Microsoft Corp. v. Buy More, Inc.
136 F. Supp. 3d 1148
C.D. Cal.2015Background
- Microsoft sued Buy More, Inc., Mojdeh (Moji) Alam, Laptop Outlet Center, Inc., Maryam Sajjad, Vehid Abdullahi (aka Victor Alleni), and Shahram Shirazi alleging large‑scale sale of counterfeit and illicit Microsoft software discs and Certificate of Authenticity (COA) labels.
- Defendants bought unauthorized discs and paired them with adulterated or counterfeit RRP (Registered Refurbisher Program) COA labels and Product Keys; some Product Keys were obtained through RRP accounts and improperly printed on COAs.
- Investigators and customers purchased counterfeit/adulterated Windows and Office discs from defendants’ websites (e.g., missionsofts.com, sidemicro.com, capitalpc.net); forensic analysis confirmed numerous counterfeit or adulterated discs and COAs.
- Financial and account records (PayPal, JP Morgan Chase) showed large volumes of sales and transfers among defendants’ accounts (millions of dollars), demonstrating interconnected operations and proceeds flow.
- Defendants received multiple notices from Microsoft warning that distribution of COAs separate from the licensed installed software is unlawful, but continued infringing conduct.
- The court granted Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment, finding copyright and trademark infringement, violations of the Anti‑Counterfeiting Amendments Act, false designation of origin, and unfair competition; awarded $1,950,000 statutory damages and a permanent injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright infringement (distribution of counterfeit copies) | Microsoft owns valid registrations and defendants distributed counterfeit/infringing copies of Windows and Office. | Defendants offered only denials; no competent evidence rebutting distributions. | Summary judgment for Microsoft; ownership and infringement established. |
| Trademark infringement / Lanham Act (use of counterfeit marks and COAs) | Defendants used identical marks on counterfeit goods causing consumer confusion and damage to goodwill. | Denied or failed to rebut; argued nothing substantive. | Court applied Sleekcraft factors, found likelihood of confusion and infringement; judgment for Microsoft. |
| Anti‑Counterfeiting Amendments Act (18 U.S.C. §2318) — trafficking in illicit/counterfeit COAs | Microsoft showed COAs were counterfeit/illicit, defendants trafficked in them and were aware of facts constituting the offense. | No successful rebuttal; defendants failed to produce records and continued conduct after notice. | Violations proven; defendants liable for trafficking counterfeit/illicit COAs. |
| Remedies: statutory damages and permanent injunction | Microsoft sought statutory damages and permanent injunction because actual damages and sales records were within defendants’ control and undisclosed; irreparable harm to goodwill. | Defendants did not object to statutory amounts; no contrary evidence on harm. | Court awarded $1,950,000 statutory damages (jointly and severally) and entered a permanent injunction against further infringement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must present competent evidence)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (copyright ownership and originality principles)
- AMF v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (Sleekcraft multi‑factor likelihood‑of‑confusion test)
- Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, Inc., 683 F.3d 1190 (application of likelihood‑of‑confusion analysis at summary judgment)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (permanent injunction standard)
- Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Bd. of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186 (statutory damages when defendants withhold records)