United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF AMAZON'S MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Amazon.com, Inc.
(“Amazon”)'s Motion for Default Judgment
against Defendants Huang Tengwei, Xie Weiyong, and Adswing
Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively,
“Defendants”). Dkt. #27. On June 5, 2019, the
Court granted Amazon's Motion for Default against
Defendants. Dkt. #23. Amazon now requests $4 million in
statutory damages against Defendants jointly and severally
and a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from
engaging in future trademark infringement. Having reviewed
Amazon's Motion, the supporting documents, and the
remainder of the record, the Court finds good cause to grant
the requested relief in part.
Court accepts the following well-pleaded allegations of
Amazon's Amended Complaint as established fact. See
LHF Prods., Inc. v. Holmes, 2018 WL 3742189, at *2 (W.D.
Wash. Aug. 7, 2018) (citing TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v.
Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)).
of consumers around the world shop on Amazon.com for hundreds
of millions of items. Amazon is one of the most recognized
brands in the world.
describes malicious advertisements that harm consumers and
damage the entire online advertising industry. Malvertising
threatens consumers through a range of harmful actions,
including disrupted user experiences and malware attacks. It
threatens the advertising publishers because users associate
the malvertisements with them. It also directly damages
brands, like Amazon, that malvertisers unlawfully use in an
effort to deceive consumers.
their office in China, Defendants Huang Tengwei
(“Huang”) and Xie Weiyong (“Xie”)
operated a sophisticated and widespread
“malvertising” campaign that harmed Amazon's
customers and damaged Amazon's brand. Huang and Xie
operate under a multitude of company names (some real, some
fictitious), including for example, AdsBays, Tap My Traffic,
Adbooming, and Adscompanion.
Huang and Xie hijacked the legitimate online advertising
process by injecting malicious code into advertisements
published on popular websites. Defendants'
malvertisements forcibly redirected victims from their
desired websites to a website controlled by Defendants
replete with Amazon's trademarks and other indications of
Amazon's brand. Defendants intentionally designed this
website to deceive victims into believing it was affiliated
with Amazon to entice victims to click through. Defendants
then sold the generated traffic to online marketing
operates its own advertising service. The abuse of
Amazon's brand was central to Defendants'
malvertising scheme, and Defendants' actions directly
harmed consumers. Amazon's products and services are
readily identifiable to consumers around the world because of
the company's substantial investment of time, money, and
other resources in Amazon's brand, including exclusive
ownership of numerous federally registered and
registration-pending trademarks including the following marks
at issue in this case: AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, the Amazon logo,
and the abbreviated “a” Amazon logo as pictured
in the Amended Complaint. See Dkt. #11 at 5-6.
Huang Tengwei and Defendant Xie Weiyong are individuals who
likely reside in China. Dkt. #29 (“Williams
Decl.”), ¶ 4. Defendant Adswing Technology Co.,
Ltd. (“Adswing”) is a company registered in Hong
Kong, China, and owned by Xie. Id.
stated above, Amazon alleges that Defendants engaged in an
online advertising scheme that deceived online consumers
using Amazon's name and marks. See Dkt. #27 at
5-7 (citing Amended Complaint). Further evidence to support
these allegations come in the form of a declaration from an
Amazon employee, Jason A. Roe, who states that he has
reviewed “numerous” complaints Amazon has
received about this malvertizing scheme. Dkt. #30 at ¶
3. These complaints are not attached as exhibits. Mr. Roe
references and quotes from eight customer complaints.
Id. at ¶ 4 - 11.
also includes a declaration of a strategic brand analyst and
investigator named Nate Hall who details how the malvertizing
scheme worked on a technical level. Dkt. #31. Through the use
of Amazon's name and marks, Defendants directed duped
online users to a New York-based marketing company called
Fluent, Inc. that purchased this traffic. Id. at
¶ 11. Mr. Hall states that “[b]ased upon my review
of records provided by Fluent and my investigation,
Defendants referred over 800, 000 unique victims to Fluent
through Defendants' AdsBays account alone” and that
“[b]ased on my experience as an investigator, the
number of victims who received Defendants'
malvertisements… is far greater than 800, 000 because
not every victim who viewed Defendants' Landing Page
completed the survey.” Id. at 14-15.
Court previously granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(f)(3) and (h)(2) to serve Defendants by
registered electronic mail to the ...