Case: 1:23-cv-14925 Document #: 69 Filed: 12/28/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1941

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EMOJI COMPANY GMBH,

Case No.: 1:23-cv-14925
Plaintiff,
v. Honorable John F. Kness

THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS,

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES,
PARTNERSHIPS, AND
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A,

Defendants.

PRELIMINARY OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT RIA CHRISTIE COLLECTIONS

(DEFENDANT #22) TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Defendant Ria Christie Collections (Defendant #22) (“RCC”) files this preliminary

opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. This response is preliminary because

Plaintiff has ignored repeated requests to provide information of what is being accused of

infringement, so RCC has no idea what is accused of infringement. RCC is a legitimate bookseller

located in London, England, that sells books online obtained from legitimate book distributors.

Plaintiff’s refusal to provide any information to RCC on the accusation of infringement prevents

RCC from defending itself against such allegations and necessitates denial of the preliminary

injunction. In support of this motion, Defendant state as follows:

Defendant RCC is a small London, England, based bookseller, selling legitimately

obtained copies of books and maintains its own online store. (see

https://riachristiecollections.com/; https://www.facebook.com/riachristie2010/). RCC has never

tried to conceal its identity and clearly identifies itself as the seller of the books. (Id.). RCC

obtains its books from legitimate book distributors, such as Penguin Random House and Ingram

Content Group, and Gardners Books. (Ex. E at 1-2). Contrary to the allegations in the complaint

1
 Case: 1:23-cv-14925 Document #: 69 Filed: 12/28/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:1942

(Dkt. 1 at ¶13), RCC does not reside in the People’s Republic of China and there is no reason that

RCC should be joined with unrelated companies of which RCC has no knowledge.

Defendant was surprised when it was contacted by the online marketplace Fruugo on

December 6, 2023, stating that a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) was entered, and

Defendant’s account was frozen. (Ex. A at 1-2). Later that day, RCC reached out to Plaintiff

requesting detailed descriptions of the intellectual property that was allegedly infringing and

specific examples of the infringement so that RCC could conduct its own investigation. (See Ex.

B-E). Plaintiff did not respond to this email. RCC then contacted Plaintiff again on December 7,

8, and 18, 2023. (Id.). Plaintiff did not respond to any of these emails which asked for details of

the allegation of infringement to allow RCC to defend itself. (Id.).

RCC then hired its counsel of record, who contacted Plaintiff to get copies of the Complaint

and evidence of infringement on December 21 and December 27, 2023. (Ex. F). Plaintiff never

responded to those emails. Plaintiff has provided no information to RCC to justify either the TRO

or a preliminary injunction.

A “preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be

granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v.

Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). Further, the preliminary injunction should also be tailored

to the violation. Commodity Fut. Trading Comm. v. Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. Ltd., 496 F.3d 769,

772 (7th Cir. 2007). In order to properly receive a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must have

demonstrated by a clear showing that “(1) the threat of irreparable harm for which there is no

adequate remedy at law; (2) that the threatened injury to plaintiff outweighs the harm an injunction

might inflict on the defendant; (3) that the plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of success on the

merits; and (4) that the issuance of a preliminary injunction would not disserve the public interest.”

2
 Case: 1:23-cv-14925 Document #: 69 Filed: 12/28/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:1943

Am. Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321-22 (7th Cir. 1984), citing, In re Uranium Antitrust

Litigation, 617 F.2d 1248, 1261 (7th Cir. 1980). The movant “bears the burden of persuasion with

regard to each factor in the preliminary injunction relief analysis” and if it “fails to meet just one

of the prerequisites for a preliminary injunction, the injunction must be “denied” Smith v. Foster,

No. 16-cv-84-pp, at *5 (E.D. Wis. May 4, 2016), quoting, Cox v. City of Chicago, 868 F.2d 217,

219-23 (7th Cir. 1989).

Plaintiff has not provided RCC with any explanation of the basis for asserting infringement

against RCC. RCC is a legitimate reseller of books obtained from legitimate distributors. RCC’s

sales through Fruugo should not be entirely shut down and frozen based on a yet unidentified

allegedly infringing product. Furthermore, RCC is not part of any business located in the People’s

Republic of China nor is it part of any cabal of “fly-by-night” businesses in China. Plaintiff has

failed to show that it suffers the threat of irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy

at law, as it has failed to identify any threat from RCC thus far. Plaintiff has failed to show that

the threatened injury outweighs the harm currently suffered by RCC. RCC is unable to respond

and defend itself from Plaintiff’s obfuscated and hidden allegations. As Plaintiff has failed to

identify RCC’s alleged infringement Plaintiff has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success

on the merits. Finally, Plaintiff has failed to show that issuance of a preliminary injunction would

not disserve the public interest. Using the United States Court system, Defendant is being held up

and locked out of its legitimate legal business while Plaintiff awaits a preliminary injunction to

increase the leverage in negotiations.

At most, if Plaintiff ever identifies an allegedly infringing product, any preliminary

injunction should be narrowly tailored to that specific product rather than restraining all RCC’s

funds in Fruugo. This Court should limit the asset restraint to the amount that may possibly be

3
 Case: 1:23-cv-14925 Document #: 69 Filed: 12/28/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:1944

recovered as profits through an equitable accounting of profits. The Supreme Court has held that

district courts generally lack the authority “to issue a preliminary injunction preventing [defendant]

from disposing of [its] assets pending adjudication” of a [plaintiff’s claim] for money damages.”

Grupo Mexicano de Dessarrolo v. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308, 333 (1999). It is “incumbent

on a district court to match the scope of its injunction to the most probable size of the likely

judgment, thereby sparing the defendant from undue hardship.” Id. at 341 (internal quotes

removed). Here, RCC has been unable to pay suppliers of legitimate book products because of the

frozen account. (Ex. E at 1-2). Applying these principles, any prejudgment asset freeze should be

limited to amounts that Plaintiff is reasonably likely to recover pursuant to an equitable accounting

of profits in this case. Plaintiff has not identified any products to RCC for which any recovery is

appropriate. Because RCC is a legitimate business, a further restraint of money is not appropriate.

Defendant Ria Christe Collections therefore respectfully requests that the Court deny

Plaintiffs’ Motion for entry of preliminary injunction. Furthermore, if Plaintiff ever provides

evidence of the alleged infringement, RCC requests the opportunity to supplement this response

and/or file a surreply to any reply by Plaintiff to its motion for a preliminary injunction.

Dated: December 28, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Steven G. Kalberg

David R. Bennett
Steven G. Kalberg
Direction IP Law
P.O. Box 14184
Chicago, IL 60614-0184
Telephone: (312) 291-1667
e-mail: dbennett@directionip.com
e-mail: skalberg@directionip.com

Counsel for Defendant Ria Christie

Collections (Defendant #22)

4
 Case: 1:23-cv-14925 Document #: 69 Filed: 12/28/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:1945

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 28, 2023, I caused a true and correct copy of the

foregoing pleading to be filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system

which sent notification of such filing to all attorneys of record who have consented to such

notifications.

/s/ Steven G. Kalberg

Steven G. Kalberg