IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—M.D. Fla.: TRO vacated, injunction denied in trademark infringement suit over ‘WHITE PRIVILEGE CARD’ mark, (Feb 24, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The court found deficiencies under Rule 65, inadequate likelihood-of-confusion evidence, improper asset restraints against nonparties, and misjoinder of more than 100 online sellers.

The federal district court in Tampa, Florida, has vacated a previously issued temporary restraining order (TRO) and denied a motion for preliminary injunction in a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by a seller of novelty “White Privilege Card” identification cards against more than 100 online merchants. The court also denied as moot a contempt motion against nonparties, unsealed the record, and dismissed without prejudice all defendants except one as improperly joined. It held that the plaintiff failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65’s notice and evidentiary requirements, improperly sought to bind nonparty marketplaces and financial institutions, failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits—particularly as to likelihood of confusion—and could not justify a sweeping asset freeze. The court further concluded that joinder of more than 100 online sellers under Rule 20 was improper and severed all but the sole defendant who had appeared and filed counterclaims (Price v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations, No. 8:25-cv-03398-KKM-AEP (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Joel Price, described himself as the owner of a federally registered trademark used in connection with novelty plastic identification cards sold for entertainment purposes. He sued 102 anonymous online sellers operating on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, Etsy, and TikTok, alleging that they marketed and sold cards bearing similar wording. The case followed the increasingly scrutinized “Schedule A” model, in which a trademark holder sues numerous unidentified sellers in a single action and seeks ex parte relief, including asset restraints.

Price asserted rights in the federally registered mark WHITE PRIVILEGE CARD, Registration No. 6,392,852, covering novelty plastic identification cards. He alleged five counts: trademark infringement and counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1); false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition under Florida law.

Price filed the action in December 2025 and moved ex parte for a TRO. The court partially granted the request and entered an order restraining the defendants from infringing the mark and directing nonparty marketplaces and financial institutions to freeze the sellers’ assets and provide identifying information. Price later moved for a preliminary injunction seeking similar and expanded relief, including continued asset freezes and broader discovery against nonparties. After the TRO expired, the court set a hearing and directed that notice be given to the defendants. During the pendency of the TRO, several sellers settled or were voluntarily dismissed, and one seller, Liesl Geneva Cone, appeared, opposed the injunction, and asserted counterclaims seeking declaratory relief and cancellation.

Vacatur of TRO. The court first vacated the TRO for failure to satisfy Rule 65(b). Rule 65 requires “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint” clearly showing that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before notice can be given. The court found that Price’s affidavit did not address notice and contained only generalized assertions of reputational harm without product-specific or defendant-specific facts. Conclusory statements that sellers might move assets or alter online accounts were insufficient.

The court also held that it lacked authority to bind nonparty marketplaces and financial institutions. Citing United States v. Robinson, 83 F.4th 868 (11th Cir. 2023), the court emphasized that injunctions apply only to parties, their agents, or those acting in concert or aiding and abetting under Rule 65(d)(2). Price had not alleged that the nonparties knowingly participated in infringement before the TRO. Accordingly, the asset freeze and disclosure directives exceeded the court’s authority.

Likelihood of confusion. Turning to the preliminary injunction, the court applied the four-factor test articulated in Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2005), and Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). To prevail on the merits of his Lanham Act claims, Price had to show a likelihood of confusion. Citing Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc., 600 U.S. 412 (2023), the court reiterated that infringement requires unauthorized use in commerce likely to cause confusion.

The court applied the Eleventh Circuit’s eight-factor test from FCOA LLC v. Foremost Title & Escrow Servs. LLC, 57 F.4th 939 (11th Cir. 2023), including strength of the mark, similarity of the marks, similarity of goods and trade channels, advertising, intent, actual confusion, and consumer sophistication.

The motion failed at the threshold because Price did not properly submit evidence showing how his mark appeared in context. Without an image or a detailed presentation of the mark as consumers encountered it, the court could not compare it to the defendants’ product screenshots. Citing ABC Corp. I v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, 52 F.4th 934 (Fed. Cir. 2022), the court stressed that Rule 65 requires product-specific analysis rather than generalized allegations.

Even assuming similarity as to certain listings, the court found Price’s allegations to be conclusory. He provided no evidence of actual confusion, little analysis of overlapping trade channels or advertising media, and no meaningful discussion of consumer sophistication. Several products differed materially in design and wording. On this record, Price failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

Because Florida common law trademark infringement and unfair competition claims employ the same likelihood-of-confusion analysis as federal claims, they failed for the same reasons.

Asset freeze and equities. The court also rejected the requested blanket asset freeze. While acknowledging that district courts possess equitable authority to freeze assets to preserve potential equitable relief under Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982 (11th Cir. 1995), the court found no specific evidence justifying such sweeping relief against each defendant. It observed that Schedule A cases often result in statutory damages rather than equitable accounting and cautioned that early asset freezes risk coercive settlements.

Given incomplete notice to defendants and limited evidence, the court held that the balance of harms and public interest did not favor injunctive relief.

Improper joinder. Finally, the court addressed joinder under Rule 20(a)(2). It held that merely alleging that multiple defendants infringed the same mark does not establish that claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Citing Omega, SA v. Individuals, Bus. Entities, & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule “A”, 650 F. Supp. 3d 1349 (S.D. Fla. 2023), and Tushbaby, Inc. v. Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule A, 2024 WL 3741359 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2024), the court rejected Price’s hub-and-spoke and “platform ecosystem” theories as speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Invoking Rule 21, the court exercised its discretion to sever and dismissed without prejudice all defendants except Liesl G. Cone, the only defendant who had appeared and asserted counterclaims. The court directed the clerk to substitute Cone as the sole defendant and to keep Price as the counter-defendant.

The Case is No. 8:25-cv-03398-KKM-AEP.

Judge: Mizelle, K.

Attorneys: Liandra Izquierdo (Beusse Sanks, PLLC) for Joel Price. Diana Mederos (Mederos Legal PLLC) for Liesl G. Cone.

Cases: Trademark FloridaNews GCNNews