Citation[]
Louis Vuitton Matellier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions Inc., 591 F.Supp.2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (full-text), aff'd in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions, 658 F.3d 936, 100 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1124 (9th Cir. 2011) (full-text).
Factual Background[]
Defendants Akanoc and MSGI, operated by defendant Chen, are internet service providers that offer IP addresses so that customers may host their website content on their servers. Plaintiff found several websites, which used defendants' IP addresses, selling products which they believed infringed several of their trademarks and copyrights. Plaintiff sent eighteen notices of infringement requesting removal of the sites from defendants' servers however the sites remained.
Trial Court Proceedings[]
As a result, plaintiff brought this action against defendants Chen, Akanoc Solutions and MSGI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging contributory trademark infringement, vicarious trademark infringement, contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement, and claiming "irreparable harm and damage as a result of defendants conduct."[1]
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff finding willful contributory infringement of thirteen of plaintiff's trademarks and two of their copyrights. In finding contributory trademark infringement, the court determined that defendants continued to offer their products and services to someone whom they knew or should have known was engaging in trademark infringement and that they exhibited the requisite control over the "services and servers provided to the websites."
In finding contributory copyright infringement the court determined that the defendants provision of server space "substantially assisted" in the direct infringement. As a result, the jury awarded $10.5 million in statutory damages against each defendant for trademark infringement and $300,000 in statutory damages against each defendant for copyright infringement.[2]
Defendants moved for a judgment as a matter of law, seeking dismissal of the jury's verdict. The court granted the motion in favor of MSGI and denied it as to Chen and Akanoc. The court held that there was no evidence that MSGI hosted the websites but that they merely owned and leased hardware to Chen and Akanoc.
Defendants Chen and Akanoc appealed and plaintiff cross-appealed on the judgment in favor of MSGI.
Appellate Court Proceedings[]
In affirming the District Court's ruling in favor of MSGI, the Ninth Circuit held that Appellant (Louis Vuitton) provided no evidence that MSGI "had reasonable means to withdraw its services so that they could not be used to directly infringe but continued to provide its services." The Court went on to add that MSGI did not operate the servers, which hosted the infringing websites.[3]
In affirming the District Court's ruling against Chen and Akanoc, the Ninth Circuit held that there were sufficient facts for a jury to find appellants liable as a matter of law.[4] In vacating the award for damages the court found that there was "no legal basis for multiplying the award by the number of defendants."[5] The Court ruled that new damages should be awarded finding Chen and Akanoc "jointly and severally liable for single awards in those amounts."[6]