IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—W.D. Wash.: Ergo and Amazon obtain permanent injunction to stop sale of counterfeit baby products, (Jul 6, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

District court granted the request for a default judgment and permanent injunction in favor of Ergo and Amazon.

The federal district court in Seattle, Washington determined that Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. (plaintiffs) were entitled to default judgment on the merits of their Lanham Act trademark claims, claims for false designation of origin and violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA) against Rojas and Watson (Defaulted Defendants) for selling counterfeit and infringing products in Amazon’s stores. The district court further held that plaintiffs are also entitled to permanent injunction because they satisfied the four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief (Amazon.com, Inc. v. Bartley, No. 2:24-cv-01188-KKE (W.D. Wash. Jun. 30, 2026)).

Background. The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. (Ergo) created and designed babywearing carriers sold by more than 700 retailers in the United States and more than 50 other countries. Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC (collectively Amazon), and Ergo (together, plaintiffs) alleged that a collection of individuals and entities (defendants) who conspired and operated in concert with each other to engage in the counterfeiting scheme sold counterfeit Ergo products in Amazon’s store. The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that between May 5, 2021, and February 7, 2024, the defendants, advertised, marketed, offered, distributed, and/or sold counterfeit Ergo-branded products via multiple Amazon Selling Accounts, using marks owned by Ergo (Ergobaby Trademarks) without authorization to deceive customers about the authenticity and origin of the products and the products’ affiliation with Ergo. Ergo asserted claims for trademark counterfeiting and infringement against all the defendants. All plaintiffs also brought claims against all the defendants for false designation of origin and for violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The plaintiffs also brought contributory trademark infringement and contributory false designation of origin claims against Watson. Amazon.com Services LLC (Amazon Services) separately brought a breach of contract claim against Rojas. The Business Solutions Agreement (BSA) between Amazon and Rojas provides that Amazon may bring claims related to counterfeit products in the “Governing Courts,” and the BSA defines “Governing Courts” as any state or federal court in King County, Washington. The plaintiffs’ have dismissed their claims against some of the defendants. However, defendants Sebastian Gonzales Rojas and Seymour Watson (Defaulted Defendants) doing business as Ethanmour Holdings LLC have not appeared or otherwise defended this action, and the Court entered orders of default against them. The plaintiffs seek a default judgment and permanent injunction against the Defaulted Defendants.

Default judgment. The court found that all seven factors enumerated in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) weighed in favor of its entering default judgment. In this case, the Defaulted Defendants failed to respond to or otherwise defend against the plaintiffs’ complaint, so without a default judgment, the plaintiffs would have no recourse. Therefore, the first Eitel factor favored a default judgment.

The court found that Ergo owns the Ergobaby Trademarks, and the Defaulted Defendants used the counterfeit Ergobaby marks without Ergo’s consent in commerce. Additionally, as the products sold or distributed by the Defaulted Defendants are counterfeit, they are likely to confuse or deceive as to the origin of the goods. Therefore, the second and third Eitel factors favored a default judgment for Ergo on its claims for trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and false designation of origin. The court noted the Amazon alleged that Rojas’s deceptive acts jeopardized its customers’ trust in Amazon, tarnished Amazon’s brand and reputation, and harmed Amazon and its customers. Since Amazon stated a claim against Rojas for false designation of origin and the court also found that the second and third Eitel factors favored a default judgment on this claim.

The plaintiffs alleged that Watson intentionally supplied products to other defendants bearing counterfeit Ergobaby Trademarks, and that Watson knew, intended, and encouraged other defendants to resell those products in Amazon’s store, where he knew those products would mislead and confuse customers and wrongfully trade on Ergo’s goodwill and business reputation. Therefore, the plaintiffs stated claims against Watson for contributory trademark infringement and contributory false designation of origin, and the court found that the second and third Eitel factors favored a default judgment on these claims. As the court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated their trademark infringement claim and false designation of origin claims, and alleged that the Defaulted Defendants used counterfeit versions of the Ergobaby marks that are inherently confusing, the court found that the plaintiffs stated a claim for violation of the CPA as well. Therefore, the second and third Eitel factors favoured a default judgment for the plaintiffs on the CPA claim.

The court also noted that Amazon Services sufficiently stated its claim for breach of contract because Rojas’s sale of counterfeit Ergobaby-branded products constituted a material breach of the BSA. Thus, the second and third Eitel factors favored a default judgment for Amazon Services on its breach of contract claim.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Defaulted Defendants willfully infringed Ergo’s trademarks and sold a total of $91,599.00 of counterfeit products in Amazon’s store. The amounts Plaintiffs seek to recover are substantial, but proportional to the scale of the misconduct alleged, and therefore the court found that the fourth Eitel factor favored entry of a default judgment. Further, as the Defaulted Defendants failed to appear or otherwise respond, they failed to rebut the plaintiffs’ allegations or evidence provided to support their claims. Therefore, given that no dispute of material facts was apparent, the court found that the fifth Eitel factor favored entry of a default judgment.

For the sixth Eitel factor, because the plaintiffs submitted evidence to support their attempts to serve the Defaulted Defendants, and yet they made no apparent effort to respond by the deadline and the court found them to be in default, the sixth Eitel factor favoured entry of a default judgment.

For the seventh Eitel factor, the court addressed the strong policy preference in favor of resolution of the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits. However, a defendant’s failure to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint makes a decision on the merits impractical, if not impossible. Thus, although the court’s preference for resolving issues on their merits weighs against entry of a default judgment, this factor was outweighed by the other Eitel factors. Accordingly, the court found that the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment must be granted.

Damages. Ergo sought to recover statutory damages from the Defaulted Defendants who acted willfully by intentionally causing customer confusion regarding the origin and authenticity of the products sold. The court found that the statutory damages requested by Ergo will compensate it for the harm caused by the Defaulted Defendants’ conduct, punish them for that conduct, and deter similar conduct in the future. Amazon alleged that it incurred losses in refunding customers that were caused by Rojas’s sale of counterfeit products and Watson’s supply of counterfeit products and submitted evidence showing that these losses were foreseeable to Rojas as he agreed to reimburse them in the BSA and to Watson because he recruited others specifically to sell in Amazon’s store. Accordingly, the court concluded that Ergo is entitled to statutory damages, and amazon is entitled to actual damages.

Permanent injunction. The court conducted its analysis according to the four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006), in which a party seeking a permanent injunction must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the [parties], a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. The court noted that a finding that Ergo’s trademark has been infringed creates a rebuttable presumption that it suffered an irreparable injury. Amazon also alleged that selling or facilitating the sale of counterfeit products in its store irreparably harms its business, reputation, and goodwill. The plaintiffs also satisfied the second element because they showed that remedies at law are inadequate to compensate for their irreparable injury. Generally, monetary damages alone are inadequate to remedy trademark infringement, but the plaintiffs alleged damage to their businesses, reputations, and goodwill that cannot be fully resolved via monetary damages.

The court noted that there is no legitimate interest in selling counterfeit products. Therefore, there is no hardship for the Defaulted Defendants in this case. On the other hand, there are substantial threats to the plaintiffs’ business reputation if the court did not enjoin the Defaulted Defendants’ illegal actions. Thus, the balance of hardship tips was in favor of the plaintiffs. Lastly, the plaintiffs satisfied the fourth element, because a permanent injunction will benefit the public by preventing likelihood of confusion to consumers and minimizing the risk of purchasing fraudulent merchandise. Thus, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction against the Defaulted Defendants.

The Case is No. 2:24-cv-01188-KKE.

Judge: Evanson, K.

Attorneys: Scott R. Commerson (Davis Wright Tremaine LLP) for Amazon.com Inc. Shanece Malena Dedeaux (Dedeaux Law PLLC) for Michael Bartley.

Companies: Amazon.com Inc.; The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc.

Cases: Trademark WashingtonNews