Invisible Narratives v. Next Level Apps Technology - FZCO

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INVISIBLE NARRATIVES,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEXT LEVEL APPS TECHNOLOGY -
FZCO,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-01644-NW
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING
Re: ECF No. 54
Plaintiff’s motion requesting that the Court find Defendant in civil contempt is pending
before the Court. Mot., ECF No. 54. The motion is fully briefed. ECF Nos. 71, 80. The Court
RE-SETS the hearing on the motion to Wednesday, February 4, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The
hearing shall be in person. Additionally, the Court ORDERS the parties to file a supplemental
brief of no more than 5 pages on the topics outlined below by Friday, January 30, 2026, at 5:00
p.m.
In their motion, Plaintiff argues that Defendant took multiple actions in violation of the
Court’s June 17, 2025 Preliminary Injunction, including: “by (a) continuing to use infringing
websites and launching new infringing websites, (b) filing new Skibidi Toilet trademark
applications, (c) transferring Skibidi Toilet trademarks involved in this litigation to allegedly
unrelated third parties, and (d) now submitting another fraudulent takedown notice to Google that
resulted in removal of another Skibidi Toilet video and assessment of a copyright strike on
Invisible Narratives’ YouTube channel which threatens the entire channel which is central to
Invisible Narratives’ business.” Mot. at 7. In their opposition, however, Defendant only contests
the fourth allegation regarding submitting a takedown notice to Google. Opp’n, ECF No. 71.
Similarly, in Plaintiff’s reply, Plaintiff does not re-assert the other alleged violations, nor does
Case 5:25-cv-01644-NW Document 93 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Plaintiff argue that Defendant conceded those points by not raising objections. The Court
ORDERS supplemental briefing on whether Plaintiff maintains the additional bases for violations
of the preliminary injunction, and if so, what the most recent status is for each (e.g., how recently
has Next Level used the infringing websites); as well as supplemental briefing on why Defendant
did not oppose the additional bases.
Additionally, the Court has received insufficient information to assess Plaintiff’s
allegations regarding the takedown notice. The parties are ORDERED to explain what
documents, if any, Defendant received from Google in response to the October 10, 2025 subpoena.
See Reply at 7-8. The parties must also address the total length of time Episode 77 was taken
down, whether Plaintiff should have received royalties from Episode 77 for that period of time,
and if so, the amount of those royalties and the basis for that calculation.
The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and inform the Court if there is a factual
dispute regarding whether the takedown notice now at issue is the one initially submitted by
Defendant on February 4, 2025. The parties must inform the Court if they agree as to the facts. If
there is a dispute of fact, depending on the scope, the Court may be required to hold an evidentiary
hearing, which the Court will set at a later date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2026
Noël Wise
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-01644-NW Document 93 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 2