Zhadanov et al v. Xiamen Huangyudu Cosmetics Co., Ltd. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x
ELI ZHADANOV and INTERLINK PRODUCTS
INTERNATIONAL, INC,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
XIAMEN HUANGYUDU COSMETICS CO., LTD.
and HUIAN COUNTY MUBING E-COMMERCE CO.,
LTD.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
26-CV-1027(EK)(PCG)
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs are a company that develops and sells
shower and bath products and the company’s president; they sue
two Chinese companies that sell showerheads on Amazon that
allegedly infringe the plaintiffs’ patents. 	Compl. ¶¶ 2-3, 9-
15, 22-30. 	Plaintiff Interlink complained to Amazon of the
possible infringement and submitted a complaint through the
Amazon Patent Evaluation Express program in December 2025;
defendants rejected the offer to participate and instead filed
declaratory-judgment actions against Interlink that remain
pending in the Western District of Washington. 	Id. ¶¶ 35-37.
Plaintiffs have also requested a temporary restraining
order (“TRO”), directing the defendants to refrain from (1)
making false or misleading statements regarding the specific
showerheads at issue; (2) selling any products under Amazon
Case 1:26-cv-01027-EK-PCG Document 5 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Standard Identification Numbers where the defendants made
allegedly false or misleading statements related to the specific
showerheads at issue; and (3) distributing in commerce any units
of products containing any misleading or inaccurate statements
about the flow rate or legal compliance of the products. 	Id. at
25. 	The TRO request is ex parte: plaintiffs have provided no
written or oral notice to the defendants or their attorneys.
For the reasons set forth below, this request is denied.
When a movant seeks an ex parte TRO, it must, among
other things, certify in writing “any efforts made to give
notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B); FEI Hong Kong Co. v. GlobalFoundries, Inc.,
No. 20-CV-2342, 2020 WL 1444956, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2020)
(denying TRO as plaintiff had “not provided any reasons why
notice was unnecessary or impractical”); Gullas v. 37-31 73rd
St. Owners Corp., No. 12-CV-2301, 2012 WL 1655520, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. May 10, 2012) (denying TRO as plaintiffs had “neither
shown that Defendant was given notice of this motion nor made
any showing as to why notice should not be required”). 	This
failure alone renders ex parte relief inappropriate. 	E.g., Pro.
Merch. Advance Cap., LLC v. C Care Servs., LLC, No. 13-CV-6562,
2013 WL 12109397, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2013) (“Plaintiff’s
attorney has not submitted anything about efforts to give notice
Case 1:26-cv-01027-EK-PCG Document 5 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
or reasons why notice should not be required. 	That omission
alone is fatal to the application . . . .”).
Plaintiffs have also not separately moved for this
preliminary relief; the request for a TRO appears only in the
complaint. 	It is thus not properly before this Court. Allens
Creek / Corbetts Glen Pres. Grp., Inc. v. Caldera, 88 F. Supp.
2d 77, 83 (W.D.N.Y. 2000), aff’d sub nom. Allens Creek /
Corbetts Glen Pres. Grp., Inc. v. West, 2 F. App’x 162 (2d Cir.
2001) (collecting cases and explaining that “[i]f a party seeks
immediate relief, Rule 65 . . . requires the filing of a
motion”).
For the reasons set forth above, the request for a TRO
is denied. 	If plaintiffs wishes to pursue a preliminary
injunction, they should file a motion in compliance with Rule 65
and serve that motion on the defendants. 	In light of the
plaintiffs’ representations regarding the pending action in the
Western District of Washington, plaintiffs are further ordered
to show cause no later than March 2, 2026, why this action
Case 1:26-cv-01027-EK-PCG Document 5 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
should not be transferred to the Western District of Washington,
to avoid duplicative litigation.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	February 23, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-cv-01027-EK-PCG Document 5 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>