Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Timeless Production FZ LLC produces videos and thumbnails for the Tekniq YouTube channel and alleges it owns registered copyrights in five videos and one thumbnail. It sued Pham Tien Dong, an individual in Vietnam alleged to be involved in operating the WOW Tech and WOW TV channels. The complaint alleges that between January 2024 and April 2025 Pham posted the works in his own videos without permission, removed Tekniq's logo from the clips and replaced it with his own modifications, and, after takedown notices, sent YouTube counter-notifications claiming the videos were his own content. Because Pham defaulted, the court accepted the non-damages allegations as true.
After repeated failed attempts at service, the court authorized service through the email address Pham supplied with his counter-notices. He never appeared, and default was entered in March 2026. This was the third default-judgment motion; the first two were denied without prejudice to cure deficiencies. The court found federal question jurisdiction over the copyright claims and supplemental jurisdiction over a California unfair competition claim. It found personal jurisdiction because each counter-notice contained a statement consenting to jurisdiction in the federal district where YouTube is located, which it treated as valid for the copyright dispute, following another judge in the district. Email service under Rule 4(f)(3) was proper.
The Court’s Holding
Weighing the Eitel factors claim by claim, the court granted default judgment on Count I (copyright infringement), Count III (removal or alteration of copyright management information under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b)(1)) and Count VII (knowing misrepresentation in DMCA counter-notices under § 512(f)). Prejudice to the plaintiff and the absence of excusable neglect favored judgment. The amount at stake and the possibility of disputed facts were neutral, the latter because Pham never responded. The policy favoring merits decisions weighed against judgment but was not dispositive. The court understood the counter-notice claim to cover four of the five videos.
The court denied the motion and dismissed the remaining counts. Count II (falsification of CMI) failed because the plaintiff did not explain any § 1202 violation beyond subsection (b)(1). Count IV (public display) was unaddressed in the motion and appeared duplicative, so it was dismissed to the extent it is independent. On Count V (UCL), the court weighed the factors against judgment because the motion ignored Copyright Act preemption and relied on the same facts as the copyright claims, though it did not issue a full preemption ruling. Count VI (willful infringement) is not a standalone claim, but willfulness was considered for damages. The order does not say whether the dismissals are with or without prejudice.
The court denied actual damages for lack of evidence, and it denied the requests for a permanent injunction, impoundment, an asset freeze and a subpoena to Google as inadequately supported. It awarded $177,500 in statutory damages: five times the $750 minimum per work for each month of display up to the complaint date, plus CMI damages for the five videos but not the thumbnail. The order's per-video totals imply $10,000 in CMI damages per video, more than its stated two-times-$2,500 formula, but the stated total is $177,500. Fees and costs under § 512(f) remain open, with a motion due November 2, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A statement consenting to jurisdiction in YouTube's federal district, contained in a DMCA counter-notice, supported personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant on the copyright claims.
- Willful infringement is an enhancement to damages, not an independent cause of action, but well-pleaded willfulness allegations are credited at default.
- A default does not relieve a plaintiff of the burden to address each claim; unaddressed or poorly supported counts, here the UCL, public display and falsification claims, were not carried by the default.
- Injunctions, impoundment, asset freezes and discovery requests need specific legal and evidentiary support even against a defaulting defendant.
- The judgment is not yet final in practice, since the fee and cost motion is still pending.
Why It Matters
This unpublished district-court order has no binding precedential weight, but it shows how a Northern District judge handles default against an overseas YouTube infringer. It leans on the consent-to-jurisdiction language the DMCA counter-notice process requires and on court-ordered email service.
It also shows a court building a damages formula from sparse evidence, using months of display and a willfulness multiplier, while declining to reward vague requests for equitable relief. The mismatch between the stated CMI formula and the per-video totals could matter if the amount is later challenged or clarified.