IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—S.D.N.Y.: Preliminary injunction dissolved in Chinese online shopping platform dispute, (Mar 13, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Injunctive relief was not appropriate against an online shopping platform because the platform was a mere facilitator of transactions and did not use the claimed marks in commerce.

An online shopping platform was entitled to the dissolution of a preliminary injunction previously entered against it, the U.S. District Court in New York City has held. There was not a likelihood that the platform would be liable for direct trademark infringement because it only translated sales listings created by others and coordinated with others for purchasing and shipping of the goods found in those allegedly infringing listings (RVRG Holdings LLC, v. Hangzhou Taohaowu Technology Co., No. 1:24-cv-08336-VM (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2026)).

RVRG Holdings, LLC (RVRG) is a holding company which owns Rhude, a clothing and accessories brand. RVRG sued Hangzhou Taohaowu Technology Co., Ltd., Hong Kong AllChinaBuy Co., Limited, and UK AllChinaBuy Co., Limited (collectively, AllChinaBuy), alleging direct trademark infringement and false designation of origin as well as unfair competition. RVRG alleged that AllChinaBuy had sold counterfeit products bearing its marks. RVRG obtained a TRO and later a preliminary injunction against AllChinaBuy due to AllChinaBuy’s failure to appear in the case. AllChinaBuy later appeared and moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction, arguing that RVRG did not show a likelihood of success on the merits.

Modification of injunction. The court noted that the burden on a party seeking to modify or dissolve a preliminary injunction was not settled law, but the court adopted the rule that AllChinaBuy would be required to show a change in circumstances that warranted relief from the preliminary injunction. AllChinaBuy argued, supported by a declaration and other exhibits, that its role in the alleged sales was as a broker, facilitator, or transactional intermediary rather than as a producer or seller of the goods in question. AllChinaBuy operated a service which translated sales listings from third-party websites and allowed customers to make payment through a third-party shopping agent company with which AllChinaBuy had a contractual relationship. The goods were then shipped to a warehouse owned and operated by a different third party, which verified contents, repacked, and shipped the goods to the customer. AllChinaBuy received a portion of the fee paid through its platform to the warehouse company but did not exercise control over the sellers who listed the goods using the Rhude marks, the shopping agent company, or the warehouse company. The court found that, with this improved understanding of the role of AllChinaBuy in the transactions at issue, RVRG was no longer able to show a likelihood of success on the merits because AllChinaBuy was a mere facilitator and did not itself use the marks in commerce.

The court dissolved the injunction.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-08336-VM.

Judge: Marrero, V.

Attorneys: Ashly Erin Sands (Epstein Drangel LLP) for RVRG Holdings LLC. Yen-Yi Anderson (Anderson & Associates Law, PC) for Hanzhou Taohaowu Technology Co Ltd.

Companies: RVRG Holdings LLC; Hanzhou Taohaowu Technology Co Ltd.

Cases: Trademark TechnologyInternet NewYorkNews