Amazon.com Inc v. KexleWaterFilters
2:22-cv-01120
W.D. Wash.May 30, 2024Background
- Amazon, General Electric (GE), and GE Appliances sued three sellers (Tan Mei, Dao Ping Yang, Liping Yang) for selling counterfeit GE-branded water filters on Amazon.com between 2019 and 2021.
- Plaintiffs alleged that these defendants used Amazon seller accounts to distribute counterfeit goods, violating trademark rights and causing substantial monetary and reputational harm.
- The court permitted expedited discovery to identify the true individuals behind the seller accounts; service was completed via email after leave of court.
- Default was entered against the defendants after they failed to appear or respond.
- Plaintiffs sought default judgment, statutory damages totaling $758,951 (three times the counterfeit sales), and a permanent injunction.
- The court analyzed the request under the Eitel factors and found in favor of Plaintiffs on all relevant legal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Proper based on trademark violations and forum clause | No response | Court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction |
| Trademark Infringement | Defendants sold goods with counterfeit GE trademarks | No response | Defendants liable under the Lanham Act |
| False Designation of Origin | Defendants' sales caused consumer confusion | No response | Defendants liable under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) |
| Statutory Damages & Injunction | Willful infringement warrants triple damages & injunction | No response | Damages and permanent injunction granted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1999) (court must ensure jurisdiction before entering default judgment)
- TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1987) (well-pleaded allegations deemed admitted on default, except damages)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (lists factors for evaluating default judgment motions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for federal pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (sets plausibility standard for claims)
- KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 408 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2005) (explains likelihood of confusion standard for trademark claims)
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 719 P.2d 531 (Wash. 1986) (outlines elements of Washington Consumer Protection Act claims)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (factors for permanent injunctive relief)