ADDITIONAL Cases SG Trademark Holding Co LLC and Wieder and Friedman Enterprises Inc., Counterclaimants v. Pado, Inc., Homelec Korea Co., Ltd., Steven Lee, ABC Corporations 1-10, and John Does 1-10, Counterclaim-Defendants MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is one of a handful of cases in which a litigant has sought a court order requiring an adversary to withdraw an Amazon grievance in hopes of being allowed to resume sales on that platform. See Home IT, Inc. v. Wen, No. 19-CV-7070, 2020 WL 353098 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020); Studio010, Inc. v. Digital Cashflow, LLC, No. 20-CV-01018, 2020 WL 3605654 (W.D. Wash. July 2, 2020); Shenzhen Tange Li’An E-Commerce, Co. v. Drone Whirl LLC, No. 20-CV-738, 2020 WL 6821330 (W.D. Tex. July 13, 2020). In this case, the makers of the Purewave handheld massage device ask that the makers of the rival Mighty Bliss device be required to withdraw trademark infringement complaints to Amazon and other companies and barred from submitting additional similar claims. Such motions raise questions regarding a court’s authority to require a litigant to rescind statements that reflect the litigant’s genuine views on a pending question. Cf. GP Indus., Inc. v. Eran Indus., Inc., 500 F.3d 1369, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (emphasizing “the rarity of an injunction being granted against communicating with others concerning one’s patent rights” because such an injunction is not “an injunction against infringement, but an injunction against communication”); Kramer v. Thomson, 947 F.2d 666, 680-82 (3d Cir. 1991) (reversing injunction that required defendant to retract statements found to be libelous). But I need not resolve those questions to decide this motion, because even if I could issue a preliminary injunction awarding that relief, the movant has failed to show the irreparable harm required to obtain a preliminary injunction. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Pado, Inc. (“Pado”) and Homelec Korea Co., Ltd. (“Homelec”) bring this action against competitors SG Trademark, Inc. (“SG”), and Wieder and Friedman Enterprises, Inc. (together, the “Corporate Defendants”) — as well as related entities and individuals — for alleged violations of plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights in their handheld massager. See Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) (Dkt. #32). Pado sells its handheld massager under the name “Purewave,” for which Pado asserts nationwide common law trademark rights. See SAC
14, 27. Defendants sell their handheld massager under the mark “Mighty Bliss.” See id.
