Dolls Kill, Inc. v. RebelsMarket, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 3, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-02818
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DOLLS KILL, INC., Case No. 24-cv-02818-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 10 REBELSMARKET, INC.,

Defendant. 11

12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff Dolls Kill, Inc.'s Motion for Default Judgment, filed 14 February 21, 2025. No opposition has been filed. Having read and considered the 15 papers filed in support of the motion, the Court rules as follows.1 16 The Clerk having entered the default of defendant RebelsMarket, Inc., defendant 17 is deemed to have admitted (1) infringing thirty of plaintiff's copyrighted works (see 18 Complaint ¶ 9 (identifying ten registrations held by plaintiff, protecting numerous 19 photographs and graphics), ¶¶ 12-25 (showing pictures of defendant's use of thirty 20 different photographs and graphics, each protected by one of plaintiff's copyright 21 registrations)), which works defendant used on its website for the purpose of advertising 22 "knock-off products" (see Compl. ¶ 12), and (2) engaging in said infringement willfully 23 (see Compl. ¶¶ 26, 29, 37-38); Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th 24 Cir.1977) (holding allegations in complaint other than those relating to the amount of 25 damages are, upon entry of default, "taken as true"). As relief, plaintiff seeks an award of 26 statutory damages, a permanent injunction, and a finding that it is entitled to seek an 27 1 award of full costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 2 For the reasons stated by plaintiff (see Pl.'s Mot. at 5:14-8:27), each of the factors 3 set forth in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986), to the extent relevant 4 to the above-titled action,2 weigh in favor of granting plaintiff's motion. Accordingly, the 5 Court next considers in turn each form of relief plaintiff seeks. 6 First, the Copyright Act provides that a court may issue "an award of statutory 7 damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work . . . in a 8 sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just," see 17 9 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), which award, where willful infringement is shown, can be increased 10 "to a sum of not more than $150,000," see 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2). Here, plaintiff, without 11 elaboration, requests an award of $4,500,000, in other words, the maximum possible 12 recovery. 13 Although the plaintiff in a copyright infringement case "is entitled to damages that 14 will serve as a deterrent, it is not entitled a windfall." See Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Tilley, 15 2010 WL 309429, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2010). In cases with facts similar to those 16 presented in the instant case, namely, an infringer who used the plaintiff's copyrighted 17 works to advertise products that looked like those of the plaintiff, courts have found a 18 statutory damages award of $50,000 for each work willfully infringed sufficed to deter 19 future infringement. See, e.g., Miche Bag, LLC v. Ayers, 2010 WL 5141662, at *3, *5 (D. 20 S.C. September 22, 2010) (awarding statutory damages of $50,000 per infringed work 21 where defendant used plaintiff's copyrighted photographs to sell goods "similar" to those 22 of plaintiff), adopted, 2010 WL 5139840 (December 8, 2010); Bump Babies, Inc. v. Baby 23 the Bump, Inc., 2012 WL 12964321, at *5 (C.D. Cal. August 1, 2012) (awarding statutory 24 damages of $50,000 where defendant infringed plaintiff's copyrighted work in connection 25

26 2 In Eitel, the defendant had appeared, by filing an answer and counterclaim after entry of default, had "disputed material facts in the pleadings," and had failed to timely 27 appear due to "excusable neglect," see id., circumstances entirely absent in the instant 1 with sale of "numerous [products] that remarkably resembled [p]laintiff's designs"). The 2 Court finds such sum likewise is appropriate in the instant case, resulting in a total 3 statutory damages award of $1,500,000 ($50,000 x 30). 4 Next, the Copyright Act provides that a court may grant "final injunctions on such 5 terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright." See 6 17 U.S.C. § 502. Here, plaintiff, in its proposed judgment, requests the Court enjoin 7 defendant from infringing the works comprising the twelve registrations identified in the 8 Complaint (see Pl.'s Proposed Judgment by Default [Doc. No. 33-2] at 3:6-10), which 9 proposed relief the Court finds appropriate. 10 Lastly, pursuant to § 505 of the Copyright Act, a court "may allow the recovery of 11 full costs by or against any party" and "may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the 12 prevailing party as part of the costs." See 17 U.S.C. § 505. Here, plaintiff seeks a finding 13 that it is entitled to claim, by a motion to be filed after the judgment is entered, its full 14 costs and a reasonable attorney's fee. Courts "may not," however, "award attorney's 15 fees as a matter of course" under § 505, and plaintiff has not submitted any argument as 16 to why it should be entitled to an award thereunder. See Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, 17 Inc., 579 U.S. 197, 202 (2016) (internal quotation, citation, and alteration omitted) 18 (holding district court, under § 505, "must make a more particularized, case-by-case 19 assessment"). Under such circumstances, plaintiff's request for a finding that it is entitled 20 to an award of its full costs and a reasonable attorney's fee will be denied without 21 prejudice to plaintiff's making a showing as to its entitlement in a motion to be filed after 22 entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) (providing "claim for attorney's fees and 23 related non-taxable costs" shall be "filed no later than 14 days after the entry of 24 judgment"). 25 CONCLUSION 26 For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's motion for default judgment is hereby 27 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: 1 GRANTED in part; specifically, plaintiffs shall have judgment in its favor and against 2 || defendant in the amount of $1,500,000. 3 2. To the extent plaintiff seeks an injunction precluding defendant from further 4 || infringing the works covered by the twelve registrations identified in the Complaint, the 5 || motion is GRANTED, and defendant is ENJOINED from engaging in further infringement 6 || of the photographs and graphics listed in U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. 7 || VA0002364598, VA0002364605, VA0002295739, VA0002295891, VA0002295916, 8 || VA0002300641, VA000228301 1, VA0002319812, VA0002350942, VA0002362176, 9 || VA0002303093, and VA0002298765. 10 3. To the extent plaintiff seeks a finding that it is entitled to recover its full costs 11 and a reasonable attorney's fee, the motion is DENIED, without prejudice. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 || Dated: April 3, 2024 . moe M. CHESNEY < | 15 United States District Judge

g 17

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28