3:22-cv-03054
N.D. Cal.Apr 5, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Restoration Hardware, Inc. and RH US LLC ("RH") sell luxury lighting, own copyrights in product photos and product copy, several trademarks (including RESTORATION HARDWARE), and design patent No. D892,385 for a lamp design.
- Four defendant groups operated ecommerce sites (Rain & Light; Yiosi; Koko Lights; Emilya/Herman & Hurd) that listed RH products, used RH copyrighted photos and product copy, and sold products alleged to copy RH’s patented design.
- RH made test purchases, traced communications/payments to defendant-controlled accounts, and served defendants by email; defendants did not appear or defend the suit.
- The court previously issued TROs and preliminary injunctions freezing domains and PayPal accounts; defaults were entered and RH moved for default judgment.
- The court found jurisdiction and service proper, concluded RH’s FAC sufficiently alleged copyright, trademark/unfair competition, and design-patent infringement, and granted default judgment.
- Relief: statutory damages of $330,000 per defendant group (11 works × $30,000), permanent injunction (including disabling specified domains), and turnover of frozen PayPal funds to RH within 30 days as partial satisfaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction & service | Defendants purposefully directed sales to California (interactive sites, U.S. shipments); email service used during test purchases satisfied Rule 4(f)(3) | Defendants did not appear or oppose | Court found personal jurisdiction appropriate and alternative service by email valid |
| Liability on IP claims (copyright, trademark/unfair competition, design patent) | FAC alleges ownership and registrations, side-by-side evidence of copied photos/product copy/marks, and accused products visually match patented design | No opposition (defendants defaulted) | Well-pled allegations taken as true; court found RH established copyright, Lanham Act/Unfair Competition, and design-patent infringement |
| Statutory damages — amount and allocation | Seeks $30,000 per infringed work (11 works) per infringer-group ($330,000 per group); requests maximum for deterrence given intentional conduct | No opposition | Court awarded $330,000 for each of the four defendant groups, applying Manna Textiles/Desire precedent to treat grouped defendants as jointly and severally liable |
| Injunctive relief and turnover of frozen funds | Requests conversion of prior preliminary injunctions to permanent injunction, domain disabling, and release of frozen PayPal funds to RH as partial satisfaction | No opposition | Court converted preliminary injunctions to permanent, ordered specified domains disabled, enjoined further infringement, and directed PayPal to release specified frozen accounts to RH 30 days after judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 1999) (default-judgment jurisdictional duties)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors for entering default judgment)
- A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (elements of copyright infringement)
- AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) (likelihood-of-confusion multi-factor test)
- Pom Wonderful LLC v. Hubbard, 775 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2014) (registration as prima facie evidence of ownership)
- Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (ordinary-observer test for design-patent infringement)
- Desire, LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc., 986 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2021) (statutory-damages allocation among joint infringers)