BLUE HORIZON INNOVATION LLC v. pingping stor — Court Grants Limited Expedited Discovery to Establish Personal Jurisdiction in Trademark Case

Background

Blue Horizon Innovation LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, owns the BPPEG mark (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 7,724,044) used for toilet tissue holders, soap containers, dinnerware, and related products. On October 20, 2026, the company filed a complaint against multiple partnerships and unincorporated associations identified on a schedule, alleging trademark infringement. Four days later, it amended the complaint to remove all but one defendant: pingping stor, an entity believed to operate from Yiwu, Zhejiang Province, China, that sells allegedly counterfeit or infringing BPPEG-branded toilet tissue holders through an Amazon storefront.

The amended complaint asserts claims for trademark infringement and counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). On October 26, 2026, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte order authorizing alternate service of process, but the district court expressed concern about personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court gave the plaintiff five days to address jurisdiction in a supplemental filing. After securing a fourteen-day extension, the plaintiff filed an expedited ex parte motion for limited third-party discovery regarding personal jurisdiction, seeking to determine whether and to what extent the defendant sold and shipped accused products to customers in Florida.

The Court’s Holding

Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), which permits pre-conference discovery upon a showing of good cause, the court considered five factors: whether a preliminary injunction motion is pending, the breadth of the requested discovery, the reasons for the request, the burden on the opponent, and how far in advance of typical discovery the request is made. Although no preliminary injunction motion was pending, the court found that factor not dispositive, noting that parties have a qualified right to jurisdictional discovery and that a district court abuses its discretion if it completely denies such discovery.

The court found good cause because the request was narrowly tailored to establishing personal jurisdiction and limited to information concerning products offered by the defendant's Amazon storefront, thereby limiting the burden on the third-party platform. However, the court scrutinized the timeline, observing that the plaintiff waited over a week after the show cause order before seeking discovery and never explained the delay, despite claiming diligence. The court revised the requested three-day turnaround to seven days and warned that future delays—particularly those placing unnecessary time pressure on the court and innocent third parties—may preclude relief.

The court ordered that the plaintiff may serve a limited subpoena on non-party Amazon.com, Inc., requiring Amazon to provide within seven calendar days specific order information for accused products shipped to Florida addresses from January 1, 2025 through October 20, 2026, including order dates, ASINs, quantities, sale prices, ship-to cities, order numbers, cancellation types, and return order numbers, or a written statement that no such products were shipped to Florida.

Key Takeaways

• A trademark owner obtained expedited third-party discovery from Amazon to establish personal jurisdiction over a China-based seller accused of counterfeiting.
• The absence of a pending preliminary injunction motion does not preclude expedited jurisdictional discovery under Rule 26(d) when other factors show good cause.
• Courts will grant narrowly tailored jurisdictional discovery that limits the burden on third-party platforms like Amazon.
• Unexplained delays in seeking expedited discovery may result in modified relief and warnings about future dilatory conduct.
• The court balanced the plaintiff's qualified right to jurisdictional discovery against concerns about the plaintiff's diligence in pursuing the motion.

Why It Matters

This order illustrates how federal courts in trademark counterfeiting cases handle the practical challenge of establishing personal jurisdiction over foreign sellers operating through e-commerce platforms. By permitting limited discovery from Amazon before the Rule 26(f) conference, the court acknowledged the reality that jurisdictional facts often reside exclusively with third-party platforms in cases involving overseas defendants.

The decision also serves as a cautionary tale about diligence: even when good cause exists for expedited relief, courts will scrutinize the movant's timeline and may impose conditions or warnings when the party's own delay contributes to the need for expedition. Practitioners should note that claiming diligence without explaining gaps in the record can undermine credibility and affect the scope of relief granted.