Fornix Holdings LLC, et al. v. Unknown Party

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona grants in part plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment in a copyright infringement action involving the website pleasurepixel.com. The court awards $33,000 in statutory damages for infringement of 44 works, permanently enjoins further infringement, and orders measures concerning the domain name, including disabling and transfer-related actions. The court denies plaintiffs’ request for advance permission to conduct post-judgment discovery.

Holdings

1. The Eitel factors, considered together, supported entry of default judgment despite the substantial amount sought and the federal policy favoring decisions on the merits.
2. Plaintiffs established a sufficiently strong claim for copyright infringement by showing copyright ownership and unauthorized copying, display, and distribution of protected works.
3. Plaintiffs were entitled to statutory damages of $750 for each of the 44 infringed works, for a total award of $33,000, rather than the requested $30,000 per work.
4. Plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant and persons acting in concert with it from continuing to infringe plaintiffs' copyrighted works.
5. The court ordered Cloudflare, Inc. and VeriSign, Inc. to disable, lock, and prevent changes to pleasurepixel.com, and directed Cloudflare to transfer the domain name to plaintiffs' ownership and control.
6. Plaintiffs' request for advance permission to conduct post-judgment discovery was denied because such permission was not required for discovery concerning enforcement of the monetary judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Eitel factors supported entry of default judgment against the defendant.
2. Whether plaintiffs established copyright ownership and infringement sufficient to support default judgment.
3. What amount of statutory damages was appropriate for the 44 infringed works.
4. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction against continued infringement.
5. Whether the court could order restrictions on and transfer of the allegedly infringing domain name.
6. Whether plaintiffs required advance court permission to conduct post-judgment discovery.

Disposition

other