Amazon Sues Chinese Business Owner for Trademark Infringement of Fire TV Remotes
Amazon and two subsidiaries sued China resident Li Qiang, Shenzhen Yinxi Electronic Commerce and “John Doe” defendants for trademark infringement of Amazon Fire TV remote controls, said a Monday lawsuit (docket 2:23-cv-01060) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Amazon Technologies brings claims as trademark owner whose rights allegedly have been violated by defendants’ sales of counterfeit products; Amazon.com Services brings claims as owner and operator of the Amazon store and contracting partner whose contracts were breached when defendants sold counterfeit products through their Amazon selling accounts; and Amazon.com brings claims as parent company of the two subsidiaries, said the complaint.
From July 2021 to May 2022, defendants “advertised, marketed, offered, distributed, and sold counterfeit Amazon Fire TV remotes in the Amazon Store,” using the Amazon Smile trademark, without authorization, “to deceive customers about the authenticity and origin of the products and the products’ affiliation with Amazon,” said the complaint.
In so doing, defendants “infringed and misused” Amazon’s intellectual property, breached their contract with Amazon, “willfully deceived and harmed Amazon and its customers,” compromised the integrity of the Amazon store, and “undermined the trust that customers place in Amazon,” the complaint said. Defendants’ actions have caused Amazon to expend “significant resources to investigate and combat” their wrongdoing and bring legal action to prevent future harm to Amazon and its customers, it said.
On June 28, 2022, Amazon examined three samples of Fire TV remotes that the ROMJGTX-REMOTEERA (ROM selling account) had in inventory and was selling in the Amazon store, said the complaint. It determined that each bore a counterfeit Amazon Smile trademark but wasn't manufactured by Amazon or an Amazon licensee, it said. The remotes had “numerous discrepancies from authentic Amazon Fire TV remotes,” it said, citing the external plastic body, buttons, components and construction of the devices' printed circuit board.
Defendant Li Qiang participated in or had the ability to supervise and control the wrongful conduct alleged in the lawsuit related to the ROM selling account and benefited financially from the wrongful conduct, alleged the complaint. Li Qiang also had the ability to supervise and control the wrongful conduct of Shenzhen Yinxi Electronic Commerce, which he owns, the complaint said. Does 1-10, currently unknown to Amazon, are individuals or entities “working in active concert with each other" and the other defendants who “knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, advertise, market, offer, distribute, and sell counterfeit Amazon Fire TV remotes.”
After verifying defendants’ “unlawful sale of counterfeit” Fire TV remotes, Amazon blocked the ROM selling account and issued “full refunds to customers” who bought the purported Amazon Fire TV remotes from defendants, the complaint said.
In addition to trademark infringement and breach of contract, Amazon claims false designation of origin and false advertising, plus violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. It seeks an order permanently enjoining defendants and their agents from selling products in Amazon’s stores; opening an Amazon selling account; importing, advertising or selling copies “or colorable imitation” of Amazon’s brand or trademarks; or abetting anyone else from engaging in similar activities, said the complaint.
Amazon also seeks the impounding and destruction of all counterfeit Fire TV remotes, a complete accounting of all amounts due to Amazon and all legal costs. It seeks an order requiring defendants to pay all general, special and actual damages Amazon has sustained, or will sustain, as a consequence of their "illegal activities," plus their profits from the unlawful conduct, together with statutory damages, it said.