Zhongshan Jializhi's Ghost Light Design Patent TRO Is Dissolved as to 20 Schedule A Sellers.

The complaint

The case is Zhongshan Jializhi Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", No. 1:26-cv-26215 (S.D. Fla.), a one-count design-patent complaint with a jury demand entered on the docket September 9, 2026 (ECF No. 1) in the Miami Division. The complaint describes the plaintiff as a company organized in China, based in Zhongshan, Guangdong, that designs and sells decorative and seasonal lighting, including a ghost light it sells on Amazon and Temu. It alleges the defendants operate the Amazon or Temu storefronts and listings identified on Schedule A and, on information and belief, are residents or nationals of China or other foreign jurisdictions who conceal their identities behind seller aliases.

The design patent

U.S. Design Patent D1,126,458, titled Ghost Light, issued May 12, 2026, on an application filed August 23, 2024. Its single claim is to "the ornamental design for a ghost light, as shown and described" in seven drawing sheets. The complaint alleges the plaintiff owns it by assignment and describes the design as a domed, draped body tapering to a flared skirt, a scalloped hem that rises and falls in rounded points, a three-aperture asymmetric face, and, seen from above, a radiating star-like plan. It stresses that demand for the product peaks in the weeks before Halloween.

The count and the relief sought

Count I alleges each defendant infringes under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) by making, using, offering, selling, and importing a ghost light an ordinary observer would find substantially the same as the claimed design, and that the infringement is willful. The plaintiff asks for preliminary and permanent injunctions, an accounting and disgorgement of each defendant's total profit under 35 U.S.C. 289 with a constructive trust, or alternatively damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, an order restraining the defendants' assets, including funds held by Amazon, Temu, and payment processors, expedited discovery and electronic service, and attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants hold their proceeds in accounts that can be moved offshore without notice.

The TRO and its dissolution

The plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order on September 16, 2026, and Judge Beth Bloom entered an omnibus order on the TRO, alternate service, and expedited discovery on September 18 (ECF No. 20). Two groups of defendants moved to dissolve it (ECF Nos. 30 and 32), asking for a ruling by September 30 because their Halloween decorations sell most in October.

In a September 30, 2026 order (ECF No. 56), Judge Bloom granted both motions and dissolved the TRO as to 20 defendants. The plaintiff did not oppose dissolution as to eight of them. For the other twelve, the court held the plaintiff had not carried its burden of showing a likelihood of success on infringement under the ordinary-observer test, which in a crowded field can make small differences significant. It listed differences for each product, such as an attached pointed hat, no oval in the mouth position, and a drape that falls to the floor with no scalloped hem, and, citing Avia Group International, Inc. v. L.A. Gear California, Inc., said an accused product must appropriate the novel features that distinguish the patented design from the prior art. The court did not reach the arguments on validity or irreparable harm. It directed the plaintiff to send the order to Amazon, Temu, and any other third party that received notice of the TRO so they would release the released defendants' listings, accounts, and funds.

Dismissals, motions to dismiss, and default

Judge Bloom has since entered orders dismissing settling defendants with prejudice on October 15, October 21, and October 22, 2026 (ECF Nos. 92, 101, and 105); the October 15 and October 22 orders also release asset restraints. The plaintiff filed further notices of voluntary dismissal on October 30 (ECF Nos. 110 and 112) and November 2 (ECF No. 115), and an order dismissing defendants was entered November 2 (ECF No. 114). Motions to dismiss were filed by a group of defendants on October 15 (ECF No. 91), for failure to state a claim, lack of jurisdiction, and insufficient service; by four defendants on October 16 (ECF No. 94), with prior-art exhibits; and by two defendants on October 20 (ECF No. 99), also with prior-art exhibits, which the court denied as moot on October 22 when those two were dismissed. On October 30 the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the four defendants that filed the October 16 motion (ECF No. 110) and responded to that motion the same day, arguing that the dismissal moots it (ECF No. 111).

An October 19, 2026 order on default procedures (ECF No. 97) gave ten defendants that had not answered or otherwise responded until October 26 to respond, and directed the plaintiff to move for a clerk's default against any that did not by November 2. The docket shows a clerk's entry of default on November 2, 2026 (ECF No. 116).

What to watch next

Watch for a ruling on the October 15 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 91) and on the October 16 motion, a motion for default judgment against defaulted defendants, and further settlement dismissals. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.