Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc.
658 F.3d 936
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Louis Vuitton sues MSG, Akanoc, and Chen for contributory copyright and trademark infringement based on hosting infringing websites.
- Defendants leased servers/bandwidth/IPs; Akanoc operated servers, MSG owned/leased assets.
- Louis Vuitton sent at least eighteen NOIs; defendants did not respond or take demonstrable action.
- Jury found liability and willful infringement; awards: $10.5M per defendant for thirteen trademarks and $0.3M per defendant for two copyrights.
- District court vacated MSG’s verdict, denied others; court ordered new damages proceedings; on appeal, court vacates damage awards and remands for compliance with opinion's framework.
- Judicial posture: cross-appeal by Vuitton (MSG) and appeal by Akanoc/Chen; remand for proper damages calculation while affirming liability on other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages correctness for contributory infringement | Louis Vuitton argues damages proper per statute. | Akanoc/Chen contend damages exceed caps and improper allocation. | Damages must be redetermined; awards are vacated and remanded. |
| Mens rea and contribution standard for copyright | LV asserts intent not required for contributory infringement; knowledge suffices. | Akanoc/Chen contend requires explicit intent. | Intent may be imputed; knowledge/conduct suffices for liability. |
| Definition and application of counterfeit's statutory damages | §1117(c) allows statutory damages for counterfeit use by contributory infringers. | Statutory framework misapplied to multiple defendants; caps misread. | Statutory damages limited; awards must reflect per-work cap and joint/separate liability. |
| Sufficiency of evidence on MSG’s liability | MSG controlled servers used for infringement. | No evidence MSG operated infringing servers. | MSG liability not sustained; MSG's damages require separate consideration. |
| Use of multiple defendants' damages in copyright/trademark context | Linearly aggregate damages across defendants; consistent with statutory text. | Damages must be singular per work; separate defendants not multiply. | Single statutory award per work; awards for copyright must be consolidated; damages recalibrated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (Supreme Court 1982) (contributory infringement requires knowledge or reason to know of direct infringement; transfer of liability via service)
- Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999) (direct control/monitoring over third-party infringement)
- Amazon.com, Inc. v. Christienne, 508 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2007) (intent may be imputed; knowing failure to prevent infringing actions suffices)
- A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (contributory liability requires knowledge of direct infringement; material contribution suffices)
- Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. Major, Inc., 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) (providing services that enable infringement can constitute material contribution)
- Krypton Broad. of Birmingham, Inc. v. Krypton Broad., Inc., 106 F.3d 284 (9th Cir. 1997) (illustrative on joint/several liability and damages)
- H-M-H Publ’g Co. v. Brincat, 504 F.2d 713 (9th Cir. 1974) (presumptions in likelihood of confusion; foundational for trademark analysis)
- Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) (identity of marks and likelihood of confusion; framework for infringement analysis)