FOLLOW US

In a significant legal development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reinstated AirDoctor’s $2.5 million damages bid in its ongoing trademark infringement suit against Xiamen Qichuang Trade Co. Ltd., following a default judgment in favor of AirDoctor.

The ruling revives AirDoctor’s pursuit of actual damages and attorney fees after a California federal judge initially denied the request, citing procedural concerns. The Ninth Circuit's decision clarifies that a plaintiff is not barred from seeking damages simply because a specific dollar amount was not stated in the original complaint.

In its 13-page published opinion, the 9th Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling, affirming that AirDoctor’s request for actual damages in its motion for default judgment aligns with its original claims in the complaint.

“This ruling underscores a critical interpretation of Rule 54(c), reaffirming that default judgments may still include damages proven at trial—even when no specific figure is listed in the initial pleadings,” the opinion stated.

The case centers on AirDoctor’s allegations that Xiamen Qichuang sold over 43,000 counterfeit replacement air filters on Amazon between December 2021 and June 2022. These filters were falsely marketed as compatible with or equivalent to AirDoctor's high-quality purifiers and misused AirDoctor’s registered trademarks, “AIRDOCTOR” and “ULTRAHEPA.”

Despite Xiamen’s failure to respond or appear in the case, the initial district court decision held that AirDoctor's request for $2.5 million exceeded the scope of the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c). The Ninth Circuit, however, rejected that interpretation, referencing its own precedent in Henry v. Sneiders (1974) to support the legitimacy of damages to be determined at trial.

In a concurring opinion, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly emphasized that Rule 54(c) does not require a plaintiff to include a specific monetary demand and affirmed that requesting an amount "to be proven at trial" is both common and permissible.

The case has now been remanded for further proceedings, where AirDoctor will once again pursue its $2.5 million damages claim and $50,000 in legal fees under the Lanham Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law.

AirDoctor is represented by Peter Farnese of Farnese PC and Ashly E. Sands of Epstein Drangel LLP.