Create accountLogin

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

361K
active users

mastodon.social: AboutStatusProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.4.0-nightly.2025-03-19

Sarah Fackrell

Court denies plaintiff's request for an asset freeze in a (non-Schedule A) trademark & trade secret case.

REBECCA BAMBERGER WORKS, LLC v. REBECCA BAMBERGER, No. 3:24-cv-00706, 2024 WL 2805323, at *20 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2024).

BIG Bank Account Freeze Plaintiffs also request that the Court freeze BIG’s bank accounts. In a trademark infringement case, district courts have the inherent power to freeze an alleged infringer’s assets to preserve their ability to grant an accounting of the defendant’s profits later in the litigation. Reebok Int’l, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc., 970 F.2d 552, 559 (9th Cir. 1992). District courts should carefully exercise their discretion in so doing, however, and may deny an asset freeze where a plaintiff has not shown that the defendant is likely to hide their allegedly ill-gotten funds. See id. at 563; see also id. at 563–64 (Fernandez, J., concurring). Here, Plaintiffs have made no showing regarding Defendants’ propensity to hide assets or otherwise evade justice. The Court thus DENIES Plaintiffs’ Application to the extent it seeks to freeze BIG’s bank accounts.
#Remedies#AssetFreezeDenied
Jun 05, 2024, 11:46 AM·Public·Web
0boosts·1favorite
Public
Sarah Fackrell

It's notable that the court cites pre-Grupo Mexicano precedent for the proposition that it has an "inherent power" to freeze assets.

BIG Bank Account Freeze Plaintiffs also request that the Court freeze BIG’s bank accounts. In a trademark infringement case, district courts have the inherent power to freeze an alleged infringer’s assets to preserve their ability to grant an accounting of the defendant’s profits later in the litigation. Reebok Int’l, Ltd. v. Marnatech Enterprises, Inc., 970 F.2d 552, 559 (9th Cir. 1992). District courts should carefully exercise their discretion in so doing, however, and may deny an asset freeze where a plaintiff has not shown that the defendant is likely to hide their allegedly ill-gotten funds. See id. at 563; see also id. at 563–64 (Fernandez, J., concurring). Here, Plaintiffs have made no showing regarding Defendants’ propensity to hide assets or otherwise evade justice. The Court thus DENIES Plaintiffs’ Application to the extent it seeks to freeze BIG’s bank accounts.
ExploreLive feeds
About