Klipsch Group, Inc. v. Big box Store Limited, et al, No. 1:2012cv06283 - Document 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION. The Court is cognizant of the severe problems with counterfeiters and, in particular, the difficulties faced when counterfeiting occurs overseas. Aggrieved United States-based parties have trouble gaining jurisdiction and satisfying judgme nts. And the law, including the Lanham Act, provides strong tools to help trademark victims enforce their rights. Indeed, using those tools, this Court granted an ex parte TRO that froze millions of dollars in assets, provided for expedited discovery and authorized the disabling of websites. But that does not mean that with documentary evidence demonstrating only a very limited sale of counterfeit items by a retailer that a plaintiff may obtain a $2 million asset freeze. This is especially true when the freeze is to preserve an award of statutory damages, which is not an equitable remedy, and is based only on a non-particularized showing of inability to satisfy a potential judgment. For the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons stated in the October 11, 2012 Order, the amount of assets frozen shall be reduced to $20,000. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/24/2012) (lmb)