KHN Solutions, LLC. v. Rofeer-US
3:20-cv-07414
N.D. Cal.Sep 30, 2024Background
- KHN Solutions LLC (Plaintiff) manufactures blood-alcohol concentration breathalyzers and brought suit against several Chinese companies and individuals for selling allegedly defective and falsely advertised breathalyzers via Amazon.
- Plaintiff asserted false advertising claims under federal and state law, arguing defendants used fake reviews and misleading assurances to promote sales.
- Service of process was complicated by defendants’ use of false or defunct addresses in China. The court permitted alternative email service.
- All defendants defaulted after failing to appear; Plaintiff moved for default judgment seeking a permanent injunction and damages.
- The magistrate judge recommended a broad injunction and substantial damages, but the district judge reevaluated given Amazon’s objections and shortcomings in plaintiff’s evidence.
- The court denied default judgment without prejudice, instead granting interim relief by ordering Amazon to impound the suspects’ products and revenues, pending further proceedings and proper proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy and Specificity of Injunction | Injunction should cover all Rofeer-branded products | No appearance; no argument | Injunction not granted; record only supports one specific product |
| Entitlement to Damages Based on Total Sales | Plaintiff entitled to all defendants’ sales revenue | No appearance; no argument | Requested damages denied; award unsupported by law or record |
| Double Recovery Risk from Payment Provisions | Multiple avenues of relief needed for full satisfaction | No appearance; no argument | Proposed scheme improperly allowed double/triple recovery |
| Sufficiency of Plaintiff’s Evidence on Sales and Products | Plaintiff’s summaries and declarations sufficient | No appearance; no argument | Evidence insufficient; no clear link between products and damages |
Key Cases Cited
- TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1987) (default judgment standards—allegations taken as true except for damages)
- Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (email service permitted where physical address unknown)
- U-Haul Int’l., Inc. v. Jartran, Inc., 793 F.2d 1034 (9th Cir. 1986) (scope of injunctions in false advertising cases)
- Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400 (9th Cir. 1993) (burden on plaintiff to prove profits with reasonable certainty)
- Nintendo of Am., Inc. v. Dragon Pac. Int’l, 40 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 1994) (double recovery under the Lanham Act disallowed)
- Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Dick Bruhn, Inc., 793 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1986) (defendant’s revenues awarded only under special circumstances)