Amazon v. Pionera, out of the Eastern District of California, is notable not for its legal maneuvering, but rather the elaborate scam that was at the center of the dispute.
The plaintiff, Amazon, alleged trademark infringement and cybersquatting against defendant Manoj Goel and his company, Pionera. The defense did not answer the allegations for most of the duration of the trial — until plaintiff Manoj Goel appeared in a pro se capacity to oppose a motion for default judgment.
It was a different story for his corporation, Pionera. Because a corporation is created by law, it is required to be represented by a lawyer when called to court. Goel claimed he could not find an attorney to represent Pionera, which meant it was automatically in default (and cast the shadow of “lousy litigant” over Goel, as well).
For his part, Goel’s response to Amazon’s motion for default judgment was a motion to dismiss, which the judge construed to be his opposition. The scanty motion to dismiss made no legal arguments, indeed, doing little more than plead ignorance and poverty.
So what was Pionera’s and Goel’s sin against Amazon? Pionera, through deceptive ads and domain names, intercepted consumers who were seeking technical support for Ring Doorbells (a subsidiary of Amazon). Despite free technical support being available, the defendant and his company convinced unsuspecting consumers that Ring tech support charged money, which defendants allegedly pocketed.
Eventually, Amazon caught wind of this and hired investigators to impersonate consumers going through the process of buying the superfluous tech support. The representative from Pionera started by getting the investigator to install a remote access tool on their computer. These tools allowed the infiltrator to see the investigator’s desktop and attempt to click on and open files on their computer. The Pionera representative leveraged his newly gained access to grant himself even more access. Once fully set up, Pionera’s computers had the power to do anything on the investigator’s computer — even attempting to activate the camera.
While this was occurring in the background, the representative from Pionera led a voice call with one of the investigators, in which pricing and payment were discussed. The representative had apparently “convinced” the investigator to spend $150 on technical support that already existed for free. They completed the transaction using PayPal invoicing. (Remember the amount of $150.)
In court, Amazon accused Goel and Pionera of engaging in trademark infringement — the use of the identical trademark for purportedly identical services — as well as cybersquatting, for using domain names to falsely assert that Pionera was Amazon.
The plaintiff sought $1.1 million in statutory damages. The judge reminded the parties that just because the defense is in default, it doesn’t mean that the plaintiff automatically gets everything it has demanded. When all of the calculations were done, Amazon was awarded $1.1 million against Manoj Goel and Pionera — which netted $150 from the original scam.
This is a case where a poor and deceptive business practice was caught and punished. I’m not in the business of giving consumer advice, but it would seem logical to seek out free support before paying for it. And it would be also smart to get counsel rather than default, even if your adversary is a behemoth like Amazon.
