Aretis Limited v. Oakever Games PTE. LTD.

Background

Aretis Limited, doing business as Hungry Studio, brought a copyright-infringement case against Oakever Games PTE. LTD. Aretis alleged that Oakever copied content from Aretis’s Block Blast! mobile game—including artwork, interface designs, sound recordings, and source code—to create the Qblock application. Aretis alleged that Oakever offered Qblock through Google Play and the Apple App Store, including to customers in the United States.

Aretis alleged ownership of registered copyrights in versions of its Block Blast! software and promotional videos. The operative Second Amended Complaint asserted two claims, including copyright infringement based on Aretis’s exclusive license in a copyrighted foreign work. The opinion states that Aretis’s original work was first published in China on March 3, 2022, and that Aretis obtained two U.S. Copyright Office registrations on June 23, 2025.

Service, Default, and Jurisdiction

Aretis served Oakever in Singapore under the Hague Convention on December 17, 2025. After Oakever failed to respond, the clerk entered default on January 22, 2026. Oakever did not appear, oppose the motion, or respond to Aretis’s communications.

The court concluded that it had subject-matter jurisdiction because the claims arose under the federal Copyright Act. It also concluded that it had personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). The court reasoned that the copyright claim arose under federal law, that Oakever was alleged to be a Singapore resident with no facts showing that it was subject to general jurisdiction in any state, and that Oakever purposefully directed activity toward the United States by offering the allegedly infringing application to U.S. customers and deriving revenue there. The court also found service proper.

Default-Judgment Analysis

Applying the seven factors identified in Eitel v. McCool, the court found that default judgment was warranted. It concluded that Aretis would have no remedy if judgment were not entered, that Aretis had stated a legally sufficient copyright-infringement claim, and that the alleged facts supported the claim. The court also found that the amount-of-money factor favored judgment because Aretis had decided to forgo damages in favor of permanent injunctive relief. Because Oakever had defaulted, well-pleaded factual allegations were treated as admitted, subject to the rule that legal conclusions and unsupported allegations are not established by default. The policy favoring decisions on the merits weighed against default judgment but did not prevent it because Oakever refused to participate.

Recommended Relief

The court concluded that a permanent injunction was appropriate. It found that continued infringement could cause irreparable harm to the value of Aretis’s works, its business model, and its reputation; that money damages would not adequately prevent future infringement; that the balance of hardships favored Aretis; and that the public interest favored protecting copyright owners’ rights.

The magistrate judge recommended that the district court enter default judgment against Oakever and permanently bar Oakever, its agents and representatives, and others acting on its behalf from: (1) using Block Blast! or the infringing images, language, and interface layouts described in the complaint and exhibits; (2) using substantially similar mobile applications or content; (3) acts intended to make consumers believe Oakever’s applications were offered under Aretis’s control, authorization, or approval; and (4) creating, providing, or offering substantially similar mobile applications for download or sale. The recommendation also would require Oakever to remove its infringing applications and content from online platforms within 10 business days after receiving the court’s order, with third-party providers authorized to remove the applications if Oakever failed to comply within 10 days.

Status of the Recommendation

This document is a report and recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. It recommends that the district court grant the motion and enter judgment; the opinion text does not state that the district court adopted the recommendation. The parties were allowed 14 days after service to file objections, and the document states that failing to object within that period may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.