Amazon Moves for Default Judgment vs. Fire TV Remote Counterfeiters
The defendants in a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by Amazon over a scheme to sell counterfeit Amazon Fire TV remotes in its store are in default, and the prerequisites for default judgment have been met, said Amazon’s ex parte motion Monday (docket 2:23-cv-01060) for default judgment and permanent injunction against Li Qiang, Shenzhen Yinxi Electronic Commerce and “John Doe” defendants in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle.
Amazon filed the complaint July 17, alleging the defendants sold fake Amazon Fire TV remotes through their Amazon selling accounts (see 2307180019). Qiang, based in China, owns, operates, manages and controls the ROM selling account that sold $135,172 of remotes bearing counterfeit versions of Amazon Technologies’ registered trademark, the complaint said. Amazon’s investigation confirmed that Qiang registered the ROM selling account on behalf of Shenzhen Yinxi.
Amazom filed a motion for alternate service Oct. 26, and served the summons and complaint upon the defendants via registered email Nov. 1, the motion said. Amazon moved for an entry of default in December (see 2312200047), saying the defendants didn’t respond to the motion for alternate service and “have not since appeared” in the action personally or through counsel, hadn't filed or served an answer in the action and hadn't otherwise "indicated any intent to participate in this litigation.”
The defendants’ “unlawful and unauthorized use of the Amazon Smile” trademark in connection with the sale of counterfeit Amazon Fire TV remotes on the e-commerce site “was likely to confuse customers, causing them to believe, erroneously,” that their “inferior goods were provided, sponsored, approved by, or somehow affiliated with, Amazon,” said the motion. The counterfeit remotes were sold on the ROM account between July 2021 and May 2022, said a declaration in support of the motion by Alex Calvert, senior risk manager for the Amazon Counterfeit Crimes unit.
In June 2022, Amazon's Lab126 Team and Devices team reviewed samples of remotes that the ROM selling account had stored in Amazon fulfillment centers that were being advertised and sold as Amazon Fire TV remotes. The sample remotes bore depictions of the Amazon Smile Trademark, said Jonathan Biddle, industrial design senior manager on the Lab126 team, in a declaration in support of the motion. Amazon determined that the remotes examined "were not genuine Amazon Fire TV remotes manufactured or authorized by Amazon or its affiliates" based on the ROM account's remotes’ "deviations from authentic Amazon Fire TV remotes." Those included differences in the plastic body of the remote, buttons, components, and construction of the printed circuit board that housed the remotes' chips, Biddle said. "Based on this review, Amazon concluded that the Fire TV remotes being offered for sale" by ROM "were counterfeit."
Amazon has proved its claims for false designation of origin by showing that the defendants used in commerce false or misleading descriptions likely to cause confusion “or to deceive” the origin of the goods or services in question, said the motion. Counterfeit marks, it said, “are inherently confusing.”
The defendants registered a virtual bank account administered by Payoneer to transfer funds to and from the ROM selling account, and they sold $135,172 in counterfeit remotes, the motion said. As trademark owner, Amazon seeks a statutory award of three times the aggregate sales of counterfeit products, $405,516, said the motion. The request is “conservative, reasonable, and in line with other awards” in the 9th Circuit, it said.
Amazon also seeks an award of actual damages suffered as a result of defendants’ breach of the Amazon Business Solutions Agreement (BSA), the motion said. After discovering that the defendants were selling counterfeit remotes, Amazon shut down the ROM selling account and issued refunds to customers who bought them, the motion said. The defendants have failed to fully reimburse Amazon for the refunds, for which Amazon seeks to recover $115,426 in damages, it said. It also seeks a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from infringing the Amazon Smile trademark.