Federal Circuit backs Amazon in pillowcase row
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld a lower court ruling that cleared Amazon of copyright and trademark infringement claims that had been brought by a pillowcase designer.
In a ruling handed down yesterday, May 23, the Federal Circuit rejected Seattle-based Milo & Gabby’s appeal.
According to the judgment, the US District Court for the Western District of Washington did not err when it dismissed the company’s claim in July 2015.
Milo & Gabby had accused Amazon of allowing “direct knockoff copies” of its animal-shaped pillowcases to be sold by third parties online.
By allowing third parties to use images of the pillowcases, Amazon had infringed its copyright, the company claimed.
It added that Amazon was also liable for trademark infringement because the images contained the name of the company.
However, in its ruling, the Washington court found that Milo & Gabby only obtained a trademark for its name in 2014, a year after the suit had been filed, and that Amazon could be protected from a copyright claim under safe harbour provisions outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The lower court said the content of the pages was supplied by third parties and did not originate from Amazon.
In yesterday’s decision, a three-judge Federal Circuit panel agreed and said Milo & Gabby had “failed to provide any reason” to find that Amazon was a seller of the pillowcases.
“Because the third-party sellers retain title to the pillowcases at all times and Amazon merely provides an online marketplace … Amazon is not a seller in this case for the purposes of copyright infringement,” the judgment said.
The court also dismissed Milo & Gabby’s claims regarding palming off (also referred to as passing off).
It said the company only raised arguments regarding palming off violations for the first time when it responded to Amazon’s motion for summary judgment.
Amazon’s motion was filed in 2013 after Milo & Gabby first filed its complaint.
According to the Federal Circuit, Milo & Gabby’s initial complaint specified a false designation of origin claim and not a palming off claim.
“A false designation of origin claim is broader than a palming off claim,” the Federal Circuit said.
The court said Milo & Gabby’s broad allegations under the umbrella of a false designation of origin claim would not provide Amazon notice that it was pursuing a palming off claim.
“Because we conclude that the complaint’s general allegations regarding a false designation of origin claim did not put Amazon on notice of an intent to pursue a palming off claim, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this claim,” the court wrote.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox
Today’s top stories
Disney asks judge to toss out 'Zootopia' copyright claim
