From Owen v. Askew, decided July 24 by Judge Ann Aiken (D. Ore.); I'm skeptical about this, because the relief is before any trial on the merits (and thus isn't based on any final determination on the merits that certain allegations are false), because it's an ex parte TRO entered just six days after the suit was filed and before defendant was even served, and because it extends beyond even alleged defamation to "harassing conduct." (For more, see my Anti-Libel Injunctions and Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech (Especially in Libel and Harassment Cases.) But whatever I think, the judge thought different, and the decision struck me as worth noting. Here's the judge's summary of plaintiff's allegations:
Plaintiff in this case is the owner of a business, Elegance & Geekery LLC, which sells hair accessories. Defendant Breana Askew is a resident of Florida who does business as Breromi. Defendant Kiandra Demone Boyce is a resident of Georgia.
Beginning on July 14, 2025, Askew "began a coordinated online campaign making false statements," including "publicly accusing Plaintiff of design/invention theft, racism, selling counterfeit versions of goods Defendant Askew claimed she owned patents and trademarks covering, and encouraging the public to report Plaintiff's online shopping platforms on sites like Etsy, Shopify, and TikTok as fraudulent and/or engaged in illegal activity including selling counterfeit goods."
Askew's campaign is based on her claim that Plaintiff is selling a hair accessory which Askew claims infringes on her patent. Plaintiff alleges that "Askew's only claim to any intellectual property is her filing of an application (not yet reviewed) for a trademark over the phrase 'Magnetic Hair Clip' and a filed patent application (not yet published)" and that the "content of that application has never been provided, so no one knows what she is even claiming she has rights to."
Plaintiff alleges that between July 14 and July 17, 2025, Defendants "engaged in an online smear campaign, attempting to leverage public hate and harassment as a means of forcing Plaintiff to flee the market." This campaign is "ongoing" and "will likely continue without court interference." Among other things, Defendants have accused Plaintiff of racism, theft of intellectual property relating to the hair clip, and the sale of counterfeit goods. Boyce has attempted to coordinate a large number of third-party complaints to Plaintiff's vendors in an effort to have Plaintiff's store removed from online platforms.
