A U.S. intellectual property lawyer living in Japan asked a Washington federal court on Tuesday to dismiss Amazon.com Inc.’s lawsuit accusing him of conspiring with a Chinese company to misuse his legal credentials to bypass U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rules.
Jonathan G. Morton, who is representing himself, argued that Amazon’s case cannot proceed for several reasons, including lack of proper venue, improper service, and failure to plead wrongdoing with sufficient detail.
Morton said he has “no connection whatsoever” to Washington state and has never worked or represented clients there. He argued that the alleged conduct involved legal services performed outside the United States for foreign-based clients and had no meaningful link to Amazon or the Western District of Washington.
“Defendant’s actions were limited to legal services performed outside the U.S. for foreign-based clients, unrelated to plaintiffs,” Morton wrote, adding that Amazon’s claims “do not have sufficient connection to the Western District of Washington to justify venue in this district.”
Morton also argued that Amazon failed to properly serve him with the lawsuit. He said Japan has expressly objected to service through postal channels, yet Amazon attempted to serve him by mail or electronic means, rendering service invalid.
The lawyer further contended that Amazon’s complaint fails to allege misconduct with the required specificity. He said the company did not plead facts showing that he worked in concert with the Chinese company or knowingly participated in filing fraudulent trademark applications.
“Plaintiffs claim that defendant’s actions resulted in damages due to fraudulent trademark registrations,” Morton wrote. “However, there is no evidence that defendant intentionally filed fraudulent applications or intended to cause harm.”
Amazon’s complaint, originally filed in September 2024 and amended in November, relies on conclusory allegations rather than concrete facts, Morton argued. He said Amazon failed to explain how he directly participated in any conspiracy and instead relied on broad assertions and speculation.
Addressing Amazon’s legal malpractice claims, Morton said the company failed to establish that he owed Amazon any duty or that Amazon suffered damages directly caused by his conduct.
“To prevail on a legal malpractice claim, a plaintiff must show negligent conduct and resulting harm,” Morton wrote. “Plaintiffs have failed to provide any factual allegations to support such a claim.”
Amazon alleges that Morton worked with China-based Asin Enterprise Management Consulting Ltd. Co. to fraudulently obtain thousands of trademark registrations. According to the complaint, Morton did not personally prepare or review most of the applications but allowed Asin Enterprise to file them on his behalf with little or no oversight.
Amazon claims some clients were unaware of the alleged misconduct, while others used the trademark registrations to submit more than 5,400 fraudulent takedown notices aimed at removing competing product listings from Amazon’s platform.
Although Amazon says it has safeguards to prevent abuse of its takedown system, it alleges some false notices succeeded, temporarily removing listings and causing harm to Amazon and third-party sellers.
The company sued seeking cancellation of the disputed trademark registrations, an order barring defendants from misusing Amazon’s platform and seller tools, and damages, interest, and attorney fees. Amazon also asked the court to require Asin Enterprise to disable its website and transfer its domain name to the company.
Morton said in a statement Tuesday that Amazon is improperly attempting to link his trademark work for former clients to their alleged conduct on the platform.
“I categorically deny any allegations of conspiracy or coordinated misconduct as described by Amazon,” Morton said. “I did not participate in or knowingly assist any scheme to abuse Amazon’s systems, and the claims suggesting otherwise are unfounded.”
He added that the lawsuit has imposed a significant personal and financial burden and that he looks forward to resolving the matter in court.
Representatives for Amazon did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Amazon is represented by Scott Commerson of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. Morton is representing himself.
The case is Amazon.com Inc. et al. v. Jonathan G. Morton et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01471, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
