Amazon.com Inc v. Acar
2:23-cv-00749
W.D. Wash.Oct 15, 2024Background
- Amazon and YETI sued individuals for selling counterfeit YETI drinkware via Amazon marketplace accounts.
- Plaintiffs alleged trademark infringement, false designation of origin, Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA) violations, and breach of contract.
- Defendants were properly served by email, failed to appear, and default was entered against them.
- Plaintiffs sought default judgment, statutory damages, and a permanent injunction.
- The court reviewed jurisdiction, applied default judgment standards (the Eitel factors), and assessed Plaintiffs’ entitlement to relief for each claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter and personal jurisdiction | Federal questions under Lanham Act; Defendants used Amazon (WA-based) and agreed to forum selection | No appearance/argument | Court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction |
| Trademark infringement | Defendants sold products bearing counterfeit YETI marks on Amazon | No appearance/argument | Liability established on the well-pleaded allegations |
| False designation of origin | Defendants’ counterfeit goods caused confusion as to source/origin | No appearance/argument | Liability established |
| WCPA violation | Counterfeit sales were deceptive, harmed business/public, injured Plaintiffs | No appearance/argument | Liability established |
| Breach of contract (BSA/anti-counterfeit) | Defendants’ sales violated Amazon’s BSA and anticounterfeit policy | No appearance/argument | Liability established except for $19,175 claim not pled in complaint |
| Statutory damages | Sought 3x sales as damages, within Lanham Act limits | No appearance/argument | Awarded $15,675 (Acar) and $76,773 (Bickes); denied breach of contract damages |
| Permanent injunction | Needed to prevent ongoing and future harm due to counterfeit sales | No appearance/argument | Injunction granted, narrowly tailored to the infringement |
Key Cases Cited
- TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1987) (allegations in a well-pleaded complaint, except those relating to damages, are taken as true upon default)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth factors for evaluating default judgment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
- KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 408 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard for likelihood of confusion in trademark law)
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 719 P.2d 531 (Wash. 1986) (elements of a WCPA claim)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (standards for granting permanent injunctions)