Attorney Evan Brown

November 19, 2024 Litigation, Unfair Competition

Beauty products company wins preliminary injunction against online sellers

conterfeit

Plaintiff sued a group of unnamed individuals, corporations, and online sellers, alleging that they were selling counterfeit versions of plaintiff’s patented beauty products through various e-commerce platforms. Plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction to immediately stop these activities and freeze defendants’ financial accounts. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the request, seeking to protect plaintiff’s intellectual property rights while the case continued.

Plaintiff argued that defendants had infringed on its utility and design patents by manufacturing, promoting, and selling counterfeit products that mimicked its patented designs and technology. Investigators hired by plaintiff purchased items from defendants’ online stores and determined they were unauthorized copies. Plaintiff claimed these actions caused irreparable harm to its brand reputation and financial well-being.

The court evaluated whether plaintiff met the legal standard for a preliminary injunction, which requires showing a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm without relief, a balance of hardships favoring plaintiff, and alignment with the public interest. The court found that plaintiff provided strong evidence that defendants were selling counterfeit goods in violation of its patents. Defendants had no authorization to use plaintiff’s intellectual property, and their activities risked confusing consumers and damaging plaintiff’s reputation.

The court determined that the harm to plaintiff outweighed any potential harm to defendants, especially since defendants were engaging in illegal activities. The public interest also supported the injunction, as it protected consumers from being misled into buying counterfeit products. The court froze defendants’ financial accounts to prevent them from transferring funds out of the court’s jurisdiction.

Why This Case Matters:

Intellectual Property Protection: The ruling reaffirms the importance of enforcing patent rights against counterfeiters in the e-commerce space.
Consumer Protection: By halting counterfeit sales, the court safeguarded consumers from buying inferior and unauthorized products.
Digital Enforcement Tools: The decision highlights the role of injunctions and financial account freezes as tools to combat online intellectual property infringement.

Foreo Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2024 WL 4652093 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2024).

November 7, 2024 Fraud/Misrepresentation, Litigation

Online IP enforcement case runs into difficulties

A recent decision highlights some of the difficulties of enforcing patent rights concerning products on e-commerce platforms. Plaintiff sued defendants over product takedown notices defendants sent to Amazon. The dispute centered around defendants’ claims that plaintiff’s drone product infringed on defendants’ patent, which covers specific sensor and control systems for drones. Defendants had reported this alleged infringement to Amazon, leading to the removal of plaintiff’s product listings. Plaintiff argued that defendants’ claims were made in bad faith and intended to damage its business rather than protect intellectual property rights.

TRO sought against Amazon takedowns

Seeking to reverse the takedown, plaintiff asked the court for a temporary restraining order (a “TRO”) requiring defendants to retract their report to Amazon and halt further takedown attempts related to the patent. Plaintiff claimed that the takedown had caused extensive harm, including loss of customer goodwill, reduced product visibility, and declining sales, especially as the holiday season approached. Plaintiff relied heavily on Amazon as its main sales channel, making the takedown particularly damaging.

TRO denied

The court ultimately denied plaintiff’s request for a TRO. In reaching its decision, the court relied on four key factors: the likelihood that plaintiff would win the case, the severity of harm it faced, the fairness of the request, and the potential impact on public interest. The court found that plaintiff had not demonstrated a clear likelihood of success, as it did not provide convincing evidence that defendants’ patent claim was baseless or made in bad faith. Additionally, the court viewed plaintiff’s losses as primarily economic, which could potentially be compensated with financial damages later, and thus did not meet the threshold for “irreparable harm.”

It would also have been burdensome

The court also noted that plaintiff’s request would require a mandatory injunction, which imposes a high standard of proof. Given that plaintiff had not fully shown that defendants’ actions were entirely groundless, the court refused to compel defendants to retract their report to Amazon.

This case underscores the challenges companies face when their sales depend on e-commerce platforms, where patent claims can lead to sudden and significant losses. While the court acknowledged the harm to plaintiff, it determined that such harm could be addressed through standard litigation, rather than emergency intervention.

Three Reasons Why This Case Matters:

E-commerce Vulnerability: Companies selling through platforms like Amazon face high risks when patent claims arise, as these claims can lead to immediate product delistings and revenue losses.
High Bar for Emergency Relief: This case demonstrates the difficulty of securing rapid court intervention for online takedowns, especially when potential harm might be addressed financially.
Patent Law’s Growing Role in Online Markets: As e-commerce expands, the reach of patent enforcement on major platforms presents distinct challenges and risks for businesses in digital marketplaces.

Zero Cloud One Intelligent Technology (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd., v. Flying Heliball LLC; World Tech Toys, Inc., 2024 WL 4665594 (W.D. Washington, November 4, 2024)

November 3, 2024 Litigation

Court rules on how punitive damages may apply in eBay corporate harassment case

A Massachusetts couple who ran an independent news blog sued eBay for allegedly orchestrating a targeted harassment campaign against them. Plaintiffs owned and operated EcommerceBytes, a trade publication that covered e-commerce, often with critical insights into companies such as eBay. According to plaintiffs, eBay’s executives became increasingly concerned about this coverage and decided to respond in a way that went far beyond normal corporate PR strategies. Instead of addressing the criticism directly, eBay’s former executives allegedly launched a campaign to frighten and silence plaintiffs through harassment, surveillance, and various disturbing tactics. Plaintiffs accused eBay and several of its former employees of planning and executing actions that included sending grotesque packages, stalking plaintiffs in their hometown and even posting false online ads to publicly humiliate them.

Both parties took steps to try to control which state’s law would apply to the issue of punitive damages in the case. Plaintiffs asked the court to apply California law for punitive damages, arguing that much of the alleged harassment campaign had been coordinated from eBay’s headquarters in California. California law allows punitive damages for cases involving malice or oppressive behavior, which could lead to significant financial consequences for the defendant if plaintiffs were successful. In contrast, eBay filed its own motion asking the court to apply Massachusetts law, which generally does not permit punitive damages without specific statutory authorization. eBay argued that Massachusetts law should govern the case since many of the alleged harassment activities—such as physical surveillance and vandalism—occurred in Massachusetts, where plaintiffs lived.

The court ultimately allowed both parties’ motions in part, ruling that some of the claims would be governed by Massachusetts law and others by California law. For certain claims, such as trespass and false imprisonment, the court decided Massachusetts law would apply to punitive damages because those incidents occurred within Massachusetts. But the court ruled that California law would govern claims the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy, since the alleged harassment campaign had been largely planned and coordinated from eBay’s headquarters in California.

Why this case matters:

Corporate Accountability: It shows how far-reaching corporate misconduct can be when unchecked and highlights the need for mechanisms that hold companies responsible for actions against individuals.
Limits of Corporate Power: The alleged conduct underscores the lengths some companies may go to when responding to criticism, raising questions about corporate influence and ethical boundaries.
Guidance for Cross-State Cases: The court’s decision to apply different state laws to various claims sets an example for how courts might handle complex cases that cross state lines and involve conflicting laws.

Steiner v. eBay, Inc., — F.Supp.3d — 2024 WL 4647877 (D. Mass., November 1, 2024)

October 19, 2024 Contracts, Litigation

Online agreement to arbitrate not enforceable

website terms and conditions

Plaintiff sued defendant gaming company alleging violation of Washington state laws addressing gambling and consumer protection. Plaintiff claimed that after starting with free chips in defendant’s online casino games, users had to buy more chips to keep playing. Plaintiff had spent money on the games and argued that defendant’s practices were unfair.

Defendant moved to dismiss the case and asked the court to compel arbitration. Defendant argued that plaintiff had agreed to defendant’s terms of service, which included an arbitration clause. The company claimed that by playing the games, plaintiff was bound to these terms, even though plaintiff did not explicitly sign a contract.

The court denied the motion to dismiss. It found that defendant did not provide enough information to show that plaintiff had been given proper notice of the terms of service or that he agreed to them. The notice on the game’s homepage was not clear or conspicuous enough for a reasonable person to understand that they were agreeing to the terms, including arbitration, just by playing the games.

Three reasons why this case matters:

Consumer Protection: It highlights the importance of businesses providing clear and understandable terms to consumers.
Online Contracts: The case shows that courts are careful when it comes to online agreements, requiring companies to ensure consumers are fully aware of the terms.
Arbitration Clauses: This case reinforces that arbitration clauses must be clearly presented and agreed upon to be enforceable.

Kuhk v. Playstudios, Inc., 2024 WL 4529263 (W.D. Washington, October 18, 2024)

October 16, 2024 Privacy

Recent case applies VHS-era law to modern digital privacy

vhs

Plaintiff sued the NBA, accusing it of violating the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2701 (VPPA). Plaintiff claimed that after signing up for the NBA’s online newsletter and watching videos on NBA.com, the NBA shared his viewing history with Meta without his permission. The district court dismissed the case and plaintiff sought review with the Second Circuit. On review, the court vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings.

What is the VPPA?

The VPPA, enacted in 1988, aims to protect consumers’ privacy by restricting video tape service providers from sharing personally identifiable information without consent. The historical circumstances around its enactment, particularly involving Robert Bork, is worth taking a few minutes to read up on.

Key issue – what’s a consumer here?

Plaintiff argued that he qualified as a “consumer” under the VPPA’s definition, which includes any “renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services.” He contended that by providing his email and other personal data in exchange for the NBA’s newsletter, he became a “subscriber,” thus entitling him to privacy protections. According to plaintiff, the NBA’s practice of embedding a “Facebook Pixel” on its website allowed Meta to track users’ video-watching behavior, which constituted a violation of the VPPA’s restrictions.

The NBA, however, argued that plaintiff did not meet the VPPA’s criteria for a “consumer” because the newsletter subscription did not involve any audiovisual services, as required under the law. The NBA further asserted that plaintiff did not suffer a “concrete” injury, a requirement for Article III standing under the standards set out by SCOTUS in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. The NBA maintained that merely signing up for a free newsletter did not establish a sufficient relationship to qualify as a “subscriber.”

Lower court proceedings

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of the NBA. While it determined that plaintiff had standing to sue, the court dismissed the case on the grounds that plaintiff failed to establish that he was a “consumer” as defined by the VPPA. The court ruled that the VPPA’s scope was limited to audiovisual goods or services, and an online newsletter did not fit this definition. It concluded that merely signing up for a newsletter did not create a relationship that would extend VPPA protections to plaintiff’s video-watching data.

But the appellate court said…

Plaintiff appealed the decision, and the Second Circuit found that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that he was a “subscriber of goods or services” because he provided personal information in exchange for the NBA’s online newsletter. The court emphasized that the VPPA’s language did not strictly limit “goods or services” to audiovisual content, thus broadening the potential scope of who could be considered a “consumer.” This meant that the case would proceed to further legal proceedings to address the other issues in the dispute.

Three reasons why this case matters:

It clarifies modern VPPA applications: The case explores how the VPPA, with its origins in a VHS-centric era, applies to modern digital interactions, like email newsletters and online video streaming.
It expands consumer privacy definitions: The court’s interpretation suggests that a “subscriber” could include individuals who exchange personal information for non-monetary services, influencing other privacy claims.
It influences digital business practices: It affects how businesses should collect and share user data, potentially increasing scrutiny over partnerships involving data tracking and disclosure to third parties such Meta.

Salazar v. NBA, — F.4th —, 2024 WL 4487971 (2nd Cir., October 15, 2024)

October 1, 2024 Section 230

Section 230 saves eBay from liability for violation of environmental laws

The United States government sued eBay for alleged violations of environmental regulations, claiming the online marketplace facilitated the sale of prohibited products in violation of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). According to the government’s complaint, eBay allowed third-party sellers to list and distribute items that violated these statutes, including devices that tamper with vehicle emissions controls, products containing methylene chloride used in paint removal, and unregistered pesticides.

eBay moved to dismiss, arguing that the government had failed to adequately state a claim under the CAA, TSCA, and FIFRA, and further contended that eBay was shielded from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230(c).

The court granted eBay’s motion to dismiss. It held that eBay was immune from liability because of Section 230, which protects online platforms in most situations from being held liable as publishers of third-party content. The court determined that, as a marketplace, eBay did not “sell” or “offer for sale” the products in question in the sense required by the environmental statutes, since it did not possess, own, or transfer title of the items listed by third-party sellers.

The court found that Section 230 provided broad immunity for eBay’s role as an online platform, preventing it from being treated as the “publisher or speaker” of content provided by its users. As the government sought to impose liability based on eBay’s role in hosting third-party listings, the court concluded that the claims were barred under the CDA.

United States of America v. eBay Inc., 2024 WL 4350523 (E.D.N.Y. September 30, 2024)

September 29, 2024 Contracts, Cybersquatting, Licensing, Trademarks

Counterfeit lubricant case gets preliminary injunction based on defendant’s slick conduct

A German-based lubricant manufacturer sued a U.S.-based distributor, alleging that the distributor produced and sold counterfeit versions of its products with branding that closely resembled plaintiff’s trademarks. Plaintiff brought claims for trademark infringement, cybersquatting, unfair competition, and other related violations, moving for a preliminary injunction against defendant, which the court granted.

The parties initiated a business relationship in 2019, but they never formalized a distribution agreement. Although plaintiff sent a draft agreement outlining trademark rights and restrictions, it was never executed. Plaintiff asserted that the relationship involved a limited license for defendant to distribute plaintiff’s authentic products, but defendant registered a “GP” mark in the U.S. without plaintiff’s consent. According to plaintiff, this was an unauthorized move, and defendant falsely represented itself as the mark’s legitimate owner.

Plaintiff further alleged that defendant continued to produce and sell lubricants with packaging mimicking plaintiff’s design, misleading consumers into believing they were purchasing legitimate products. Defendant also registered several domain names closely resembling plaintiff’s, which were used to display content imitating plaintiff’s branding and operations.

The court found plaintiff’s evidence of irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits compelling, issuing an injunction to stop defendant’s operations and prevent further distribution of the alleged counterfeit goods.

General Petroleum GmbH v. Stanley Oil & Lubricants, Inc., 2024 WL 4143535 (E.D.N.Y., September 11, 2024).

September 5, 2024 First Amendment, Social Media

X gets Ninth Circuit win in case over California’s content moderation law

X sued the California attorney general, challenging Assembly Bill 587 (AB 587) – a law that required large social media companies to submit semiannual reports detailing their terms of service and content moderation policies, as well as their practices for handling specific types of content such as hate speech and misinformation. X claimed that this law violated the First Amendment, was preempted by the federal Communications Decency Act, and infringed upon the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the government from enforcing AB 587 while the case was pending. Specifically, it argued that being forced to comply with the reporting requirements would compel speech in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff asserted that AB 587’s requirement to disclose how it defined and regulated certain categories of content compelled speech about contentious issues, infringing on its First Amendment rights.

The district court denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. It found that the reporting requirements were commercial in nature and that they survived under a lower level of scrutiny applied to commercial speech regulations. Plaintiff sought review with the Ninth Circuit.

On review, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial and granted the preliminary injunction. The court found that the reporting requirements compelled non-commercial speech and were thus subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment—a much higher standard. Under strict scrutiny, a law is presumed unconstitutional unless the government can show it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The court reasoned that plaintiff was likely to succeed on its claim that AB 587 violated the First Amendment because the law was not narrowly tailored. Less restrictive alternatives could have achieved the government’s goal of promoting transparency in social media content moderation without compelling companies to disclose their opinions on sensitive and contentious categories of speech.

The appellate court held that plaintiff would likely suffer irreparable harm if the law was enforced, as the compelled speech would infringe upon the platform’s First Amendment rights. Furthermore, the court found that the balance of equities and public interest supported granting the preliminary injunction because preventing potential constitutional violations was deemed more important than the government’s interest in transparency. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded the case, instructing the district court to enter a preliminary injunction consistent with its opinion.

X Corp. v. Bonta, 2024 WL 4033063 (9th Cir. September 4, 2024)

Court blocks part of Texas law targeting social media content

Two trade associations – the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice, LLC sued the Attorney General of Texas over a Texas law called House Bill 18 (HB 18), which was designed to regulate social media websites. Plaintiffs, who represented major technology companies such as Google, Meta and X argued that the law violated the First Amendment and other legal protections. They asked the court for a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being enforced while the case continued.

Plaintiffs challenged several key parts of HB 18. Among other things, law required social media companies to verify users’ ages, give parents control over their children’s accounts, and block minors from viewing harmful content. Such content included anything that promoted suicide, self-harm, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. Plaintiffs believed that the law unfairly restricted free speech and would force companies to over-censor online content to avoid penalties. Additionally, they claimed the law was vague, leaving companies confused about how to comply.

Defendant argued that the law was necessary to protect children from harmful content online. He asserted that social media companies were failing to protect minors and that the state had a compelling interest in stepping in. He also argued that plaintiffs were exaggerating the law’s impact on free speech and that the law was clear enough for companies to follow.

The court agreed with plaintiffs on some points but not all. It granted plaintiffs a partial preliminary injunction, meaning parts of the law were blocked from being enforced. Specifically, the court found that the law’s “monitoring-and-filtering” requirements were unconstitutional. These provisions forced social media companies to filter out harmful content for minors, which the court said was too broad and vague to survive legal scrutiny. The court also noted that these requirements violated the First Amendment by regulating speech based on its content. But the court allowed other parts of the law, such as parental control tools and data privacy protections, to remain in place, as they did not give rise to the same free speech issues.

Three reasons why this case matters:

Free Speech Online: This case highlights ongoing debates about how far the government can go in regulating content on social media without infringing on First Amendment rights.
Children’s Safety: While protecting children online is a major concern, the court’s ruling shows the difficulty in balancing safety with the rights of companies and users.
Technology Lawsuits: As states try to pass more laws regulating tech companies, this case sets an important standard for how courts may handle future legal battles over internet regulation.

Computer & Communications Industry Association v. Paxton, — F.Supp.3d —, 2024 WL 4051786 (W.D. Tex., August 30, 2024)