Smiles and Joys LLC v. yellow-cream.com at IP address 23.227.38.65

Summary

Smiles and Joys LLC sues yellow-cream.com for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.

Summary generated by AI from public docket data. Verify against the original filing before relying on it.

Coverage vs reality meter

Cause

15:1125la Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

Entities in this case

Parties

Smiles and Joys LLC (plaintiff) yellow-cream.com at IP address 23.227.38.65 (defendant)

Docket entries

1. #272026-07-14

   Notice of Voluntary Dismissal - Signed

2. 2026-07-10

   Notice to Attorney Regarding Deficient Voluntary Dismissal

3. #262026-07-09

   Notice of Voluntary Dismissal

4. #252026-07-08

   Order to Show Cause

5. #242026-05-13

   Memo Endorsement

6. #232026-05-11

   Letter

7. #222026-05-11

   Status Report

8. 2026-05-05

   Order

9. #202026-04-07

   Certificate of Service Other

10. 2026-04-02

    Order

11. #182026-03-02

    ORDER granting 17 Motion for Discovery. Accordingly, is hereby ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff may seek immediate discovery from the Providers described in this Order with a subpoena subscribing to the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 45 (a)(1)(A) seeking Defendant's name and address, only. Plaintiff must include a copy of this Order with the subpoena. (2) Plaintiff shall file proof of service including a copy of the subpoena within three (3) days of serving the subpoena an d Order. (3) Upon receipt, the Providers must immediately serve a copy of this Order on Defendant using any reasonable means, including written notice sent to Defendant's last known address, transmitted either by first-class mail or via over night service. (4) Defendant shall have thirty (30) days from the date of service to move this Court to quash or modify the subpoena. The Providers shall not tum over Defendant's identifying information to Plaintiff before the expiration of the 30-day period. If Defendant moves to quash the subpoena, Defendant must promptly notify the Providers of the motion, and the Providers may not turn over any information to Plaintiff until the Court has resolved the motion and issued an Order instructing the Providers to tur over the requested discovery. (5) If thirty (30) days have elapsed since service to Defendant of this Court's order and Defendant has not moved to quash or modify the subpoena, the Providers must provide the r equested discovery to Plaintiff within ten (10) days. (6) The Providers shall confer with Plaintiff and shall not assess any charge in advance of providing the information requested in the subpoena. If the Providers elect to charge for the costs of production, they shall provide a billing summary and cost report to Plaintiff. (7) Any information ultimately disclosed to Plaintiff in response to the subpoena may be used solely for the purpose of protecting Plaintiff's rights as set fo rth in its complaint. (8) Plaintiff must provide a status update to the Court every sixty (60) days from the date of this Order, unless Defendant moves to quash or amend the subpoena. Failure to submit these updates in a timely manner may result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. No. 17. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Margaret M. Garnett on 3/2/2026) (mml)

12. #172026-02-26

    Discovery

13. #162026-02-20

    Memo Endorsement

14. #152026-02-19

    Internet Citation

15. #142026-02-18

    Status Report

16. #132026-01-08

    ORDER denying without prejudice 11 Letter Motion for Discovery. When considering whether to grant a motion for expedited discovery, courts apply a "flexible standard of reasonableness and good cause." Digital Sin, Inc. v. John Does 1-176, 279 F.R.D. 239,241 (S.D.N.Y.;) Ayyash v. Bank Al-Madina, 233 F.R.D. 325, 326-27 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Considering that standard, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs new motion for leave to issue a third-party subpoena to "Shop ify, Inc." (Dkt. No. 11). The Court's October 21, 2025 Order authorized Plaintiff to issue third-party subpoenas to three separate providers. One provider indicated it does not have responsive information. But Plaintiff has seeming ly made no effort at following up with the other two providers, who have not yet responded to Plaintiffs third-party subpoenas. Moreover, it does not appear that Plaintiff has even confiimed the other two providers in fact received the third-par ty subpoenas. The Court will not permit Plaintiff to "widen the net" of its search, which is already an exception to the normal civil discovery rules, unless and until it can show that it has diligently pursued discovery through the means and on the entities already authorized by the Court's October 21, 2025 Order.. This Order is without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking leave to file a third-party subpoena on Shopify, Inc., once it has taken appropriate steps to determine that neither GoDaddy Inc. nor Hetzner Online GmbH can identify Defendant based on the IP address. As a reminder, Plaintiffs next status update is due on February 18, 2026. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. No. 11. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Margaret M. Garnett on 1/8/2026) (ar)

17. 2025-10-16

    Notice to Court Regarding Proposed Order

18. 2025-09-24

    Case Opening Initial Assignment Notice

19. 2025-09-24

    Notice to Attorney Regarding Case Opening Statistical Error Correction

20. 2025-09-24

    Notice to Attorney to Submit AO 120 Form/AO 121 Form

Docket history from CourtListener/RECAP — most recent first.