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
- 9
In Pearson Education v. Does 1-39, Judge Abrams entered default judgment for copyright and trademark infringement and ordered permanent restrictions and further damages proceedings.
The plaintiffs—Pearson Education, Elsevier, Macmillan Learning, Cengage, and McGraw Hill—received default judgment and permanent injunctive relief against the named defendants. The defendants and persons or entities with actual notice of the injunction are restricted from infringing the plaintiffs’ copyrights and trademarks; financial institutions, domain registries, and registrars are also directed to take specified steps. Damages remained to be determined.
What happened
Pearson Education, Elsevier, Macmillan Learning, Cengage, and McGraw Hill sued the defendants over websites that allegedly distributed unauthorized copies of textbooks, test banks, and instructor solution manuals. The defendants did not answer or otherwise respond, and the clerk entered defaults against them.
The court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true because of the defendants’ defaults and found willful copyright infringement by the defendants, as well as willful trademark counterfeiting by certain defendants involving Cengage’s and McGraw Hill’s trademarks. It entered default judgment for the plaintiffs and permanently barred the defendants and others with notice from infringing the plaintiffs’ copyrights and trademarks.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also ordered measures including transfer or release of the infringing websites’ domain names, preservation of restrained funds until damages were awarded and the judgment satisfied, destruction of unauthorized copies and devices used to create them, and release of the plaintiffs’ $5,000 bond. The matter was referred for a later proceeding to determine damages.
The detailed version
- Pearson Education, Inc. v. Does 1-39 d/b/a Abooks.org · No. 1:21-cv-03486
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 5, 2023
Background
Pearson Education, Elsevier, Bedford, Freeman & Worth Publishing Group d/b/a Macmillan Learning, Cengage Learning, and McGraw Hill sued defendants who allegedly owned, controlled, or operated websites distributing unauthorized electronic copies of the plaintiffs’ textbooks, test banks, and instructor solution manuals. The plaintiffs also alleged infringement of federally registered trademarks. After expedited discovery, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to identify numerous defendants, including two Doe defendants associated with specified websites.
The court had previously authorized alternative service and issued a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs served the amended complaint and summonses by email, except that Sherry Sanders was personally served. No defendant filed an answer, otherwise responded, or appeared. The clerk entered defaults against all defendants on January 10 and January 27, 2022.
Court’s Findings
Because the defendants defaulted, the court treated the factual allegations in the amended complaint as true. It found that the plaintiffs owned or exclusively controlled the copyrights in the works listed in the opinion’s appendix. It also found that Cengage and McGraw Hill were the registrants of the trademarks for which they sought relief.
The court found that the defendants willfully infringed the plaintiffs’ copyrights by knowingly reproducing or distributing unauthorized electronic copies. It also found that certain defendants willfully infringed Cengage’s and McGraw Hill’s trademarks by knowingly using identical or substantially indistinguishable reproductions in connection with infringing copies. The court further found that the defendants’ conduct caused irreparable harm and that it had personal jurisdiction over them under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules sections 302(a)(1) and/or 302(a)(3).
Ruling and Relief
The court entered default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the named defendants, including the two Doe defendants identified by their websites. It permanently enjoined the defendants and persons acting with them who received actual notice from infringing the plaintiffs’ copyrights or trademarks. The injunction also barred activities such as copying, distributing, selling, advertising, or facilitating infringement, and barred using websites, domain names, servers, payment services, or similar systems to infringe or facilitate infringement.
The court dissolved the usual stay on enforcing the judgment, allowing immediate enforcement. It ordered defendants and specified financial institutions to continue preventing transfers or withdrawals from currently restrained accounts until damages were awarded and the judgment was satisfied for the relevant defendants. It also ordered registries or registrars, after actual notice, to transfer active infringing domain names to the plaintiffs or release them at the plaintiffs’ direction. The same relief applied to additional infringing sites later identified under the order’s conditions.
The defendants were ordered to deliver unauthorized electronic copies and derivative works, along with devices used to create them, for destruction. The clerk was directed to release the plaintiffs’ $5,000 cash bond to their attorneys. The court retained jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the permanent injunction, and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Netburn for an inquest into damages. The opinion does not state the amount of damages awarded.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.