## Facts

- Louis Vuitton owned trademarks and copyrighted images used to market its luxury goods.
- Numerous China-based websites sold counterfeit Louis Vuitton goods and displayed infringing marks and images.
- The infringing websites were hosted on servers associated with Akanoc Solutions, Inc., with servers and IP address allocation controlled through Akanoc’s hosting operations; Steven Chen owned/operated Akanoc and an affiliated entity.
- Managed Solutions Group, Inc. owned and leased server hardware but did not operate hosting services in the same manner as Akanoc.
- Louis Vuitton sent at least 18 infringement notices identifying specific domains, IP addresses, and URLs and demanded takedown or disabling of the sites.
- Despite notice, Akanoc and Chen continued providing hosting services and did not effectively disable access to the identified infringing sites, though they had the technical ability to do so.
- A jury found Akanoc, Chen, and MSG liable for contributory trademark and contributory copyright infringement and awarded statutory damages against each defendant.
- The district court granted judgment as a matter of law for MSG, but left the verdict and damages intact against Akanoc and Chen.

## Issues

1. Whether a web-hosting provider and its principal can be liable for contributory trademark infringement when they have specific notice of infringing sites and practical ability to disable them.
2. Whether the same defendants can be liable for contributory copyright infringement based on knowledge of specific infringement and material contribution through continued hosting.
3. Whether the evidence supported contributory liability for an affiliate that owned/leased hardware but did not operate the hosting service.
4. Whether statutory damages were properly structured, including whether the awards could be multiplied per defendant or must be imposed on a joint-and-several basis.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed liability for contributory trademark infringement against Akanoc and Chen.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed liability for contributory copyright infringement against Akanoc and Chen.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment as a matter of law in favor of MSG, finding insufficient evidence of the required knowledge and control.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated the damages judgment and remanded with instructions to enter statutory damages of $10,500,000 (trademark) and $300,000 (copyright) with Akanoc and Chen jointly and severally liable for those totals.

## Legal Principles

- Contributory trademark infringement may be imposed where a defendant, with knowledge or reason to know of infringement, continues supplying services to infringers and exercises direct control over the instrumentality of infringement.
- In the web-hosting context, specific notice of identified infringing sites, coupled with the host’s practical ability to remove content or block access, supports contributory trademark liability.
- Contributory copyright infringement requires knowledge of infringing activity and material contribution; continued provision of hosting services after receiving specific notices can satisfy both elements.
- Ownership or leasing of server hardware alone, without comparable evidence of knowledge and operational control over hosting decisions, may be insufficient for contributory liability.
- Statutory damages for contributory infringement must be structured consistently with the statute; where multiple defendants are responsible for the same infringement, damages may be imposed jointly and severally rather than multiplied per defendant.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a web host and its owner could be liable for contributory trademark and copyright infringement when they received repeated, specific infringement notices yet continued hosting sites they could disable, while affirming no liability for a hardware-owning affiliate lacking comparable knowledge and control and requiring statutory damages to be entered as joint-and-several totals against the liable defendants.


Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Sols., Inc., 658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011)