Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V.
Filing
76
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Hon. William Alsup denying 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
PERFECT 10, INC.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
No. C 12-01521 WHA
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
YANDEX N.V.,
Defendant.
/
The facts of this copyright-infringement action has been discussed in prior orders (Dkt.
17
Nos. 24, 73). Now, Perfect 10, Inc. moves for a preliminary injunction. Specifically, Perfect
18
requests that Yandex N.V. be enjoined from making copies of Perfect’s images, linking to those
19
images in infringing websites, offering full-size of those images, and placing ads next to those
20
images. For the reasons stated below, Perfect’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.
21
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish (1) that he is likely to
22
succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
23
preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in
24
the public interest.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2011). There is
25
no presumption of irreparable harm for copyright infringement. Id. at 981. A plaintiff must
26
establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense
27
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 21 (2008). “[E]conomic injury alone does not support a finding of
28
1
irreparable harm, because such injury can be remedied by a damage award.” Rent-A-Center, Inc.
2
v. Canyon Television and Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991).
3
In Perfect 10 v. Google, our court of appeals affirmed District Judge Howard Matz’s
4
denial of Perfect’s request for preliminary injunction against Google on very similar facts. 653
5
F.3d at 979–82, cert. denied, — S.Ct. —, 2012 WL 685778 (2012). More precisely, our court of
6
appeals held that Perfect had not established that irreparable harm was caused by Google’s
7
search engines, webcrawlers, storage of images, and hyperlinking to images hosted on other
8
servers. Id. at 978. Our court of appeals held that there was no irreparable harm because: (1)
9
Perfect was never in sound financial shape during its 15 years of operation, (2) other search
engines contributed to making Perfect’s images available on third-party websites, and (3) there
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
was no evidence that subscribers ceased paying for Perfect’s service because of Google’s
12
services. Id. at 981–82. Our court of appeals held that it was insufficient for Perfect merely to
13
show that the number of its images on Google’s services increased in the past five years, that
14
Perfect’s revenues have been declining for the past ten years, and that Perfect was very close to
15
bankruptcy. Id. at 981.
16
So too here. Perfect has failed to establish a causal relationship between its serious
17
financial woes and the alleged infringement. There is insufficient proof that the accused search
18
engines in this action, which are nearly identical to those accused in Perfect 10 v. Google, will
19
likely destroy Perfect’s business model and threaten it with financial ruin. As noted by our court
20
of appeals, Perfect has never been in “sound financial shape” and there continues to be other
21
search engines that allegedly make Perfect’s images available on third-party websites. To sum
22
up, Perfect’s allegations of irreparable harm in this action have already been rejected by our
23
court of appeals. Nothing indicates that injunctive relief against Yandex N.V. will help alleviate
24
Perfect’s financial troubles.
25
Moreover, Perfect has not established a likelihood of success on the merits against
26
Yandex N.V., a holding company that does not formally own the infringing websites. Perfect
27
argues that Yandex N.V. is liable for infringement because it controls the accused search engines
28
and websites (Br. 6). But Perfect has acknowledged that Yandex N.V. is a Dutch holding
2
1
company that does not itself formally own or operate the accused search engines and websites
2
(Dkt. No. 21 at 11–14; Dkt. No. 58; see also Dkt. No. 24 at 1–2; Dkt. No. 17-2 at ¶ 6). Instead,
3
non-party Yandex LLC, a Russian subsidiary of Yandex N.V., owns the allegedly infringing
4
websites at issue in this action (Dkt. No. 17-4 at Exhs. 1–4). Perfect has not yet met its burden
5
of showing that the corporate forms of the Yandex LLC and Yandex N.V. should be pierced for
6
purposes of this preliminary-injunction motion. Contrary to Perfect, it is insufficient that a
7
couple of Yandex N.V.’s SEC filings refer to Yandex N.V. and its subsidiaries as jointly
8
engaged in the search-engine business. Our court of appeals has held that “references in the
9
parent’s annual report to subsidiaries or chains of subsidiaries as divisions of the parent company
do not establish the existence of an alter ego relationship,” Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
928 (9th Cir. 2001), and “[t]he mere fact of sole ownership and control does not eviscerate the
12
separate corporate identity that is the foundation of corporate law.” Katzir’s Floor & Home
13
Design, Inc. v. MMLS.com, 394 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2004).*
14
For the reasons stated, Perfect’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated: September 5, 2012.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
* Yandex LLC, the Russian subsidiary, should not be confused with Yandex Inc., the Californian
subsidiary. Yandex Inc., which does not own the accused websites, was recently found to be an agent of
defendant Yandex N.V. for purposes of personal jurisdiction only (Dkt. No. 73).
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?