Copyright Takedown Notices May Be Affecting Your Washing Machine Options–Ningbo Yituo v. GoPlus

The litigants are rival washing machine makers–GoPlus and Ningbo Yituo–who source their products from the same OEM, Ningbo Baike Electric Appliance. As a result, “the body patterns of Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s washing machines are identical due to the shared use of the same mold by Ningbo Baike.” This shared mold reduces the manufacturing costs for both players.

This case involves GoPlus’ U.S. Copyright Registration No. VAu 1-515-727 for a 2D schematic of a washing machine design. The Copyright Office registration indicated that the “Registration does not extend to any useful article depicted. Registration extends to deposited artwork only.” Ningbo Yituo also claims that GoPlus didn’t author the schematics.

Nevertheless, citing its registration, GoPlus sent DMCA takedown notices to Amazon targeting Ningbo Yituo’s washing machines. Presumably, this takedown campaign cleared the field at Amazon for GoPlus’ offerings, which would reduce consumer choices and usually boost prices. I’m also confused how the OEM could manufacture the washing machine for Ningbo Yituo using the shared mold without granting some sort of copyright permission that permits Ningbo Yituo’s resale of those machines. I didn’t investigate the copyright and licensing backstory, but something isn’t adding up here.

To fight back against the Amazon delistings, Ningbo Yituo sued to declare the copyright registration invalid and brought a 512(f) claim for the takedown notices predicated on the allegedly invalid copyright. You already know how the 512(f) claim turned out. It failed for three reasons.

1) 512(f) only governs bogus allegations of infringement, not bogus claims of ownership: “Section 512(f) simply does not address a misrepresentation as to authorship or ownership of the work.”

In other words, if GoPlus isn’t the copyright owner of the schematic, but sends takedown notices anyway, 512(f) has nothing to say about that. Note that 512(c)(3) requires a takedown notice sender to declare, under penalty of perjury, that they are the copyright owner or authorized designee. So perhaps perjury prosecutions might be an option for a bogus declaration of ownership. (Haha, there has never been such a perjury prosecution). This ruling highlights the limits of civil recourse in that circumstance.

2) The court says that GoPlus didn’t materially misrepresent the alleged infringement. Although the copyright registration only applies to the 2D schematic and not any 3D utilitarian/useful article, “the copyright of a two-dimensional work can extend to a three-dimensional rendering that is derivative.” So the court says the takedown notice targeting Ningbo Yituo’s physical offerings could be supported by the schematic copyright.

3) No subjective bad faith in tendering the takedown notices. GoPlus didn’t have subjective bad faith because of any ownership overclaims or interpretations of its 2D copyright registration. Further, GoPlus has a Confirmatory Copyright Assignment Agreement with the OEM purporting to transfer copyright ownership to the schematic to GoPlus. Ningbo Yituo questions the legitimacy of the agreement, but the assignment does undercut claims that GoPlus had subjective bad faith in its ownership claims.

Separately, the court dismissed Ningbo Yituo’s tortious interference claim using CA’s anti-SLAPP law. The court says “District Courts in this Circuit have held on several occasions that the use of DMCA takedown notices constitutes protected conduct under § 425.16.” As I’ve covered repeatedly on this blog, 512(f) preempts the state law tortious interference claim, so Ningbo Yitou couldn’t establish the claim’s merits. The court awarded $27k in attorneys’ fees for the tortious interference claim dismissal.

And so the claims over the takedown notices reach their expected and stereotypical denouement: the 512(f) claim fails, the target may not have any state law claims either, and the target will write checks to the copyright registrant. This is all fine if GoPlus’ copyright claims are legit. If not, and if in fact GoPlus is overclaiming its copyright interests, then copyright law is distorting the competitive market for washing machines to the detriment of all consumers.

Case Citation: Ningbo Yituo Enterprise Management Co. v. GoPlus Corp., 2025 WL 2995105 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025). CourtListener page for GoPlus’ related copyright infringement lawsuit (which it voluntarily dismissed).

BONUS: Global Brothers SRL v. Shixiaolong, 2025 WL 3033633 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2025). The rare times when a 512(f) plaintiff succeeds are often default judgments. Here, the plaintiff couldn’t even win in a default judgment. A copyright owner sued Amazon merchant for selling infringing items. The copyright owner properly alleged the merchant misrepresented their copyright status to Amazon, but the owner didn’t allege that Amazon relied on the misrepresentation. 512(f) claim denied.

BONUS 2: Masangsoft Inc. v Azua, 2025 WL 3050217 (C.D. Cal. August 27, 2025):

“Gosu contends Plaintiff issued a DMCA takedown notice which was not made in good faith because it was issued immediately after Gosu filed cancellation petitions in October 2024, and made no reference to a valid U.S. copyright registration, included no documentation of an assignment, and ignored the longstanding public use of the same material by Gosu and others. However, Plaintiff submits a declaration from Woong Choi, the Team Leader of Game Business Division at Masangsoft, who declares:

On or about 11/16/2024, I became aware that Defendants planned to launch their unauthorized and infringing launch of GunZ: The Duel on Valve’s Steam platform Steam. In direct response to Defendants’ unauthorized and infringing launch of GunZ: The Duel on the Steam platform, Masangsoft initiated the DMCA takedown notice to Valve on or about 11/20/2024. This action was taken in good faith to protect Masangsoft’s valuable intellectual property from large-scale commercial misappropriation.

Thus, Plaintiff submits evidence that its DMCA notification re: the Games was issued in good faith. Moreover, as discussed above, Plaintiff submits evidence that it owns the intellectual property rights (including copyrights) in the Games. Accordingly, Defendant fails to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits on its DMCA abuse claim under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).”

BONUS 3: Gharavi v. Kumar, 2025 WL 3564208 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2025). In an ex parte TRO request:

Plaintiff has submitted evidence that Defendant misrepresented that the allegedly infringing material was “removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification.” He has also submitted evidence that YouTube relied on Defendant’s statement by initiating a process to restore access to the removed material if Plaintiff did not show that he had filed a lawsuit, and that he was injured as a result. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim for DMCA misrepresentation.

BONUS 4: Underwood v. Coallier, 2025 WL 3691711 (C.D. Cal. August 11, 2025):

The Complaint sufficiently alleges this element where Underwood’s usage of the Shakespeare Play Recordings was not infringing and ultimately led to the removal of content. Underwood also sufficiently alleges that Coallier had actual knowledge of misrepresentation. As alleged in the Complaint, Coallier claimed that he “own[ed] rights over all [Shakespeare] plays” when he really only owned the translations of two plays, neither of which were depicted on Underwood’s channel. Moreover, Coallier’s Certificate of Registration only provides ownership of his “translations,” not all works of Shakespeare in the public domain. Accordingly, the merits of Underwood’s misrepresentation support default judgment.

BONUS 5: Sosa v. AT&T, 2025 WL 3719229 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2025)

I have concerns with both Sosa’s DMCA 512(f) claim and Warner Brothers’ defense in its motion to dismiss. Neither side addresses what copyrighted material the DMCA Notice identified as being infringed by Sosa’s video. Was it the movie, the poster, or the characters, or did the DMCA Notice not identify with specificity the copyrighted material allegedly infringed by Sosa’s video? The content of the DMCA Notice matters because what was represented on that Notice is critical to the question of whether there was a knowing misrepresentation under section 512(f). Neither side attaches the DMCA takedown Notice and Warner Brothers’ counsel admitted during the hearing on this motion that counsel had not seen the actual DMCA Notice. Without attaching the DMCA Notice or attesting to its contents – which can be taken into account on a motion to dismiss under the doctrine of incorporation – it is not clear that Warner Brothers can assert a facial challenge to the 512(f) claim.

Second, assuming that Sosa’s video did not infringe Warner Brothers’ copyrighted material – either because there was no copying of protected content or because any use was fair use – Sosa needs to add facts and plausible allegations regarding what Warner Brothers should have known at the time to plausibly allege a knowing misrepresentation under section 512(f). The spoiler allegations contained in the current FAC are not sufficient considering unopposed judicial notice of the contents of the communication that was attached to prior versions of Sosa’s complaint. The identified communication does not plausibly support Sosa’ claim that the Notice was issued because of spoilers in Sosa’s video and not because of copyright infringement.

However, as there may be additional contemporaneous communications regarding why Warner Brothers issued the Notice (from YouTube or Warner Brothers) that could plausibly support Sosa’s allegations, Sosa is given one last attempt to amend. Similarly, Sosa may be able to add allegations regarding Warner Brothers’ approach to protecting its copyrighted materials, or allegations regarding the processes or algorithms used by Warner Brothers to identify infringements that result in DMCA notices, or allegations regarding efforts to protect Batman-related content from infringement, that could plausibly support his claim that Warner Brothers failed to consider fair use before issuing the Notice.

Prior Posts on Section 512(f)

* 512(f) Claim Sent to Trial (Which Didn’t Happen)–Leszczynski v. Kitchen Cube
* 512(f) Doesn’t Support Preliminary Injunction–BViral v. TheSoul
* In 512(f), the “F” Stands for “Futility”–Shaffer v. Kavarnos
* Does Anyone Still Care About NFTs? (Yuga Labs, LLC v. Ripps) — Guest Blog Post
* Viral DRM Awarded Damages for Its 512(f) Claims, But At What Cost?
* Big YouTube Channel Gets TRO Against Being Targeted by DMCA Copyright Takedown Notices–Invisible Narratives v. Next Level Apps
* The Competition Between Temu and Shein Moves Into a Courtroom–Whaleco v. Shein
* Copyright Battles Over City Council Videos
* Record Label Sends Bogus Takedown Notice, Defeats 512(f) Claim Anyway–White v. UMG
* Plaintiffs Make Some Progress in 512(f) Cases
* 512(f) Doesn’t Restrict Competitive Gaming of Search Results–Source Capital v. Barrett Financial
* 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Zoox
* Surprise! Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Bored Ape Yacht Club v. Ripps
* You’re a Fool if You Think You Can Win a 512(f) Case–Security Police and Fire Professionals v. Maritas
* 512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing v. McCandless
* Anti-Circumvention Takedowns Aren’t Covered by 512(f)–Yout v. RIAA
* 11th Circuit UPHOLDS a 512(f) Plaintiff Win on Appeal–Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports
* Court Mistakenly Thinks Copyright Owners Have a Duty to Police Infringement–Sunny Factory v. Chen
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Moonbug v. Babybus
* A 512(f) Plaintiff Wins at Trial! –Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports
* Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court
* 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v. This Old Gal
* 512(f) Claim Against Robo-Notice Sender Can Proceed–Enttech v. Okularity
* Copyright Plaintiffs Can’t Figure Out What Copyrights They Own, Court Says ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
* A 512(f) Case Leads to a Rare Damages Award (on a Default Judgment)–California Beach v. Du
* 512(f) Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss–Brandyn Love v. Nuclear Blast America
* 512(f) Claim Fails in the 11th Circuit–Johnson v. New Destiny Christian Center
* Court Orders Rightsowner to Withdraw DMCA Takedown Notices Sent to Amazon–Beyond Blond v. Heldman
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe
* Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v. Benjamin
* How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? (Spoiler: Not Well)
* Another Section 512(f) Case Fails–ISE v. Longarzo
* Another 512(f) Case Fails–Handshoe v. Perret
* A DMCA Section 512(f) Case Survives Dismissal–ISE v. Longarzo
* DMCA’s Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful State Law Claims–Stevens v. Vodka and Milk
* Section 512(f) Complaint Survives Motion to Dismiss–Johnson v. New Destiny Church
* ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v. Klein
* 9th Circuit Sides With Fair Use in Dancing Baby Takedown Case–Lenz v. Universal
* Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership
* It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Steiner
* Vague Takedown Notice Targeting Facebook Page Results in Possible Liability–CrossFit v. Alvies
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Tuteur v. Crosley-Corcoran
* 17 USC 512(f) Is Dead–Lenz v. Universal Music
* 512(f) Plaintiff Can’t Get Discovery to Back Up His Allegations of Bogus Takedowns–Ouellette v. Viacom
* Updates on Transborder Copyright Enforcement Over “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer”–Shropshire v. Canning
* 17 USC 512(f) Preempts State Law Claims Over Bogus Copyright Takedown Notices–Amaretto v. Ozimals
* 17 USC 512(f) Claim Against “Twilight” Studio Survives Motion to Dismiss–Smith v. Summit Entertainment
* Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v. UMG
* Copyright Takedown Notice Isn’t Actionable Unless There’s an Actual Takedown–Amaretto v. Ozimals
* Second Life Ordered to Stop Honoring a Copyright Owner’s Takedown Notices–Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. Ozimals
* Another Copyright Owner Sent a Defective Takedown Notice and Faced 512(f) Liability–Rosen v. HSI
* Furniture Retailer Enjoined from Sending eBay VeRO Notices–Design Furnishings v. Zen Path
* Disclosure of the Substance of Privileged Communications via Email, Blog, and Chat Results in Waiver — Lenz v. Universal
* YouTube Uploader Can’t Sue Sender of Mistaken Takedown Notice–Cabell v. Zimmerman
* Rare Ruling on Damages for Sending Bogus Copyright Takedown Notice–Lenz v. Universal
* 512(f) Claim Dismissed on Jurisdictional Grounds–Project DoD v. Federici
* Biosafe-One v. Hawks Dismissed
* Michael Savage Takedown Letter Might Violate 512(f)–Brave New Media v. Weiner
* Fair Use – It’s the Law (for what it’s worth)–Lenz v. Universal
* Copyright Owner Enjoined from Sending DMCA Takedown Notices–Biosafe-One v. Hawks
* New(ish) Report on 512 Takedown Notices
* Can 512(f) Support an Injunction? Novotny v. Chapman
* Allegedly Wrong VeRO Notice of Claimed Infringement Not Actionable–Dudnikov v. MGA Entertainment