Bee Cups v. Online Sellers — Court Awards $472,878 for Copyright Infringement

Background

Bee Cups LLC brought a copyright suit against a large group of online sellers identified in an exhibit to its complaint. The public docket describes the defendants as individuals, businesses, and unincorporated associations operating through online storefronts. Bee Cups alleged that the sellers used its copyrighted product photographs and video media without authorization in connection with products marketed online.

The case began in March 2025 and proceeded against defendants who did not answer or otherwise defend the claims. It was referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings and recommendations. In August 2026, the magistrate judge recommended entering default judgment, granting a permanent injunction, and awarding the filing fee. A second report in September recommended $472,878 in actual damages against the remaining defaulting defendants.

No objections were filed to either report. That meant District Judge Jeremy Kernodle reviewed the factual findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and the legal conclusions to determine whether they were contrary to law, rather than conducting the de novo review that a timely objection would have required.

The Court’s Holding

The court adopted both reports and recommendations in full. It granted Bee Cups’ motion for default judgment and awarded $472,878 in actual damages plus the $405 filing fee. The damages run jointly and severally against the defaulting defendants, allowing Bee Cups to collect the award from any combination of those defendants while preventing recovery above the total judgment.

The court also entered a permanent injunction. The defaulting defendants may not infringe Bee Cups’ copyright registrations or use Bee Cups’ media without authorization. The order does not set out a new rule of copyright law; its significance lies in the remedy and in the court’s adoption of a substantial actual-damages award in a multi-defendant online-infringement action.

Because the ruling is a default judgment, it was not the product of a contested trial over infringement or damages. The defendants’ failure to appear left the court to evaluate Bee Cups’ submissions and the magistrate judge’s recommendations without adversarial objections. The order nevertheless creates an enforceable money judgment and permanent restrictions against the identified defaulting sellers.

Key Takeaways

• Online sellers that ignore a copyright complaint can face both a substantial damages award and a permanent injunction.
• The $472,878 award is for actual damages rather than a per-work statutory-damages calculation.
• Joint and several liability gives the copyright owner flexibility in collecting the single total award from the defaulting defendants.
• Failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report narrows the district judge’s review to clear error, abuse of discretion, and legal conclusions contrary to law.

Why It Matters

The order illustrates how copyright owners can pursue coordinated enforcement against numerous online storefronts in one case. Product photographs and promotional videos are valuable commercial assets, and copying them can expose a seller to liability separate from any dispute over the product itself.

For online marketplaces and sellers, the practical lesson is procedural as well as substantive. A defendant that does not respond loses the opportunity to dispute ownership, copying, causation, and the amount of damages before judgment. For rights holders, the ruling shows that courts may pair a significant monetary remedy with an injunction designed to stop continued use of copyrighted marketing media.