Rovio Entertainment, Ltd. v. Allstar Vending, Inc.
97 F. Supp. 3d 536
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Rovio sued Toy Amazon, Yun Long Kuo, and Han When Kuo for willful copyright and trademark infringement and counterfeiting based on the sale of unauthorized Angry Birds merchandise; two other defendants settled and were dismissed.
- Toy Amazon and the Kuo defendants were served; Toy Amazon and Yun Long Kuo did not answer and default certificates were entered; Han When Kuo did not defend either.
- Rovio’s counsel purchased infringing items from Toy Amazon’s websites and received shipments in New York, and investigators purchased additional items delivered to New York, supporting New York contacts.
- Court found sufficient allegations that Toy Amazon operated highly interactive websites selling to New York and that Yun Long Kuo was the primary actor in New York transactions; allegations against Han When Kuo were limited to his title and insufficient for jurisdiction.
- Court concluded it had subject-matter jurisdiction over federal copyright and trademark claims and personal jurisdiction over Toy Amazon and Yun Long Kuo but not Han When Kuo.
- On default, the court found liability for copyright infringement (12 works) and registered trademark infringement/counterfeiting (15 marks), awarded $1,200,000 (copyright) and $1,500,000 (Lanham Act statutory damages), plus post-judgment interest, and entered a permanent injunction against Toy Amazon and Yun Long Kuo; Han When Kuo dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction (New York long-arm) | Toy Amazon sold counterfeit goods via interactive websites; purchases were shipped to NY; Yun Long Kuo directly sold/communicated with NY buyers | Toy Amazon/individuals failed to appear or contest; Han When Kuo only alleged as officer | Court: Jurisdiction over Toy Amazon and Yun Long Kuo (sufficient contacts and primary actor); no jurisdiction over Han When Kuo (only title alleged) |
| Due process (reasonableness) | Contacts were purposeful; NY has interest; plaintiff’s evidence located in NY/Toronto; defendants’ evidence in CA/China | Defendants did not oppose; general burden argument (implied) | Court: Exercise of jurisdiction over Toy Amazon and Yun Long Kuo is reasonable under Burger King factors |
| Liability for copyright and trademark infringement | Rovio owns registrations; defendants sold products displaying copyrighted works and registered marks without consent; willful conduct shown by default | No opposition (default) | Court: Default establishes liability; valid claims for copyright (12 works) and registered trademark infringement/counterfeiting (15 marks) |
| Damages & injunctive relief | Seeks statutory damages: $100,000 per copyrighted work and $100,000 per trademark (total $2.7M); permanent injunction to prevent further infringement | Defendants did not contest | Court: Awards $1,200,000 copyright damages and $1,500,000 Lanham Act statutory damages ($2.7M total), post-judgment interest, and permanent injunction; monetary award supported as just and proportionate |
Key Cases Cited
- Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, 732 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2013) (forum-law and due-process framework for personal jurisdiction)
- Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp., 619 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2010) (court may ensure personal jurisdiction before default judgment)
- Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2010) (interactive websites and single online sale can give rise to New York jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (minimum contacts and reasonableness test for due process)
- Island Software & Computer Servs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 (2d Cir. 2005) (elements of copyright infringement claim)
- Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992) (analysis of copying and exclusive rights under copyright law)
- City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2011) (court must review sufficiency of claims before entering default judgment)