## Facts

- Robert Plant and Jimmy Page, along with licensed merchandising companies, sought emergency injunctive relief to stop sales of unauthorized concert merchandise bearing their names, likenesses, and the Led Zeppelin mark.
- The defendants were unidentified “John/Jane Does” and unknown companies alleged to be bootleg vendors who followed the concert tour and sold infringing items near venues.
- On the day before a South Florida concert, plaintiffs filed an ex parte emergency motion seeking a TRO, a preliminary injunction, and a seizure order.
- Plaintiffs requested broad relief, including a nationwide injunction against unknown vendors and authority for law enforcement to seize “apparently infringing” merchandise within a 25-mile radius of concerts.
- The court held a same-day hearing at which only plaintiffs’ counsel appeared because defendants were unknown and unserved.
- After the court denied relief and dismissed the case in open court, plaintiffs obtained a TRO the next day in another federal district court and returned seeking further action in this court.

## Issues

1. Whether an ex parte TRO and preliminary injunction may issue against unidentified, unserved defendants based on allegations of tour-related bootlegging near concert venues.
2. Whether the requested nationwide injunction and sweeping seizure authority satisfied Rule 65 and statutory safeguards governing ex parte seizure of allegedly counterfeit or infringing goods.
3. Whether the timing of the filing and the plaintiffs’ litigation tactics weighed against granting extraordinary ex parte relief.

## Decision

- The court denied plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction, including the requested seizure order.
- The court dismissed the action.
- The court found the asserted emergency was largely self-created by filing on the eve of the concert and demanding immediate action.
- The court concluded the proposed relief was excessively broad in geographic reach and enforcement scope, particularly given that defendants were unknown and had no opportunity to be heard.
- The court expressed concern that seeking similar relief in another district immediately after denial reinforced institutional and procedural concerns.

## Legal Principles

- Ex parte TROs and seizure orders are extraordinary remedies and require strict compliance with Rule 65 and applicable statutory safeguards.
- Relief directed at unidentified, unserved defendants raises due process concerns and increases the need for specific factual support and careful limits.
- Seizure authority in trademark/counterfeit contexts must be narrowly tailored, supported by concrete evidence, and constrained by detailed limits on what may be seized and where.
- Courts may deny emergency relief where urgency is substantially created by the movant’s delay and last-minute filing.
- Broad, forward-looking injunctions and open-ended seizure directives based on generalized allegations are disfavored, especially when they risk delegating infringement determinations to on-the-spot enforcement.

## Conclusion

The court refused to grant ex parte, tour-wide injunctive and seizure relief against unknown bootleggers because the application lacked the narrow tailoring, procedural protections, and specific factual showings required for such extraordinary remedies, and it dismissed the case in light of those deficiencies and the plaintiffs’ last-minute tactics.


Plant v. Does, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (S.D. Fla. 1998)