Reported / Citable
Background
ConcernedApe LLC, owner of the Stardew Valley trademark and copyright, sued the defendants identified on Schedule A for allegedly selling counterfeit or infringing Stardew Valley merchandise through online marketplaces. The court had previously entered an ex parte temporary restraining order barring the alleged sales, restraining certain funds, and permitting alternative electronic service.
At the preliminary-injunction hearing, ConcernedApe presented evidence that each Schedule A defendant had targeted U.S. consumers and shipped an allegedly infringing item into the Western District of Texas. Only ConcernedApe appeared at the hearing, although counsel later appeared for several defendants.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Robert Pitman granted ConcernedApe’s preliminary-injunction motion. The court found personal jurisdiction based on the defendants’ service and their operation of interactive online stores directed at U.S. and Texas consumers. It concluded that the evidence showed a likelihood of success on the trademark and copyright claims, irreparable harm absent relief, equities favoring ConcernedApe, and a public interest in protecting consumers from counterfeit goods.
The injunction continues the TRO’s restrictions through the litigation: it bars use of Stardew Valley intellectual property in unauthorized goods, restrains assets connected to the alleged infringement, authorizes expedited discovery, and directs relevant third parties to disable infringing listings and restrain related accounts. The court nevertheless questioned whether the many Schedule A defendants were properly joined, ordered supplemental joinder briefing after discovery by April 24, 2026, and stated it may later sever claims.
Key Takeaways
- The court kept in place broad anti-counterfeiting, asset-restraint, and expedited-discovery measures against the Schedule A defendants.
- Sales directed to Texas consumers, including shipment of an alleged infringing product into the district, supported personal jurisdiction at this stage.
- Similar products and use of a common manufacturer were weak evidence that defendants acted in concert for Rule 20 joinder purposes.
Why It Matters
The order shows that alleged online counterfeit sales can support preliminary relief, including asset restraints and third-party discovery, when the plaintiff establishes likely infringement and district-directed sales activity.
But the court’s joinder analysis signals scrutiny of Schedule A cases that aggregate numerous sellers without concrete evidence they are interrelated or acting together. ConcernedApe must develop that evidence in discovery or risk severance.