## Facts

- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE) owned trademarks and servicemarks associated with its brand and events.
- WWE sold its own merchandise at live events and did not authorize third parties to sell merchandise at those events.
- WWE alleged recurring “fly-by-night” vendors sold counterfeit WWE-branded goods near event venues, then quickly disappeared and concealed or destroyed evidence when enforcement occurred.
- WWE sued 100 unidentified defendants (John/Jane Does) for trademark counterfeiting and infringement and sought ex parte relief under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d).
- WWE requested (1) a temporary restraining order (TRO), (2) an ex parte seizure order, and (3) an order to show cause regarding a preliminary injunction, aimed at stopping and seizing counterfeit sales near WWE events.

## Issues

1. Whether 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d) permits an ex parte seizure order and TRO directed at unidentified defendants when their names are unknown at the time of application.
2. Whether § 1116(d)’s requirement of likely success against “the person against whom seizure would be ordered” requires advance, name-by-name identification of alleged counterfeiters.
3. Whether, and to what extent, a seizure order may involve private “Enforcement Officials” given § 1116(d)’s requirement that seizures be executed by law-enforcement officers.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit accepted interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
- The court vacated the district court’s denial of WWE’s ex parte TRO and seizure requests and remanded.
- The court held the district court misread § 1116(d) by treating the absence of defendants’ names as a categorical bar to ex parte seizure relief.
- The court left to the district court on remand how to structure any order to comply with statutory execution and procedural safeguards, including limits on any role for private personnel.

## Legal Principles

- An ex parte seizure order under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d) may issue even when the targets are unidentified, if specific facts allow the court to determine who falls within the category “against whom seizure would be ordered.”
- When a trademark owner’s authorized sales channel at a venue is exclusive (no licensed third-party sellers), non-owner sellers of branded goods at that venue can be treated as functionally identified for purposes of § 1116(d)’s likelihood-of-success and balancing requirements.
- Courts should not impose extra-statutory prerequisites that defeat § 1116(d)’s purpose of preventing evasive counterfeiters from removing, concealing, or destroying infringing goods and related evidence.
- Any seizure order must still comply with § 1116(d)’s strict conditions and protections, including that execution of seizures be carried out by federal, state, or local law-enforcement officers.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that inability to name individual counterfeiters in advance does not necessarily defeat an ex parte seizure/TRO request under § 1116(d) where the plaintiff’s evidence and exclusive event-sales model identify the relevant class of unauthorized sellers; the denial order was vacated and the case remanded to craft any relief consistent with statutory safeguards.


World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Unidentified Parties, 770 F.3d 1143 (5th Cir. 2014)