Yen v. Yin

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 TAN MAY YEN, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01565-BAT 10 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DKT. 24 11 KO CHEUK YIN, 12 Defendant.

13 INTRODUCTON 14 Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. 15 24. The motion was noted for December 20, 2024 as ready for the Court’s consideration and is 16 accordingly ripe for review. Id. The Court having considered the parties’ pleadings, and the 17 balance of the record DENIES the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because 18 Defendant submitted a DMCA counter-notification to Amazon regarding Plaintiff’s claim of 19 copyright infringement and thus consented to the jurisdiction of this Court. 20 This case involves Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant for the “unauthorized 21 reproduction, distribution, and public display of Plaintiff’s copyrighted work, titled ‘Excel 22 Shortcut Keys Mouse Pad – Extended Large XL Cheat Sheet Gaming Mousepad’ (the ‘Work’).” 23 Plaintiff claims sole ownership of the copyright of the Work, registered with the United States 1 Copyright Office on June 30, 2024, under Registration No. VA0002411555. Id. at 4. 2 Plaintiff is a resident of Malaysia, doing business as Glittery Craft, a Hong Kong 3 corporation, and which is registered to do business through an Amazon store. Dkt. 5 at 3. 4 Defendant resides, conducts business in Dongguan, Guangdong, China, and operates an Amazon

5 store registered to his business. Id. Defendant avers he has no physical presence in Washington 6 State, does not specifically target customers in Washington State, and the Court should thus 7 dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. 24 at 3, Declaration of Ko Cheuk Yin. 8 In response, Plaintiff argues Defendant consented to the jurisdiction of this Court because 9 Defendant filed a Counter-Notification with Amazon under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act 10 (DMCA) in which Defendant explicitly consented to any judicial district in which Amazon 11 operates. Dkt. 25 at 1. In support, Plaintiff attached the DMCA Counter-Notice that Defendant 12 submitted in response to Plaintiff’s complaint to Amazon that Defendant had infringed upon 13 Plaintiff’s rights regarding “ASIN: B0D14B9C6V Title: Excel Shortcuts Mouse Pad, 31.5” x 14 11.8” Keyboard Shortcut Mousepad, XL Extended Office Desk Mat, Excel Cheat Sheet Mat,

15 Stitched Edges, Non-Slip Base Keyboard Mats, Employee Appreciation Gifts.” Dkt. 25, Exhibit 16 A. Plaintiff also alleged Defendant consented to this Court’s jurisdiction in its Complaint. See 17 Dkt. 5 at 2 (“the defendant has consented to jurisdiction in any judicial district where Amazon 18 may be found.”). 19 DISCUSSION 20 Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(2). The Court has reviewed the parties’ pleadings, declarations, and 22 documentary evidence, and finds Plaintiff has met its burden of making a prima facie showing 23 1 the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant.1 The Court must accept uncontested 2 allegations contained in the complaint 2 and any conflicts between sworn statements must be 3 resolved in favor of the plaintiff. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 4 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996).

5 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because 6 Defendant filed a DMCA counter-notice with Amazon in response to the report Plaintiff 7 submitted to Amazon alleging Defendant infringed upon Plaintiff’s copyrighted mousepad—the 8 Work. Dkt. 5 (complaint and Exhibit in support). In response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss 9 for lack of jurisdiction, Plaintiff reasserts this Court possesses jurisdiction over Defendant 10 because Defendant consented the Court’s jurisdiction by filing the DMCA counter-notice with 11 Amazon. Dkt. 25. 12 Defendant does not contest it filed a DMCA counter-notice to Plaintiff’s report to 13 Amazon that Defendant had infringed upon the Work over which Plaintiff claims copyright 14 protection. The Court thus finds Defendant did file the DMCA counter-notice, just as Plaintiff

15 claims and has shown through the exhibits Plaintiff submitted. 16 However, Defendant argues the Court lacks jurisdiction because Defendant resides in 17 China, has no residence or physical presence in Washington State, and had no “direct 18 communications or transactions aimed specifically at residents of Washington.” (Motion to 19 Dismiss) Dkt. 24 at 2. 20 Defendant’s argument fails to appreciate the impact of the DMCA counter-notice it filed. 21 Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D), when Defendant filed its DMCA counter-notification, 22 1 See CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011) and Data 23 Disc., Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1289 n. 8 (9th Cir. 1977). 2 See Corker v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 585 F. Supp. 3d 1284, 1289 (W.D. Wash. 2022). 1 Defendant was required to provide a statement that it consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal 2 District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if Defendant’s address is 3 outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which, Amazon, the service provider may 4 be found, and that Defendant will accept service of process from the person who provided

5 notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person. 6 Thus, under the DMCA, when a service provider such as Amazon removes allegedly 7 copyright-infringing material from its service platform, the alleged infringer has the right to issue 8 a counter-notification to reinstate their product to the platform, provided that the alleged 9 infringer consents to the jurisdiction of the federal court in the judicial district where the service 10 provider is located. See e.g., Nexon Korea Corporation v. Ironmace Co. Ltd, No. 23-576-TL, 11 2023 WL 5305996 at * 3 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 17, 2023) (“Ironmace submitted a DMCA counter- 12 notification to Valve and consequently consented to the jurisdiction of the Western District of 13 Washington, where Valve’s headquarters are located.”); Epic Games, Inc. v. Mendes, 2018 WL 14 2926086 at * 5 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2018) (“The court has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Rak

15 because he submitted a DMCA counter-notification in which he expressly stated that he 16 “consent[s] to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the district in which my address is 17 located, or if my address is outside of the United States, the judicial district in which YouTube is 18 located[.]”). 19 Here, Defendant filed a DMCA counter-notification to Plaintiff’s report to Amazon of a 20 copyright violation that contains the mandatory language contained in 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D), 21 i.e., that if Defendant’s address is outside of the United States, Defendant consents to the 22 jurisdiction in any judicial district in which Amazon may be found. 23 1 The Court accordingly finds the DMCA counter-notification that Defendant filed 2 dispositively establishes the Court possesses jurisdiction over Defendant and accordingly 3 ORDERS: Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED. Dkt. 24. 4 DATED this 23rd day of December, 2024.

5 A 6 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23