... 15
`Homeowners Grp., Inc. v. Home Mktg. Specialists,
`931 F.2d 1100 (6th Cir. 1991) .................................................................................................. 19
`Huron Mt. Club v. United States Army Corps of Eng’rs,
`545 F. App’x 390 (6th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................. 27
`Interactive Prods. Corp. v. a2z Mobile Office Sols., Inc.,
`326 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................... 15
`J. Thomas Distribs., Inc. v. Greenline Distribs., Inc.,
`No. 95-2100, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 29035 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 1996) ..................................... 25
`Leary v. Daeschner,
`228 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................... 13
`Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A.,
`528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 25
`Milo & Gabby LLC v. Amazon,
`No. 2016-1290, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8932 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2017) .................................. 6
`
`690118.1/020170626
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 4 of 38 PageID #: 2966
`
`

`

`NACCO Indus. v. Applica, Inc.,
`No. 1:06-cv-3002, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91940 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 20, 2006) ........................ 27
`New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publ’g, Inc.,
`971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992) .............................................................................................. 15, 16
`Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014) ............................................................................................................. 27
`Playboy Enters. v. Universal Tel-A-Talk,
`No. 96-CV-6961, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8231 (E.D. Pa. June 1, 1998) ................................ 19
`Projector-Recorder Belt Corp. v. Consol. Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 91-4102, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 18399 (6th Cir. July 24, 1992) ..................................... 23
`R&B, Inc. v. Needa Parts Mfg.,
`50 F. App'x 519 (3d Cir. 2002) .......................................................................................... 21, 26
`Ross, Brovins & Oehmke, P.C. v. Lexis Nexis Grp.,
`463 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 23
`Schoolhouse Inc. v. Anderson,
`275 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................... 23
`Southco, Inc. v. Kanebridge Corp.,
`390 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................... 26
`Tenneco Auto. Operating Co. v. Kingdom Auto Parts,
`410 F. App’x 841 (6th Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................... 20, 21
`Tumblebus Inc. v. Cranmer,
`399 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................... 13
`Vireo Sys. v. HTG Ventures, LLC,
`No. 3:14-cv-2359, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54752 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 27, 2015) ...................... 13
`Weyerhaeuser NR Co. v. La.-Pac. Corp.,
`No. 3:13-00805, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135739 (M.D. Tenn. Sep. 23, 2013) ................. 12, 29
`Wilden Pump & Eng’g LLC v. JDA Glob. LLC,
`No. CV 12-1051 ODW (DTBx), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155599 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) . 21
`Winter v. NRDC, Inc.,
`555 U.S. 7 (2008) ..................................................................................................................... 12
`Statutes 
`15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(1)(b) ............................................................................................................. 19
`17 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................................. 22
`17 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................................................. 22
`Other Authorities 
`1 Nimmer on Copyright § 3.03 ..................................................................................................... 24
`Senate-House Joint Explanatory Statement on Trademark Counterfeiting Legislation, 130 Cong.
`
`690118.1/020170626
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 5 of 38 PageID #: 2967
`
`

`

`Rec. H12076 at 12078-79 (Oct. 10, 1984) ............................................................................... 19
`Rules 
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) .......................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`
`690118.1/020170626
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 6 of 38 PageID #: 2968
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`
`The picture Plaintiff Music City Metals Co., Inc. (“MCM”) paints in its complaint,
`
`motions for a seizure, temporary restraining order (“TRO”), preliminary injunction, and
`
`supporting declarations does not reflect the reality of e-commerce today. Online marketplaces
`
`such as Amazon and eBay, with features like “1-click check out” and “free two-day shipping,”
`
`have fundamentally changed the dynamics of how consumers shop. The “Hyco Defendants”1
`
`comprise MCM’s competitors – not counterfeiters – that have effectively used the tools in these
`
`marketplaces to provide quality products at reasonable prices and with great service. MCM is
`
`threatened by these competitors (which are reputable, long-standing businesses), not because
`
`they are attempting to trade on MCM’s goodwill, but because they have a better and more
`
`efficient business model.
`
`MCM sells generic, aftermarket grill parts that can be used as replacements for parts that
`
`break or wear out on brand name grills, such as Weber or Kenmore. Certain of the Hyco
`
`Defendants (including “Hyco” discussed below) sell the same and similar parts, among other
`
`products, on Amazon and eBay. Hyco sells its products under the Hyco brand, but uses the
`
`names Weber, Kenmore, and other brands, as well as the model numbers of their grills, on its
`
`listings to identify and describe the products that may be replaced by or substituted with Hyco’s
`
`1 The “Hyco Defendants” are Shenzhen Hai Pai International Warehousing Services Limited,
`HiPacking, Inc., Jolyn Liu, Chugang Guan, Hyco International Trading Company LP, Bloom
`International, Inc., Feng Bai, and Guangzhou Hongshuo Trading Co., Ltd. Although, as
`described herein, the Hyco Defendants include distinct individuals and businesses that are likely
`to have separate defenses in this action, they are being grouped together for purposes of this
`response and the upcoming hearing due to their business interactions with one another and for
`purposes of convenience given the large number of named defendants. Defendant Jia Ning Liu
`is Jolyn Liu’s father and has no involvement in the businesses of the Hyco Defendants or the
`other named defendants. Mr. Liu is represented by the undersigned counsel and joins this
`Response, but counsel for Mr. Liu and MCM’s counsel are in discussions about a voluntary
`dismissal without prejudice as to Mr. Liu.
`
`690118.1/020170626
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 7 of 38 PageID #: 2969
`
`

`

`products. MCM engages in the exact same practice on its website and in its catalogs. In
`
`addition, because Hyco’s parts can also serve as a replacement or substitute for MCM’s parts,
`
`Hyco has used “for MCM,” or five-digit part numbers associated with MCM’s parts (e.g.,
`
`“18501”), in the same way.
`
`Contrary to MCM’s claims, such use does not constitute trademark infringement, much
`
`less counterfeiting. As shown below, Hyco has used MCM and the part numbers as a point of
`
`reference to describe MCM’s products, not to identify MCM as the source of Hyco’s products
`
`and not to cause customer confusion. Such nominative, “non-trademark” use is perfectly fair and
`
`helpful to consumers. MCM’s claim as to the unregistered part numbers also fails because MCM
`
`cannot show that consumers recognize part numbers as identifiers of source. Rather, the part
`
`numbers identify the parts themselves (that is, they are purely descriptive) and thus cannot be
`
`protected by trademark.
`
`MCM’s copyright claims also fail. The Hyco Defendants are not accused of copying
`
`MCM’s catalog, only individual elements within it. But the Supreme Court has made clear that
`
`facts such as the names, models, and sizes of brand name grills and their parts are ineligible for
`
`copyright protection, even if MCM took the effort to compile them into one place. The part
`
`numbers associated with MCM’s parts are also uncopyrightable for several reasons. They are
`
`generated without any creativity or expression sufficient to warrant protection, they are
`
`functional, and they constitute short phrases for which copyright is denied. Lastly, MCM’s
`
`illustrations and photos, which seek to simply reproduce a generic, component part, lack the
`
`originality required for copyright protection.
`
`MCM’s inability to show a likelihood of success on the merits, in and of itself, warrants
`
`denying MCM’s request for a preliminary injunction. If there is any doubt, however, MCM’s
`
`690118.1/020170626
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 8 of 38 PageID #: 2970
`
`

`

`unreasonable delay in seeking such extraordinary relief requires denying MCM’s motion. As
`
`shown below, MCM attached to its complaint in this action listings from certain Hyco
`
`Defendants that MCM has had in its possession for at least 3 years and others since 2012.
`
`MCM’s supporting declarations, which rely on listings collected almost a year ago, also make
`
`clear that MCM waited until the start of the peak season for replacement grill parts to seek the
`
`extreme measures of a seizure order and TRO from this Court. Such tactics belie MCM’s claim
`
`of urgency and show that MCM will not be irreparably harmed absent a preliminary injunction.
`
`For these and the following reasons, the Hyco Defendants respectfully request this Court
`
`to dissolve the TRO and deny MCM’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
`
`I.
`
`MCM.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`In the 1970s, MCM decided to build a business selling aftermarket and replacement grill
`
`parts (Dkt. 1 ¶ 5). This includes parts such as burners, heat plates, and cooking grids that can be
`
`used as replacements or substitutes for parts supplied with original grills that are sold under such
`
`brands as Brinkmann, Weber, Kenmore, and others. While the features or design of the grills
`
`may be protectable under, e.g., patent or trade dress law, the non-durable component parts are
`
`typically generic commodities. As a result, the aftermarket for grill parts is fiercely competitive
`
`(Declaration of Chugang Guan (“Guan Dec.”) ¶ 2).
`
`According to MCM, it relies primarily on a traditional distribution model to deliver its
`
`products from the parts manufacturer (e.g., in China) to end customers in the United States by
`
`partnering with “over 250 distributors” that “operate physical stores and warehouses all over the
`
`country” (Dkt. 7, Ex. 2 ¶¶ 7-8). These distributors use a variety of different websites, such as
`
`grillpartssearch.com, grillparts.com, thebbqdepot.com, allpartsgrills.com, and bbqparts.com, to
`
`market MCM’s products (id. ¶ 7).
`
`690118.1/020170626
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 9 of 38 PageID #: 2971
`
`

`

`MCM claims rights in two federally-registered trademarks: MUSIC CITY METALS
`
`(U.S. Reg. No. 3,995,498) and MCM (U.S. Reg. No. 4,196,254) (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 15-17). Each mark is
`
`registered as a service mark in International Class 35 for “distributorship services in the field of
`
`gas grill parts” (Dkt. 1, Exs. 1-2). MCM does not assert any mark that is federally registered for
`
`gas grill parts, i.e., for goods as opposed to services. MCM also claims common law trademark
`
`rights in the part numbers assigned to its products (id. ¶ 22). According to MCM, each part
`
`number is “formulated by reference to multiple factors pertaining to the make, model, type,
`
`material, and other important data assessed by MCM” (Dkt. 5 at 2).
`
`MCM states that it publishes, on a yearly basis, a print catalog that includes photographs
`
`and/or illustrations of its parts, the part numbers, and grill brand and model fitment data (Dkt. 1 ¶
`
`10). The contents of the catalogs are compiled from data in an electronic database that MCM
`
`maintains and updates “on an almost daily basis” (Dkt. 5 at 6). MCM claims that the catalogs
`
`are protected by three copyright registrations: Reg. No. TX 5-258-606 dated March 15, 2000
`
`(Dkt. 1, Ex. 7); Reg. No. TX 7-268-508 dated August 16, 2010 (Dkt. 1, Ex. 3); and Reg. No. TX
`
`7-925-681 dated June 2, 2014 (Dkt. 1, Ex. 5). MCM claims that the copyright registrations
`
`extend to cover each individual part number listed in the catalogs, as well as the contents of
`
`MCM’s electronic database (Dkt. 5 at 2, 5-6).
`
`II.
`
`Selling Products on Amazon and eBay.
`
`In recent years, and as MCM has clung to its conventional distribution model, Amazon
`
`has “transform[ed] the way we shop by building the next generation platform and infrastructure
`
`that gives customers unprecedented choice, scope and value.”2 The emergence of platforms like
`
`
`2 Keary Crawford, Amazon Innovates with its Business Model, Not Drones, WIRED (Jan. 21,
`2014), attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`690118.1/020170626
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 10 of 38 PageID #: 2972
`
`

`

`Amazon and eBay have lowered the barrier for entry into the replacement grill parts market.
`
`Moreover, because price is an important factor in most purchasing decisions, particularly with
`
`respect to generic grill parts, Amazon and eBay give prominent placement to the listings with the
`
`best price.3 Having multiple sellers compete on the same retail website (as opposed to using
`
`numerous different sites like MCM’s distributors) allows for more competition and better
`
`choices for customers, but favors the sellers with minimal overhead.
`
`Because most of MCM’s allegations are made in the context of selling products on
`
`Amazon, a brief description of relevant aspects of the Amazon marketplace may be helpful. In a
`
`recent decision concerning copyright and trademark allegations against Amazon, the Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit set forth an explanation of how “product-detail pages” (also
`
`known as product listings) are created and how sellers can use Amazon’s “Fulfillment by
`
`Amazon” service to store inventory and ship products to end customers:
`
`Amazon operates a website that offers an online marketplace for customers.
`Although Amazon sells some of the products available on its website, most of the
`products offered for sale on Amazon’s website are offered by third-party sellers.
`When a third-party seller uses Amazon’s website to sell a product, the seller
`provides information regarding the product, such as a product description, images
`of the product, and a price for the product. Amazon’s website then automatically
`generates a “product-detail page” that displays the information and identifies the
`seller.
`
`Amazon also offers third-party sellers a service called “Fulfillment by Amazon,”
`which allows third-party sellers to take advantage of Amazon’s logistical
`network. When using this service, a third-party seller sends its product to an
`Amazon fulfillment center, where Amazon stores the product. If a customer buys
`the product from the third-party seller, Amazon pulls the product off the shelf,
`packages it, and ships it to the customer on behalf of the seller. A third-party
`seller even can use this service when selling products outside of Amazon’s online
`marketplace; for example, a third-party seller can use the service when selling the
`
`3 DNA Response, Your Distribution Model is Broken and You Might Not Know It, available at:
`http://www.dnaresponse.com/distribution-model/ (last accessed May 24, 2017), attached as
`Exhibit 2.
`
`690118.1/020170626
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 11 of 38 PageID #: 2973
`
`

`

`product on another website, such as eBay.
`
`Milo & Gabby LLC v. Amazon, No. 2016-1290, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8932, at *2-3 (Fed. Cir.
`
`May 23, 2017).4
`
`III. The Hyco Defendants.
`
`The Hyco Defendants are comprised of reputable businesses and their principals. As
`
`explained below, a couple of these businesses compete against MCM in the replacement grill
`
`parts market. They use a different business model, however, that requires less overhead. They
`
`sell on a limited number of online sites, do not have a vast network of distributors to oversee and
`
`maintain, and rely on Amazon and a few independent fulfillment centers to package and ship
`
`products to end customers in the United States.
`
`A.
`
`Jolyn Liu and Chugang Guan.
`
`Jolyn Liu was born in China and immigrated to the United States with her parents in 2003
`
`(Declaration of Jolyn Liu (“Lin Dec.”) ¶ 2). She attended the Medical College of Georgia
`
`(“MCG”), in Augusta, Georgia, but then decided to pursue a career in business rather than in
`
`medicine (id. ¶ 3).
`
`Ms. Liu was introduced to Chugang Guan, a resident of China, through an exchange-
`
`student at MCG (id. ¶ 4). In about 2011, Ms. Liu helped Mr. Guan set up seller accounts with
`
`Amazon and eBay to sell various products under the brand “Hyco” (id. ¶ 5). In 2013, Ms. Liu
`
`and Mr. Guan formed the Georgia general partnership Hyco International Trading Company LP
`
`4 The Federal Circuit’s description was supported by an Amazon employee’s declaration filed in
`the district court action. See Milo & Gabby, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 13-cv-1932, Dkt. 35
`See
`also
`(W.D. Wash.).
`Amazon.com,
`Tutorials
`and
`Training,
`at:
`https://services.amazon.com/content/seller-resources-how-to-guides.htm/ref=asus_soa_faq_tut
`(providing video tutorials on how to add a product and create a new product listing);
`Amazon.com,
`Fulfillment
`by
`Amazon,
`at:
`https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=13245485011&ref=az_us_fba_snav_bnT1
`(describing Amazon’s Fulfillment by Amazon service).
`
`690118.1/020170626
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 12 of 38 PageID #: 2974
`
`

`

`(“Hyco”) to operate the online stores (id. ¶ 6). Based on the experience she gained in helping
`
`Mr., Guan start Hyco, Ms. Liu discovered many potential opportunities for other e-commerce
`
`businesses (id. ¶ 7). By 2014, Ms. Liu then started a fulfillment business and formed HiPacking,
`
`Inc. (“HiPacking”), a Georgia corporation, and Shenzhen Hai Pai International Warehousing
`
`Services Limited (“Hai Pai”), a Chinese company (id.). Loosely translated, “Hai” means ocean
`
`or sea and “Pai” connotes packaging or delivering (id. ¶ 8). Ms. Liu thus chose the names “Hai
`
`Pai,” “Hyco,” and “HiPacking” to be suggestive of services relating to product importation and
`
`delivery from overseas (id. ¶ 9).
`
`B.
`
`HiPacking, Inc.
`
`HiPacking serves as a fulfillment center with a warehouse located in Tucker, Georgia,
`
`just outside of Atlanta (Liu Dec. ¶ 10). Ms. Liu is the CEO of HiPacking and manages seven
`
`part-time employees (id. ¶ 11). HiPacking contracts with sellers to store product inventory and
`
`to ship products once they are sold online from HiPacking’s warehouse to the end customer (id. ¶
`
`12). Hyco is a customer of HiPacking (id. ¶ 13). Hyco stores a portion of its inventory in
`
`HiPacking’s warehouse and engages HiPacking to ship those products once sold to end
`
`customers (id. ¶ 14). HiPacking does not provide services to any of the other defendants named
`
`in MCM’s complaint (id. ¶ 15). HiPacking does not operate any online stores and has never
`
`engaged in the business of selling grill parts (id. ¶ 16).
`
`C.
`
`Shenzhen Hai Pai International Warehousing Services Limited.
`
`Hai Pai serves as the sales and customer service department for HiPacking in China (Liu
`
`Dec. ¶ 17). Hai Pai has seven employees that respond to customer inquiries, visit with
`
`manufacturing companies in China to promote HiPacking’s fulfillment services, and provide
`
`other ancillary services that assist companies in China to do business in the United States (id. ¶
`
`18). Hai Pai does not provide services to any of the other defendants named in MCM’s
`
`690118.1/020170626
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 13 of 38 PageID #: 2975
`
`

`

`complaint (id. ¶ 19). Hai Pai does not operate any online stores and has never engaged in the
`
`business of selling grill parts (id. ¶ 20).
`
`D.
`
`Hyco International Trading Company LP.
`
`Hyco operates online stores on Amazon and eBay that sell replacement grill parts and
`
`other products, such as gloves, silk flowers, and fireplace blowers (Guan Dec. ¶ 3). As noted
`
`above, some of Hyco’s inventory is maintained by HiPacking, but the vast majority is stored in
`
`Amazon’s warehouses under the Fulfilled by Amazon service (id. ¶ 4). Hyco has consistently
`
`used the brands “Hyco” and “Hyco Shop” since 2011 and the brand “Vicool” for the last several
`
`months (id. ¶ 5). Hyco is the owner of a pending federal trademark application for the mark
`
`VICOOL (U.S. Serial No. 87/199,008) (id. ¶ 6). On eBay, Hyco’s seller name is “pzbbq” (id. ¶
`
`7). Hyco has never used any of the other brands or seller names mentioned in MCM’s complaint
`
`(id. ¶ 8).
`
`E.
`
`Feng Bai and Bloom International, Inc.
`
`Feng Bai is the President of Bloom International, Inc. (“Bloom”), a Nevada corporation
`
`(Declaration of Feng Bai (“Bai Dec.”) ¶ 2). Bloom operates online stores on Amazon and eBay
`
`that sell replacement grill parts and accessories such as heat plates, burners, cooking grids, heat
`
`indicators, and grill covers, as well as fireplace blower fans (id. ¶ 3). Most of Bloom’s inventory
`
`is stored in Amazon’s warehouses under the Fulfilled by Amazon service (id. ¶ 4). Bloom has
`
`consistently used the brand “BBQ-Parts” since at least 2013 and “Hongso” since 2015 (id. ¶ 5).
`
`Ms. Feng filed a federal trademark application for the mark BBQ-PARTS (U.S. Serial No.
`
`86/234,873), which was allowed to go abandoned in 2015 (id. ¶ 6). On eBay, Bloom’s seller
`
`name is “2013decoshop” (id. ¶ 7). Bloom has never used any of the other brands or seller names
`
`mentioned in MCM’s complaint (id. ¶ 8).
`
`690118.1/020170626
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 14 of 38 PageID #: 2976
`
`

`

`F.
`
`Guangzhou Hongshuo Trading Co., Ltd.
`
`Guangzhou Hongshuo Trading Co., Ltd. (“Hongshuo”) is a company organized and
`
`existing in China that manages the supply of products, including replacement grill parts, for
`
`Hyco and Bloom (Guan Dec. ¶ 9). Mr. Guan is the President of Hongshuo (id. ¶ 10). Hongshuo
`
`owns a U.S. trademark registration for the mark HONGSO (U.S. Reg. No. 4,951,322), which it
`
`licenses to Bloom for use on Amazon and eBay (id. ¶ 11).
`
`IV. MCM’s Prior Cases Before This Court.
`
`MCM states that it “has already obtained injunctions from this Court against several
`
`entities and individuals” and claims that the Hyco Defendants are “connected to” those past
`
`defendants (Dkt. 5 at 2-3). As explained above, the notion that the Hyco Defendants are
`
`affiliated with past defendants or with the other defendants named in this action is incorrect.
`
`Hyco and Bloom are familiar with some of the entities, individuals, and brands mentioned in
`
`MCM’s complaint as their competitors, but are not “tied” to them as suggested by MCM (see,
`
`e.g., Dkt. 1 ¶ 84).
`
`With respect to the prior cases: (i) in MCM v. Lucas BBQ Co. Ltd., et al., No. 3:14-cv-
`
`0834, the permanent injunction was obtained pursuant to a default judgment (Dkt. 1, Ex. 45); (ii)
`
`in MCM v. Xiao Jin Hua, et al., No. 3:15-cv-0067, the preliminary injunction was granted
`
`without any of the defendants appearing to defend (Dkt. 1, Ex. 78; see also No. 3:15-cv-0067 at
`
`Dkt. 28) and the permanent injunction was obtained pursuant to a default judgment (Dkt. 1, Ex.
`
`23); and (iii) in MCM v. Justin Lin, et al., No. 3:12-cv-1107, the permanent injunction was
`
`entered pursuant to a stipulated dismissal before any ruling on the merits (Dkt. 1, Ex. 46).
`
`Accordingly, the substance of MCM’s trademark and copyright claims has never been
`
`challenged before this Court.
`
`690118.1/020170626
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 15 of 38 PageID #: 2977
`
`

`

`V. MCM’s Unreasonable Delay in Bringing this Action for Immediate and Extreme
`Relief.
`
`Notably, the filings in MCM’s prior cases and in this case demonstrate that MCM has
`
`been aware of and actively monitoring Hyco’s and Bloom’s listings on Amazon and eBay for
`
`years. For example, on January 21, 2015, MCM attached an exhibit to its complaint against Xiao
`
`Jin Hua and others that included listings from Hyco. See No. 3:15-cv-0067 at Dkt. 3, Ex. 6
`
`(attached hereto as Exhibit 3) at Examples 2, 73-76. Because the listings state that one-day
`
`shipping is available for arrival in February (which had to be before MCM’s filing in January
`
`2015), it appears that MCM collected these listings at least as early as February 2014. Id. at
`
`Example 2 (“Want it tomorrow, Feb. 25?”). MCM then repackaged the same listings, removed
`
`the browser portion at the top of some of them, added annotations, and attached the at-least-3-
`
`year-old listings to its complaint in this action:
`
`Exhibit 6 filed Jan. 21, 2015
`
`Exhibit 6 filed April 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`690118.1/020170626
`Case 3:17-cv-00766 Document 45 Filed 05/26/17 Page 16 of 38 PageID #: 2978
`
`

`

`Exhibit 6 filed Jan. 21, 2015
`
`Exhibit 6 filed April 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`