FOLLOW US

CALIFORNIA — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated AirDoctor’s request for $2.5 million in damages against a competitor who sold counterfeit air filters using its trademarks, ruling Friday that a default judgment does not require the plaintiff to name a specific damages amount in the initial complaint to seek actual damages.

The published 13-page opinion reverses a 2023 ruling by U.S. District Judge George H. Wu, who had denied AirDoctor’s damages request after Xiamen Qichuang Trade Co. Ltd. failed to appear in the case. The default judgment came after AirDoctor accused the Chinese firm of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising under the Lanham Act and California state law.

The AirDoctor trademark default judgment dispute centers on copycat filters that Xiamen allegedly sold on Amazon between December 2021 and June 2022, advertising them as compatible with AirDoctor purifiers and misusing the marks "AIRDOCTOR" and "ULTRAHEPA". More than 43,000 units were sold, according to the complaint.

Judgment Reinstated Despite No Fixed Dollar Figure

AirDoctor originally sought various types of damages “to be proven at trial,” without listing a specific figure. The company later requested $2.5 million in actual damages and $50,000 in attorney fees following the default judgment. Judge Wu rejected the request, citing Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which prohibits default judgments from exceeding the scope of what was demanded in the pleadings.

But the Ninth Circuit held that AirDoctor’s damage claim was valid, as it clearly requested actual damages in its complaint — even if the precise figure was deferred until trial.

“Rule 54(c) does not prohibit awarding actual damages under these circumstances,” the court wrote. “Plaintiff's request for actual damages in its motion for default judgment is consistent with its request in the complaint.”

Citing Precedent: Henry v. Sneiders

The panel referenced the 1974 Ninth Circuit ruling in Henry v. Sneiders, where the court upheld a similar award despite no specific damages being listed in the pleadings. In that case, the plaintiff sought additional damages for breach of contract “to be proved at trial,” and the award of over $235,000 was permitted.

The court applied the same logic to AirDoctor’s complaint. “Omitting a numerical damages demand but requesting an amount to be determined at trial… is not equivalent to demanding zero dollars,” wrote Judge Matthew Kennelly in a concurring opinion.