FurnitureDealer.net, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 0:18-cv-00232

Background

Plaintiff FurnitureDealer.net (FDN) authored and hosted enhanced product descriptions (the “FDN Descriptions”) on Coaster’s website under a 2010 services/licensing agreement; FDN retained rights in its content and kept it in proprietary CMS/FDealer databases.
FDN filed a 2015 copyright registration for an unpublished automated database and submitted a replacement deposit of 100 textual descriptions pulled from FDealer (not CMS); registration listed the work as unpublished.
Amazon scraped many FDN Descriptions from www.coasterfurniture.com and displayed them on Amazon product detail pages; FDN served a 2015 DMCA takedown identifying hundreds of instances and later sued Amazon and Coaster for copyright infringement, DMCA violations, and (against Coaster) contract claims.
Webpages displayed two copyright notices: a footer "Website Copyright Notice" and a mid-page "Nothing on this Page" notice directly above the product descriptions; defendants removed these notices when descriptions appeared on Amazon.
Key contested legal questions at summary judgment: (1) whether FDN’s registration covers the scraped descriptions (publication issue); (2) whether § 411(b) invalidates the registration; (3) whether the notices qualify as copyright management information (CMI) under the DMCA and whether removal/distribution claims lie; (4) Coaster’s liability (agency/direct/contributory/vicarious) and breach of contract (Referral Provision).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Copyright coverage/publication of FDN Descriptions	FDN: registration of the unpublished database covers the descriptions; notices and restrictive licensing show no publication	Defs: online display + "Print this Page" and licensing to retailers published the descriptions, excluding them from an unpublished registration	Court: publication status is a factual question—genuine dispute (intent, downloadability, limited vs general publication) -> jury issue
§411(b) challenge to registration validity	FDN: any inaccuracies were good-faith/legal errors; §411(b) requires intent to defraud	Defs: replacement deposit (FDealer vs CMS) and asserted prior publication render registration inaccurate and invalid under §411(b)	Court: §411(b) codifies fraud-on-the-Office and requires intent-to-defraud; FDN’s errors were good-faith -> presumption of validity stands for now
Statutory damages — whether database counts as "one work"	FDN: component descriptions have independent economic value; entitled to per-description statutory damages	Defs: registration is for a compilation/database -> only one award applies (registration or compilation test)	Court: adopts independent economic value test; fact issue whether descriptions have standalone value -> jury decides
DMCA CMI — whether site notices qualify as CMI and §1202(b)(3) distribution	FDN: both notices convey copyright info; removal on Amazon violated §1202(b)(1) and (b)(3)	Defs: footer notice is generic/not conveyed with descriptions; public display is not "distribution" under §1202(b)(3)	Court: "Nothing on this Page" (mid-page) is CMI; footer Website Copyright Notice is not; public display ≠ distribution -> §1202(b)(3) dismissed; §1202(b)(1) triable (knowledge/number of removals disputed)
Coaster liability — agency/direct/contributory/vicarious	FDN: Coaster authorized/consented to Amazon’s use and exercised control, so Coaster is directly and vicariously liable and at least contributorily liable	Coaster: contracts disavow agency; Amazon exercised sole control over site content	Court: no agency -> direct and vicarious infringement and DMCA claims against Coaster dismissed; genuine dispute remains on contributory infringement -> trial issue
Breach of contract (Referral Provision) and covenant of good faith	FDN: Coaster breached by not referring Amazon and caused damages (investigation/costs/lost opportunity)	Coaster: referral requirement satisfied (e.g., trade-show access) or ambiguous; no bad faith; damages speculative	Court: Referral Provision not preempted; contractual language ambiguous -> breach and damages are jury issues; covenant claim dismissed for lack of evidence of subjective bad faith

Key Cases Cited

Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (originality and two-element test for copyright infringement)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
Getaped.com v. Cangemi, 188 F. Supp. 2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (ability to download/view supports finding of publication online)
Kernal Records Oy v. Mosley, 794 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (downloadable internet files = publication)
Gold Value Int’l Textile, Inc. v. Sanctuary Clothing, LLC, 925 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2019) (interpretation of §411(b) not requiring fraud)
DeliverMed Holdings, LLC v. Schaltenbrand, 734 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2013) (§411(b) and fraud-on-the-Register discussion)
Sullivan v. Flora, Inc., 936 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2019) (independent economic value test for multiple statutory-damage awards)
Xoom, Inc. v. Imageline, Inc., 323 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 2003) (registration test for "one work")
Bryant v. Media Right Prods., 603 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) (compilation test for statutory damages)
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (vicarious liability requires right/ability to supervise and direct financial benefit)
Nat’l Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer Associates Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426 (8th Cir. 1993) (distribution/publication analysis under Copyright Act)