Nintendo and Amazon filed a joint lawsuit against a group of counterfeit sellers allegedly selling fake Nintendo products in October 2023. Through the lawsuit, the company learned the seller’s identity, but the seller was unable to respond to the lawsuit. Nintendo and Amazon asked the court in early February to issue a mandatory default ruling and order the seller to pay more than $7 million in damages related to a trademark violation. Seattle District Judge Marsha J. Peckman agreed to an assessment of Nintendo’s situation and awarded him more than $7 million. Sellers are also ordered to stop selling counterfeit products and stop selling counterfeit products or selling products that infringe them under Nintendo’s trademarks on Amazon. Amazon closed the seller’s account before the original complaint was filed in 2023.
“Nintendo will use both internal and external resources to combat counterfeit and infringing products,” the lawyer wrote in the original complaint. “Nintendo is working with third-party brand protection services vendors on detecting and deleting product lists that violate Nintendo IP rights identified and sold at Amazon stores. Nintendo is working regularly with Amazon to identify counterfeit Nintendo products and to enhance auto-detection and removal of products from Amazon stores.”
Nintendo and Amazon initially claimed that the sellers sold products worth at least $2,343,386. This is essentially a lot of Amiibo cards. “() The counterfeiting scheme harmed Nintendo’s reputation and goodwill and caused direct financial harm in the form of losing sales,” the lawyer wrote in a document filed in February attempting to persuade the court to rule a default ruling in support of Amazon and Nintendo. Nintendo and Amazon said in previous documents that statutory damages could technically range between $27,000 and $54,000,000 respectively, but the range of $7,030,158, three times the sales of each seller, would be sufficient.
“This amount is conservative and while the defendant’s misconduct is at the low end of the range of available damages, it is important enough to provide deterrence against future forgery,” the lawyer wrote in February.
