On November 4, 2021, a California federal jury found that Redbubble did not infringe any of videogame maker Atari's trademarks or copyrights, in a case that may affect future infringement suits against online retailers that permit users to sell products on their platforms. The case dates to 2018 when Atari filed its complaint alleging that Redbubble knowingly infringed upon Atari's intellectual property rights by creating, manufacturing, and distributing counterfeit Atari clothing and printed materials. Redbubble hosts an online store platform where artists can upload designs that are printed on apparel, homeware, or other accessories, and sold through the artist's Redbubble storefront. Atari's complaint included claims of trademark infringement and counterfeiting, copyright infringement, trademark dilution, contributory copyright and trademark infringement, and vicarious copyright and trademark infringement, due to the sale of t-shirts, and other apparel and merchandise, that featured the iconic Atari logo and designs that featured famous Atari games such as Pong and Asteroids.
In January 2021, on motions for summary judgment, Atari failed to convince the court that there were sufficient facts to prove that Redbubble had "sold" goods that infringed Atari's trademarks, or that Redbubble had instigated any copying, storage, or distribution of images that infringed Atari's copyrights. Further, Atari's claims of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement were denied because Redbubble had, at least until the lawsuit was filed, no knowledge or notice of infringing material on its platform, and once it was notified by Atari through the complaint, removed all the identified listings. At trial, the jury was tasked with determining whether Redbubble had directly infringed Atari's trademarks and copyrights, and whether it was liable for vicarious and contributory trademark infringement. After less than a day's deliberation, the jury found it had not.
In a blow for Atari, and possibly other mark owners who experience trademark infringement on Redbubble, the jury found that Redbubble did not, for the purpose of infringement, sell infringing products, but rather it was the individual designers who were selling the infringing items. Nor did the jury find that Redbubble had sufficient knowledge or control of what third-parties are selling on its platform for it to be liable for contributory or vicarious trademark infringement. It remains to be seen if Atari will appeal the verdict.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
