On November 18, 2025, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) denied Plaintiff Lashify, Inc.’s (“Lashify”) motion to hold Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a UCoolMe (“Qingdao”) and Vivicute Limited in contempt. Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 25-cv-4183 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2025).
In June, the Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction (PI) order enjoining Defendants from selling products that infringe Lashify’s patent claims directed to false eyelash extension systems. Id. at *2. Two months later, Lashify moved for an order directing Defendants to comply with the orders, pay sanctions for violations, and post a bond. Id. at *1. Lashify argued that Defendants sold infringing products through merchant storefronts on TikTok and newly discovered websites, such as www.ucoolme.com. Id. at *3.
At an October hearing on the motion, Judge Liman heard testimony from a Qingdao representative that Qingdao’s website is “ucoolmelashes.com” not the accused “ucoolme.com,” Qingdao never authorized other companies or websites to sell its products, and “there are more copycats than [Qingdao is] able to deal with.” Id. at *3. Relying primarily on testimony from the hearing, Judge Liman issued this order holding that Lashify failed to provide “clear and convincing” evidence that Defendants violated the Court’s PI order. Id. Below are a few takeaways.
A. Citing to Google Translate is not sufficient to certify translated documents
Lashify provided receipts for purchases that it made from the new websites as evidence that the payments were made to Defendants and cited “translations [] made by Google Translate and [] corroborated by lawyers in [the law firm’s] Beijing office.” Id. at *4. Judge Liman, however, held that “[a] translation by Google Translate . . . is not a substitute for a certified translation.” Id. Rather, the Chinese lawyers must offer testimony that they were qualified to translate the characters and that the translation was true. Id. at *5; see Fed. R. Evid. 604.
B. Corporate records may still be hearsay without a witness
Next, Judge Liman noted that corporate background searches done by Lashify’s Beijing office were hearsay. Lashify relied on the testimony of a New York lawyer, but the Court noted she “is reporting what she was told by the lawyers in Beijing—that they conducted corporate background searches and that the records she was given by them . . . were actually the records they obtained from those searches.” Id. at *5. Because she is not a witness to the work done by the Beijing lawyers and her testimony is offered from the truth of the matter asserted, her testimony is hearsay.
C. Direct testimony can rebut circumstantial evidence, especially in a contempt motion
Finally, the Court described Lashify’s evidence as “circumstantial” and “unable to overcome [Qingdao’s] testimony.” Id. at *3–4. For example, while products from the UCoolMe website resemble products from Defendants’ website and were shipped from the same warehouse, such evidence does not itself show that Defendants are in contempt and “has its holes.” Id. at *4–6.
In sum, Judge Liman found that the limited evidence of Defendants violating the PI order was “too thin a basis” to find Defendants in contempt, far short of the “clear and convincing” standard, and consistent with Qingdao’s testimony that there are copycats. Id. at *5–6.
