Restoration Hardware, Inc. v. Alimia Light
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-00948
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 23
In Restoration Hardware v. Alimia Light, Magistrate Judge Westmore recommended default judgment against most defendants, denying it as to Sunny Wang and dismissing Wang’s claims without prejudice.
Restoration Hardware, Inc. and RH US, LLC would receive the recommended damages and injunctive relief if the recommendation were adopted. The remaining defendants would face default judgment, monetary awards, an injunction, and disabling of specified websites and storefronts. Sunny Wang would have the default-judgment motion denied and the claims against Wang dismissed without prejudice. The text provided does not state whether the district judge adopted the recommendation.
What happened
In Restoration Hardware, Inc. v. Alimia Light, Restoration Hardware and RH US accused online sellers of using RH photographs and brand names to market and sell knockoff lighting products to consumers in the United States, including California. RH asserted copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and California unfair-competition claims.
The defendants did not appear after being served, and the clerk entered default. RH sought default judgment, statutory damages, a permanent injunction, and disabling of the defendants’ websites and online storefronts. After supplemental briefing, RH agreed to dismiss its claims against Sunny Wang without prejudice and reduced its damages request to the specific copyrighted works identified in the complaint.
Magistrate Judge Andis A. Westmore recommended granting RH’s motion for default judgment as to the remaining defendants and denying it as to Wang. The recommendation included statutory damages ranging from $30,000 to $90,000 per remaining defendant, a permanent injunction, and disabling specified domain names and online storefronts.
The detailed version
- Restoration Hardware, Inc. v. Alimia Light · No. 4:23-cv-00948
- Haywood Gilliam
- Aug. 26, 2024
Background
Restoration Hardware, Inc. and RH US, LLC, collectively called RH, sued 18 defendants: Alimia Light; Zhuosai Lighting; Grand Lamps; Wing Lighting; Oasis Lamps; Momo Chandelier; Fanci Light; Cure Lighting; Clouds Lights; Kushigo Limited; Lighting Forever; Reborn; Showsun Lighting; Sigma Living; Ineffable Lighting; Zenduce; Oclolli; and Kevin Studio. RH alleged that the defendants used RH’s copyrighted product photographs and product names or marks on websites and online marketplace storefronts to advertise and sell knockoff lighting products. RH brought claims for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, and unfair competition under California’s Unfair Competition Law.
The court had previously authorized service by email, issued a temporary restraining order, and later issued a preliminary injunction. The defendants did not appear at the relevant hearings. The clerk entered default on August 29, 2023. RH then moved for default judgment. After the court required additional briefing, RH narrowed its damages request to the specific examples of infringement listed in the complaint and agreed to dismiss its claims against Sunny Wang without prejudice.
Jurisdiction, service, and default judgment standard
The recommendation concluded that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction because the case arose under the Copyright Act and Lanham Act. It also concluded that personal jurisdiction and venue were proper because the defendants allegedly targeted California consumers, sold products there, and used California-based payment providers and processors. The recommendation found that RH properly served the defendants by email as authorized by the court.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), a court may enter default judgment when a defendant fails to defend. The recommendation applied the seven factors commonly used in the Ninth Circuit, including possible prejudice to the plaintiff, the strength of the claims, the sufficiency of the complaint, the amount at stake, the likelihood of factual disputes, whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, and the preference for decisions on the merits. Because the defendants did not participate, the recommendation treated the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true, except allegations concerning damages.
Claims and recommended liability
The recommendation concluded that RH adequately alleged copyright infringement because RH owned registrations covering the photographs and the defendants allegedly reproduced and distributed those photographs on their websites. It also concluded that RH adequately alleged trademark infringement because RH claimed rights in the product names and alleged that the defendants used those names or confusingly similar versions to sell knockoff products. The recommendation further concluded that RH adequately stated a California unfair-competition claim because that claim was based on the alleged trademark infringement.
As to Sunny Wang, RH consented to dismissal. The recommendation therefore recommended denying default judgment against Wang and dismissing the claims against Wang without prejudice. For the other defendants, the recommendation found that the relevant factors favored default judgment.
Recommended relief
The recommendation proposed statutory copyright damages of $30,000 per registration for the identified infringements, as follows:
- Alimia Light: $60,000. - Zhuosai Lighting: $60,000. - Grand Lamps: $60,000. - Wing Lighting: $30,000. - Oasis Lamps: $60,000. - Momo Chandelier: $30,000. - Fanci Light: $30,000. - Cure Lighting: $30,000. - Clouds Lights: $30,000. - Kushigo Limited: $90,000. - Lighting Forever: $60,000. - Reborn Lighting: $90,000. - Showsun Lighting: $60,000. - Sigma Living: $30,000. - Ineffable Lighting: $30,000. - Zenduce: $30,000. - Oclolli: $30,000. - Kevin Studio: $30,000.
The recommendation also proposed a permanent injunction barring the remaining defendants and persons acting with them from copying, distributing, or publicly displaying RH’s copyrighted works and from using RH marks or confusingly similar marks in connection with manufacturing or selling lighting products. It proposed releasing money frozen in a PayPal account associated with Zenduce to RH as partial payment, disabling the listed domain names, and removing or disabling specified storefronts on Alibaba. It also recommended releasing RH’s $10,000 bond and retaining jurisdiction for enforcement or modification of the judgment and injunction.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Andis A. Westmore recommended that RH’s motion for default judgment be denied as to Sunny Wang and that the claims against Wang be dismissed without prejudice. The recommendation further stated that RH’s motion for default judgment be granted as to the remaining defendants, with the listed damages and injunctive relief. The text provided does not state whether the presiding district judge later adopted the recommendation.
Read the full 23-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.