Facebook, Inc. v. Sahinturk

Background

Facebook, Inc. and Instagram, LLC alleged that Ensar Sahinturk controlled five domain names—jolygram.com, imggram.com, imggram.net, finalgram.com, and ingram.ws—that used variations resembling the “Instagram” trademark. The complaint alleged that Sahinturk created clone websites, used automated software to collect publicly available Instagram account data, republished that data, used Instagram-related marks, offered functions such as downloading user data, and generated advertising revenue.

The plaintiffs asserted cybersquatting and trademark dilution claims under the federal Lanham Act, along with California claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. They alleged that Sahinturk agreed to Instagram’s Terms of Use when creating accounts and then violated those terms by scraping and republishing Instagram data and monetizing clone sites.

Jurisdiction and Service

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the Instagram Terms of Use clearly required Sahinturk to litigate in the Northern District of California. The relevant forum-selection language was ambiguous and, interpreted against the plaintiffs, did not establish consent to personal jurisdiction.

The court nevertheless found specific personal jurisdiction over Sahinturk for the tort claims. It concluded that his alleged use of scraping software to send automated commands to the plaintiffs’ California-based computers, his alleged targeting of the plaintiffs’ network, and the plaintiffs’ resulting expenditures in California established the required connection to California. The court also exercised related personal jurisdiction over the contract claims because they arose from the same underlying facts.

The plaintiffs first attempted service through the Hague Convention, but Turkish authorities could not complete service because the address was insufficient. The court had authorized service by email, and the plaintiffs completed email service on September 21, 2021. The court found that service was proper because Sahinturk could not be reached at a valid physical address, email was an available means of contact, and the message was not returned as undeliverable.

Default Judgment

The clerk entered default after Sahinturk failed to respond. Applying the factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment, the court found that the plaintiffs would be prejudiced without relief, the complaint sufficiently alleged the claims, no material factual dispute was likely, Sahinturk’s failure to respond was not excusable neglect, and deciding the case on the merits was impractical because he had not appeared.

For cybersquatting, the court found that the five domain names were confusingly similar to Instagram’s protected mark and that Sahinturk acted in bad faith by using the domains to profit from clone websites that scraped Instagram content and displayed advertisements. For trademark dilution, the court found that Instagram’s mark was famous and distinctive and that the alleged use was likely to cause dilution by blurring and tarnishment. The court also found the breach-of-contract allegations legally sufficient because Sahinturk agreed to the Terms of Use and allegedly violated them.

The court declined to enter judgment on unjust enrichment. It reasoned that unjust enrichment is a quasi-contract remedy and that the alleged contract, together with the cybersquatting, trademark-dilution, and breach-of-contract claims, left no need for that additional remedy.

Relief

The court granted statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(d) of $25,000 for each of the five domain names, totaling $125,000. In setting that amount, the court relied on allegations that Sahinturk acted willfully and in bad faith, continued after receiving cease-and-desist letters, monetized the websites, concealed his identity as the registrant of some domains, and failed to defend the action.

The court also issued a permanent injunction. It barred Sahinturk and specified associated persons from creating or maintaining Facebook or Instagram accounts, or accessing those services, in violation of their terms; disrupting or impairing Meta’s services, platforms, or computer systems; violating Instagram’s Terms of Use; lessening the distinctiveness of or tarnishing the Instagram marks; and registering, using, or trafficking in domain names identical or confusingly similar to those marks.

The court deleted the plaintiffs’ first proposed restriction, which would have barred access to all of Meta’s services, platforms, and computer systems. The court found that this language could cover permissible access to current or future Meta services and was broader than the specific harms alleged. The court did not yet decide the request for attorneys’ fees and costs; it directed the plaintiffs to file supporting documentation within 14 days.