Nifty Home Products v. Ladynana US — Court Awards $400,000 Per Defendant for Willful Copyright Infringement

Background

Nifty Home Products owns the rights associated with the “BACON BIN,” a kitchen product for storing bacon grease. It sued dozens of mostly China-based online sellers for copying product photographs and selling knockoff products through marketplaces including Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Walmart, and Wish.

After an earlier default judgment was vacated on appeal, the district court again entered default judgment on liability in April 2026 but deferred the amount of damages. The October 2 opinion followed an evidentiary hearing focused on statutory damages and the scope of permanent relief.

The Court’s Holding

The court awarded $100,000 for each of four willfully infringed works against each of the 32 remaining defendants—a $400,000 statutory-damages judgment per defendant—and entered a permanent injunction. It declined Nifty’s request for the statutory maximum of $150,000 per work because the infringement period was relatively short, the record lacked cease-and-desist evidence, and Nifty did not present its damages expert at the hearing.

Judge Schwab nevertheless found a substantial award warranted. The defendants’ copying was knowing and commercial; their listings diverted sales and forced Nifty to spend resources policing marketplaces; and unrebutted testimony showed the formerly profitable product line had been severely damaged. The court emphasized both deterrence and the public interest in protecting copyright.

Key Takeaways

• Willfulness permits, but does not automatically justify, the $150,000-per-work statutory maximum.
• A copyright owner seeking enhanced statutory damages should present concrete proof of duration, lost revenue, licensing value, and enforcement costs.
• Defaulting defendants still face significant damages when credible testimony connects widespread online copying to business harm.
• The practical recovery may depend on restrained marketplace funds; the opinion identified approximately $2.2 million held in escrow across the two defendant groups.

Why It Matters

The ruling illustrates how courts calibrate statutory damages in mass online-counterfeiting cases. Even after finding willful infringement and serious market harm, the court selected an amount below the maximum because the proof did not fully quantify losses. Brand owners can use the decision as a reminder that a default establishes liability, but a well-developed damages record remains important.

Full Opinion