Weekend Warrior Clothing v. Amazon — Merch on Demand Could Face Direct and Vicarious Copyright Liability, but Not Contributory Liability

Background

Weekend Warrior Clothing, LLC designs humorous, drinking-themed and patriotic apparel that it sells through its own website under the USA Drinking Team brand. It holds registrations for dozens of its designs. Amazon runs “Merch on Demand,” where approved third-party creators upload designs, Amazon renders them on stock products such as t-shirts, lists them under a price set by Amazon, identifies itself as the seller, manufactures and ships items only after an order, handles payment, returns and customer service, and pays the creator a royalty.

Weekend Warrior said creators had uploaded copies of its designs, resulting in roughly 560 accused listings and the sale of infringing products. Rather than sue the creators, it sued Amazon for direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, relating to both the images displayed and the products sold. The record showed that Weekend Warrior’s principal repeatedly submitted infringement notices that Amazon rejected as incomplete or treated as fraudulent, ultimately blocklisting his email address so that later notices were automatically rejected. After suit was filed, Amazon removed the accused listings and thousands of others. Both sides moved for summary judgment, and Amazon also sought partial summary judgment on five further issues.

The Court’s Holding

Weekend Warrior’s motion denied. Registration certificates give a prima facie presumption of validity, and the court found Weekend Warrior had made that showing for all 50 designs. But the court found genuine disputes of material fact about whether the designs are valid. Amazon’s expert’s opinion on originality was too unclear and subjective to overcome the presumption, and the plaintiff’s use of preexisting images as inspiration was not enough on its own. However, for 21 designs Amazon identified specific preexisting works it said they were unlawfully derived from, and the court found a reasonable jury could conclude they are unlawful derivative works that would lose copyright protection, even though Amazon had not yet proved as a matter of law that the underlying works are copyrighted or that fair use does not apply. The court also said that where an Amazon image is a pixel-by-pixel copy, the copying element will follow from validity of the copyright, but Weekend Warrior had not identified which of the 567 pages of comparisons were exact copies and had not attempted the Sixth Circuit’s two-step substantial similarity test for the rest.

Direct infringement: Amazon’s motion denied. The court held that a plaintiff must show volitional conduct, essentially causation, for direct liability against an online service, reasoning that the requirement channels claims into the right category and is consistent with strict liability because it examines conduct, not state of mind. The Sixth Circuit has not formally adopted the rule, but the court noted that every circuit to address it has. The court framed the question as whether the defendant had non-automated involvement in the infringing activity. Hosting a bulletin board does not meet that standard, but a platform that reviews material before posting, picks a price and names itself as the seller looks more like a direct actor. Calling it a close call, the court said a jury could find volitional conduct for products actually shipped to customers because Amazon pre-approves who can post, reviews each design, sets the price, acts as seller of record, manufactures and ships the product, collects payment and handles returns.

Contributory infringement: Amazon’s motion granted. Applying Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment (2026), which holds that a service provider is contributorily liable only if it intended its service to be used for infringement, shown by inducement or a service tailored to infringement, the court found no evidence that Amazon marketed or encouraged infringing uses, and Merch on Demand is capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Weekend Warrior also made only a skeletal argument on this claim.

Vicarious liability: Amazon’s motion denied. Amazon had the right and ability to supervise through account screening, design review, the Merch Services Agreement, ongoing audits and the power to remove listings or terminate accounts, and unlike a search engine linking to images on other sites, taking down a listing makes the infringing product disappear. A jury could also find that Amazon declined to limit infringement, because its notice system treated the plaintiff’s notices as fraudulent and routed later emails to the trash; the court called Amazon’s response “dismal” on this record while acknowledging a need to filter fraudulent reports. Amazon plainly profits from sales of the products.

Other issues. The court denied summary judgment on the DMCA safe harbor because a jury could find Amazon let notices “fall into a vacuum” and did not reasonably implement a repeat-infringer policy. It deferred attorney’s fee questions as to 22 designs not registered within three months of publication until after trial, and Weekend Warrior conceded it cannot get statutory damages for those works. It found genuine disputes on willfulness, including willful blindness, so neither side won summary judgment on enhanced damages. It dismissed without prejudice claims on two designs (Ameri-CAN v2 and Down Goes Liver), while allowing two later-registered designs to proceed with additional discovery for Amazon and letting Weekend Warrior supplement its listing for Shut-Up Liver.

Key Takeaways

• A print-on-demand platform that screens creators, sets prices, is seller of record and handles manufacture and shipping may be found to have engaged in volitional conduct for items it actually sells, even though third parties upload the designs.
• Under Cox, contributory liability requires intent shown by inducement or tailoring to infringement; general capability to be used for infringement is not enough.
• Vicarious liability can turn on whether a platform can stop the infringement entirely and on how seriously it handles rights-holder notices.
• Registration creates only a rebuttable presumption of validity, and a specific showing that a design may be an unlawful derivative work can create a jury question.

Why It Matters

The ruling is notable for distinguishing between platforms that merely host content and those that behave like a retailer. By treating Amazon’s role in sales more like that of a seller than a passive host, the court left open direct liability for a marketplace model that uses third-party designs but controls pricing, production and fulfillment. At the same time, it shows how Cox can end a contributory claim against a general-purpose service.

For small brands, the case is also a reminder that notice procedures matter, and that registration alone will not settle validity if the work builds on earlier material. For platforms, the opinion highlights the litigation risk of automated systems that disregard rights-holder notices. This is a summary judgment ruling in a case that remains pending, and the validity and infringement questions are left for trial.