That is an IP enforcement motion towards a print-on-demand service referred to as Printify. Printify facilitates interactions between retailers who create new gadgets to promote (utilizing storefronts like Etsy, Shopify, or eBay) and third-party printers/producers. Printify doesn’t course of client purchases for its retailers (besides in its “Pop-Up Outlets” providing) and doesn’t show its model on any manufactured gadgets.
After acquiring an ex parte TRO (what?), Atari sought a preliminary injunction, which the courtroom denies as a result of “Atari has not proven that it’s prone to succeed on the deserves.”
Direct Trademark Infringement. Atari argued that Printify bought infringing gadgets. Printify claimed to be “a passive facilitator of orders by retailers.” In assist of Printify’s place, the courtroom summarizes:
Printify doesn’t design the merchandise, doesn’t manufacture or print the merchandise, and doesn’t ship the merchandise. The merchandise are quality-checked by the third-party printer and Printify claims that it engages in routine monitoring solely to make sure that the printer is mostly as much as Printify’s requirements. Except for the “small proportion” of retailers who use Printify Pop-Up Outlets, the merchandise will not be bought on Printify-operated web sites.
Noting that Atari misplaced a jury trial towards RedBubble, the courtroom says that Printify is in a extra favorable place than RedBubble:
Clients buy items straight on Redbubble’s web site and the order arrives with Redbubble tags in Redbubble packaging. This differs considerably from Printify. The overwhelming majority of Printify clients buy straight from the service provider, the orders don’t arrive in Printify packaging, and Printify doesn’t in any other case “identif[y] the products as its personal.” Clients undergo the complete buy course of—from shopping to ordering to receiving supply—with none information that the order is being facilitated by Printify. Notably, although the proof of Redbubble having “used” Atari’s trademark was stronger in Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Redbubble, Inc. than it’s right here, the jury in that case discovered towards Atari when the motion went to trial.
The courtroom distinguishes the HD v. Sunfrog resolution:
there isn’t a proof on this file that Printify engages in any promoting or trains or encourages anybody to make use of infringing designs. As well as, the proof does replicate that Printify doesn’t personal or function any printers, doesn’t deal with the merchandise after printing, and doesn’t ship or affix its emblem to any merchandise.
Accordingly, the courtroom says that Printify isn’t “utilizing” Atari’s marks and is extra like a “passive facilitator.”
Contributory Trademark Infringement. The courtroom says that Printify took acceptable steps when it realized of infringing gadgets by way of Atari’s lawsuit:
First, Printify searched its personal database for the 70 URLs recognized by Atari in ECF No. 28-1 as linking to service provider web sites with probably infringing merchandise. Printify manually reviewed a pattern of practically 60,000 of these retailers’ product gross sales and faraway from its database the 37 merchandise that it recognized as probably infringing. As well as, Printify proactively searched its database for key phrases equivalent to “Atari,” manually reviewed the outcomes, and eliminated any extra probably infringing makes use of from the database….As soon as a product has been faraway from the database, the service provider is unable to position orders with Printify for these merchandise.
Discover that Atari didn’t ship takedown notices earlier than suing (and securing an ex parte TRO). This gives one other information level supporting my declare that the notice-and-takedown scheme is more and more failing.
Additionally, this ruling doesn’t absolve both the retailers or the printers from legal responsibility. Nevertheless, the courtroom’s ruling makes it tougher to increase any legal responsibility these entities face to Printify. Thus, that is one other favorable ruling for print-on-demand providers which might be narrowly designed as matching facilitators.
About that TRO... The courtroom summarizes the proceedings:
Atari initially moved for an ex parte TRO, which the Court docket granted on October 24, 2023. In that TRO, the Court docket granted Atari’s request to freeze Printify’s belongings primarily based on Atari’s ex parte illustration that Printify “possible will disguise or transfer their ill-gotten funds to offshore financial institution accounts” and is “prone to take no matter motion they will to cover, transfer, conceal, or probably squander belongings to keep away from enforcement as quickly as they discover out about this swimsuit.” After being notified by monetary establishments that its accounts have been frozen, Printify agreed to a joint stipulation modifying the TRO to take away the asset freeze provisions. There isn’t a proof on this file that Printify ever meant to cover or transfer its belongings to offshore financial institution accounts.
HOLD UP. 🛑 Learn that final sentence once more. The courtroom says plainly that there was **by no means** any assist for Atari’s assertion that Printify meant to dissipate or expatriate funds. Then how did Atari get a TRO? The reply is dispiriting. It seems Atari made bogus claims to the courtroom when requesting the TRO, the courtroom purchased Atari’s claims with none requiring adequate supporting proof or in any other case critically scrutinizing the request, and now Atari’s ruse has been uncovered.
Worse, after the courtroom heard from Printify, the courtroom now realizes that Atari’s claims have been all the time meritless and by no means ought to have supported a TRO. Regardless of this, the choose describes this example with out expressing any anger at Atari for its overclaims or embarrassment at having been performed by Atari. The choose’s quiescence concerning the clearly misguided TRO is a part of the rationale SAD Scheme instances are so arduous to curb–judges hardly ever need to publicly admit they made a nasty ruling, even when that turns into obvious from subsequent proceedings. The opinion doesn’t tackle any steps by Printify to remediate any hurt attributable to the bogus ex parte TRO, although I hope they maintain Atari accountable for its overclaims.
Extra usually, this case demonstrates but once more how rightsowners misuse ex parte TROs and the way judges battle to correctly police these requests with out steering from defendants. Ex parte TROs are a identified hotspot for avoidable judicial errors, which is a superb motive to not concern them. Worse, within the context of the SAD Scheme, improper TROs set off devastating penalties that gained’t essentially be mounted in additional case proceedings. I really feel like there was a time within the not-too-distant previous when ex parte TROs have been seen as actually extraordinary outcomes, however over time (at the very least within the IP context) they’re more and more seen as odd and routine. That should change, with Congressional intervention if crucial.
Case Quotation: Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Printify, Inc., 2024 WL 283641 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2024)
Associated posts
* Ninth Circuit Highlights the Messy Law of Contributory Trademark Infringement Online–YYGM v. RedBubble
* RedBubble Gets Another Favorable Ruling–YZ Productions v. RedBubble
* IP Lawsuits Against Print-on-Demand Vendors Continue to Vex the Courts–OSU v. Redbubble & More
* Another Tough Ruling for Print-on-Demand Vendors–Sid Avery v. Pixels
* Print-on-Demand Vendor Doesn’t Qualify for DMCA Safe Harbor–Feingold v. RageOn
* CreateSpace Isn’t Liable for Publishing Allegedly Infringing Uploaded Book–King v. Amazon
* More Evidence That Print-on-Demand Vendors May Be Doomed–Greg Young Publishing v. Zazzle
* Section 230 Doesn’t Protect Print-on-Demand Vendor–Atari v. Sunfrog
* Online Marketplace Defeats Trademark Suit Because It’s Not the “Seller”–OSU v. Redbubble
* Zazzle Loses Copyright Jury Verdict, and That’s Bad News for Print-on-Demand Publishers–Greg Young Publishing v. Zazzle
* Trademark Injunction Issued Against Print-on-Demand Website–Harley Davidson v. SunFrog
* DMCA Safe Harbor Doesn’t Protect Zazzle’s Printing of Physical Items–Greg Young Publishing v. Zazzle
* CafePress May Not Qualify For 512 Safe Harbor – Gardner v. CafePress
* Cafepress Suffers Potentially Significant Trademark Loss for Users’ Uploaded Designs
* Life May Be “Rad,” But This Trademark Lawsuit Isn’t–Williams v. CafePress.com
* Print-on-Demand “Publisher” Isn’t Liable for Book Contents–Sandler v. Calcagni
* Griper Selling Anti-Walmart Items Through CafePress Doesn’t Infringe or Dilute–Smith v. Wal-Mart
* CaféPress Denied 230 Motion to Dismiss–Curran v. Amazon