Pearson Education, Inc. v. Does 1-39 d/b/a Abooks.org
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-03486
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pearson Education v. Does 1-39, Judge Abrams adopted the damages recommendation, awarded statutory damages, and closed the case.
The plaintiffs received statutory-damages awards against the defaulting defendants, and the case was closed. Cengage and McGraw Hill received the larger awards tied to counterfeited marks; all plaintiffs received copyright-related awards.
What happened
Pearson Education and other educational publishers sued defendants for selling unauthorized copies and counterfeit versions of their products. The claims involved copyright infringement and trademark infringement and counterfeiting.
The defendants did not answer or formally appear. The court previously granted the publishers’ request for a default judgment and sent the case to Magistrate Judge Netburn to determine damages. No party objected to Judge Netburn’s recommendation.
Judge Abrams found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full. Cengage and McGraw Hill received $1,000,000 in statutory damages for each relevant defendant or defendant group and counterfeited mark; all plaintiffs received $150,000 for each relevant defendant or defendant group and infringed copyright, plus applicable post-judgment interest. Judge Abrams directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Pearson Education, Inc. v. Does 1-39 d/b/a Abooks.org · No. 1:21-cv-03486
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 30, 2024
Background
Pearson Education, Inc.; Elsevier Inc.; Bedford, Freeman & Worth Publishing Group, LLC, doing business as Macmillan Learning; Cengage Learning, Inc.; and McGraw Hill LLC sued defendants who allegedly owned and operated websites offering unauthorized copies and counterfeit versions of the plaintiffs’ products. The plaintiffs asserted copyright-infringement claims under 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) and trademark-infringement and counterfeiting claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
The defendants failed to answer or formally appear. The plaintiffs moved for default judgment, and the court granted that motion on December 14, 2022. The court then referred the case to Magistrate Judge Netburn for an inquest, meaning a proceeding to determine damages. Judge Netburn issued a report and recommendation on February 13, 2024. No party objected.
Review of the Recommendation
Because no party objected, the district court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error. The court stated that it found no clear error in Judge Netburn’s analysis and adopted the report in its entirety.
Damages and Disposition
The court awarded Cengage and McGraw Hill $1,000,000 in statutory damages per relevant defendant or defendant group and counterfeited mark. It awarded all plaintiffs $150,000 in statutory damages per defendant or defendant group and copyright infringed, as identified in Exhibit 4 to the Inquest Attorney Declaration. The awards also include applicable post-judgment interest.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the plaintiffs and close the case. This order addresses damages after the defendants’ default rather than testing the infringement claims through a contested trial.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.