UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY,
`
`CONNECTICUT
`
`CHRIS-HARRISON,
`
`D/B/A THE REAL HOUSELIGHTS/ FRAMEABLE
`
`CASENO.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT
`
`INFRINGEMENT AND REQUEST FOR
`
`PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT
`
`INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`AISLYNN T. HARRISON,
`
`
`
`YANG PENGZHAO,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`FAITH,
`
`Pro Se Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`B N
`
`O
`
`Ww
`
`L w
`
`n
`
`oO”
`
`™N
`
`©
`
`COMESNOW,Plaintiffs, Aislynn T. Harrison and-Chris-Harrison (collectively, "Plaintiffs”), by and through their
`undersigned counsel, and for their Complaint against Yang Pengzhao ("Defendant"), hereby allege and state as
`follows:
`
`STANDARD TO REVIEW PRO SE PLEADINGS
`
`Theplaintiffs are litigating as pro selitigants. Andit is held time and again by honorable apexcourts that
`1.
`the pro se litigants are entitled to a less stringent standard of review by the court as they are not supposed to be
`jurists. For the kind perusalofthis honorable court some of the judgments are quoted as under:
`
`by
`drafted
`those
`standard than
`stringent
`less
`held to a
`are
`“Pro sepleadings
`2d
`163
`(1980).
`L.
`Ed.
`173,
`66
`S.
`Ct
`101
`attorneys. Hughes,449
`US.
`5,
`The Supreme Court has indicated that pro se litigants must have the opportunity to present their claims to the
`courts. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).
`
`The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can
`reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so, but a
`district court may not rewrite pleadings to include claims or defenses that never were presented. Barnett v.
`
`Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir.1999).
`
`Pro se pleadings should be viewed with special care, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972),
`a litigant with counsel may allege crucial facts a pro se litigant would not think to include in his pleadings.
`
`

`

`Moreover, pleadings drafted by counsel not only may be phrased moreartfully, but also mayallege viable causes
`of action which might not occur to the pro se litigant, or for that matter, to the court.”
`
`2. Thus in the light of above- mentioned judgments theplaintiffs are entitled to a liberal construing of his
`
`pleadings by this honorable court.
`
`Jurisdiction:
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter ofthis action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this case
`involves a federal question concerning the violation of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. The
`Copyright Act grants exclusive rights to copyright holders, including the right to reproduce, distribute, and display
`copyrighted works, which are alleged to have been violated by the Defendant.
`
`4. Further jurisdiction is founded under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), which grants U.S. district courts exclusive
`jurisdiction over any civil action arising under any Act of Congressrelated to copyrights. This jurisdiction is
`appropriate as the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's actions constitute copyright infringement, a direct violation
`
`under the Copyright Act.
`
`Venue:
`
`Venueis properin this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (c)(2). Section 1391(b)(2) states that a civil action
`maybe broughtin "a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
`occurred.” In this case, the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of Plaintiff's copyrighted work occurred
`significantly through Amazon,which is accessible to and used by consumerswithin this judicial district.
`
`Additionally, venueis justified under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2) for actions involving defendants in differentstates.It
`states that an entity may be sued in anyjudicial district that has personal jurisdiction over the entity with respect to
`the civil action in question. Despite the Defendant being located outside the United States, they engagein business
`activities that target consumers within the United States, including within this judicial district, by listing andselling
`products on Amazon.com,which is accessible and conducts business throughout the United States.
`
`The venue is also supported by the Defendant’s use of a digital platform (Amazon) that engages in commerce
`within this district. The Plaintiffs copyrighted material, which was infringed upon by the Defendant, was available
`andinfringed uponin this district through Amazon's platform, implicating the local commercialactivities as part of
`
`the basis for the claim.
`
`Statutory Basis for Action Against InternationalSellers:
`
`» N w B
`
`y
`
`un
`
`aD
`
`~N
`
`oo
`
`oO
`
`10
`
`11
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`

`

`The assertion ofjurisdiction and venue over the Defendant, an international Amazonseller, is further supported by
`the principles outlined in the effects test, as established in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). This test allows
`for jurisdiction in cases where the defendant's intentional actions were expressly aimed at the forum state, causing
`harm that the defendant knew was likely to be suffered in the forum state. Here, Defendant’s actions in selling
`counterfeit products that infringe on U.S. copyrights through an online platform that is accessible in this district
`meetthis criterion.
`
`Jurisdiction is also affirmed by the nature of internet transactions and digital commerce, where copyright
`infringement through online platforms affects copyright holders in the locales where their works are accessed and
`
`purchased, including this judicial district.
`
`PARTIES
`
`5. Plaintiff Aislynn T. Harrison is an individual residing at 16 Nurney Street, #4, Stamford, Connecticut
`06902. Ms. Harrison is the Shop Manager for The Real Houselights / Frameable Faith, a business entity engaged in
`
`the creation, promotion, and sale of visual art. She is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner, Chris
`
`Harrison, in matters involving the copyright of the artwork in question and is directly affected by the defendant’s
`
`infringing actions.
`
`BR
`
`N w £ w
`
`n
`
`oO
`
`N o
`
`o
`
`wo
`
`
`
`
`
` Frameabte + ith hic busine thistlawsuit,
`
`He
`operate
`e
`ame—"The-Res
`elie
`amTIe2
`2
`s-business
`
`
`
`
`
`addresscoincidingwithhisresidentialaddress,whichisthe-same-i : ison—Mr- ison
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘holdsthecopyrightfortheartworktitled“BibleWallArtof63,779-CrossReferencesVisuatization;-and-his
`economic
`interests and
`copyright ownership are directly
`harmed-by-the-defendant’s
`actions.
`
`at
`reside
`to
`believed
`individual
`an
`is
`Pengzhao
`Yang
`7. Defendant
`NANCHONGSHIGAOPINGQUHUAHEGUILAIMAOYIYOUXIANGONGSI, Nanchong, Sichuan Province,
`
`China. The defendant conducts business on the international online marketplace Amazon, where he is involved in
`
`the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and sale of the copyrighted artwork created by Plaintiff Chris Harrison.
`
`Despite being based in China,
`
`the defendant actively engages in commerce within the United States and
`
`specifically targets U.S. consumers through the Amazon platform, making him subject to this court’s jurisdiction.
`
`FACTUAL BASIS
`
`8. -Plaintif€ Chris Harrison is the sole author and ownerof the copyright for the artwork entitled "Bible Wall
`
`Art of 63,779 Cross References Visualization". This artwork is a unique visual representation of biblical cross-
`
`references and is highly acclaimed for its creative presentation and educational value. The copyright for this
`
`artwork was duly registered with the United States Copyright Office, and Mr. Harrison possesses all exclusive
`
`rights pertaining to the reproduction, distribution, and sale of this work under Title 17 ofthe United States Code.
`
`

`

`9. Plaintiffs ore been lawfully selling the copyrighted artwork through various channels (In various
`variations andsizes), including online platforms such as Amazon. Thework is sold primarily in the form ofprinted
`canvases anddigital downloads.Plaintiffs’ listing on Amazon explicitly indicates Chris Harrison as the creator and
`copyright owner, and eachlisting includes a copyright notice consistent with the requirements of the Copyright
`Act.
`
`10.To substantiate the claims of ownership and original creation by Plaintiff Chris Harrison, the court may
`review the artwork in question through various publicly accessible platforms. The original "Bible Wall Art of
`63.779 Cross References Visualization"
`can
`be
`viewed
`and
`purchased
`via
`the
`official website
`athttps://www.chrisharrison.net/index.php/visualizations/BibleViz. Additionally, the authentic work is available on
`Amazon, where it has been offered under the exclusive control of the Plaintiffs. For direct access to the Amazon
`listing,
`please
`visit
`https://www.amazon.com/FRAMEABLE-FAITH-BIBLE-VIZ-
`Visualization/dp/BOCRJL22X6?th=1. These links are provided to ensure the Court can easily verify the
`authenticity of the copyrighted material andthe legitimacy ofthe Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the infringement.
`
`11.In early 2023, Plaintiffs discovered that Defendant Yang Pengzhao wasoffering for sale an identical or
`substantially similar copy of the copyrighted artwork through multiple Amazonlistings, including under the ASIN
`BOD3GWS8ZCY, amongothers. Theselistings did not attribute Chris Harrison as the author nor did they contain
`any indication that the defendant had obtained permission to use or reproduce the copyrighted material. The
`additional ASINsinvolvedin this dispute, all representing different size variations of the samestolen artworktitled
`"Bible Wall Art of 63,779 Cross References Visualization Jesus Canvas Wall Picture Faith Verse Scripture
`
`Christia Wall Décor,” are BOD3EHQ2MSX7, BOD3EBNHX2, BOD3H533M7, BOD31H34B609, BOD3H3HS30,
`
`BOD3GMH8HQ,and BOD3H4D4WP.
`
`12.Upon discovering the infringement, Plaintiffs promptly filed DMCA takedown notices with Amazon,
`leading to the removal of the infringing listings. However, Defendant subsequently filed counter-notices under the
`DMCA for each of these ASINs, falsely claiming that
`the materials were removed due to a mistake or
`
`misidentification ofthe material to be removedor disabled, all under the same complaint ID #15260987641.
`
`13.Relying on the counter-notices, Amazonindicated that it would reinstate the listings unless Plaintiffs filed
`a lawsuit to seek judicial relief within the statutory period. The defendant’s continuedlistings not only infringed
`upon Plaintiffs’ copyrights but also caused confusion among consumers and damaged Plaintiffs' market by
`diverting sales from the legitimate listings of the authentic artwork.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`14. At no point did Plaintiffsauthorize the Defendantto reproduce, distribute, or sell the copyrighted artwork.
`Plaintiffs hase exclusive legal rights to authorize such activities, and Defendant’s actions, including his filing of
`multiple counter-notices challenging the takedown of various ASINsrelated to the same copyrighted artwork, have
`
`been without consent andin direct violation of Plaintiffs' exclusive rights as provided under the Copyright Act.
`
`15.Asa direct result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer damages in the
`
`form oflost sales, diminished market presence, and harm to their reputation as the rightful owners and distributors
`
`of the artwork. The unauthorized reproduction and sale of the artwork by the Defendant havealsoled to potential
`
`consumerconfusion anddilution of the value ofthe original artwork.
`
`16.Given the international nature of the infringement and the digital platform used for the unauthorized
`activities, the factual circumstances necessitate the involvement of this Court to adjudicate the matter and provide
`
`relief consistent with federal copyright law.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`
`17. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphsasiffully set forth herein.
`
`18. Plaintiff Chris Harrison is the registered copyright ownerofthe artwork entitled "Bible Wall Art of 63,779
`Cross References Visualization," duly registered with the United States Copyright Office. As the copyright owner,
`
`intiff Harrison possesses exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106, which include the exclusive rights to reproduce
`the copyrighted work, prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work, distribute copies of the
`
`copyrighted work to the public, and display the copyrighted work publicly.
`
`19.Defendant Yang Pengzhao, without the permission, consent, or license of Plaintiffy, has reproduced,
`
`distributed, and displayed the copyrighted artwork through Amazon under
`
`the ASIN BOD3GW8ZCY,
`
`BOD3H2MJX7, BOD3H3NHX2, B0D3H53JM7, B0OD3H34B69, BOD3H3HS36, BOD3GMH8HQ,
`
`and
`
`BOD3H4D4WP.Theseactions constitute direct infringement of Plaintiffs' exclusive rights as defined under 17
`
`USC. § 106.
`
`20. Defendant’s infringement was willful, intentional, and in reckless disregard ofPlaintiffs' copyrightrights.
`The Defendant continued to infringe upon Plaintiffs' rights even after receiving notice via the DMCA takedown
`
`request, evidenced by his submission of a counter-notice to Amazon, falsely asserting that the removal of the
`
`infringing product wasa result of mistake or misidentification.
`
`21.Defendant has financially benefited from his infringing activities through sales on Amazon, directly
`competing with Plaintiffs’ legitimate sales channels. Concurrently, Plaintiffs have suffered monetary losses,
`
`including but not limited to lost sales and market harm,as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s infringing
`
`conduct.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`22.The Defendant's unauthorized actions have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm
`
`for which there is no adequate remedy at law, necessitating the intervention of this Court to enjoin further
`
`infringement.
`
`23.Dueto the difficulties inherent in quantifying the precise amount offinancial harm suffered by Plaintiffs,
`
`they elect to seek statutory damagesfor each act of infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
`
`24. Plaintiffs request that this Court issue a preliminary and permanentinjunction, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §
`
`502, to prevent further infringement of their copyrighted work.
`
`25.Plaintiffs are entitled to recovertheir full costs and reasonable attorney's fees associated with this action as
`
`provided by 17 U.S.C. § 505, due to the Defendant's willful infringement.
`
`hb
`
`N W
`
`w
`
`BS
`
`wi
`
`oO
`
`N
`
`COUNT II: FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`
`26.Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphsasif fully set forth herein.
`
`27. This claim is brought under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), which prohibits the use in commerce of
`any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation oforigin, false or
`
`misleading description offact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which is likely to cause confusion, or to
`
`cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or
`
`as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person.
`
`28.Defendant Yang Pengzhao has used in commerce descriptions and representations which are likely to
`cause confusion or to mislead customers about the origin of the goods sold under ASIN BOD3GW8ZCY,
`
`BOD3H2MJX7, BOD3H3NHX2, B0D3H53JM7, B0D3H34B69, BOD3H3HS36, BOD3GMH8HQ,
`
`and
`
`BOD3H4D4WP. Defendant's actions suggest a false designation of origin and imply an erroneousaffiliation or
`
`endorsementby the Plaintiffs.
`
`29.As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in the form of
`lost sales and injury to their business reputation and goodwill.
`
`30.Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to prevent ongoing and future violations by the Defendant, and they seek
`
`compensatory damagesfor the losses incurred due to these unlawful practices.
`
`COUNT III: UNJUST ENRICHMENT & ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
`
`31.36. Plaintiffre-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphsas iffully set forth herein.
`
`32.This claim for unjust enrichment is brought under the common law principles governing equitable
`remedies. Unjust enrichment occurs when oneparty is unjustly conferred benefits at the expense of another, andit
`
`is against equity and good conscienceto permit the party receiving the benefit to retain it without compensating the
`
`provider.
`
`33.Defendant Yang Pengzhaohasreceived and continues to receive benefits through the sale of infringing
`copies of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted artwork under ASIN BOD3GW8ZCY, BOD3H2MJX7, BOD3H3NHX2,
`
`

`

`BR
`
`B0D3H53JM7, B0D3H34B69, BOD3H3HS36, BOD3GMH8HQ, and BOD3H4D4WP. These benefits include
`revenues from sales that rightfully belong to Plaintiffs, who are the legitimate owners and distributors of the
`
`copyrighted artwork.
`
`34.The Defendant did not have a legal right to reproduce, distribute, or sell Plaintiffs’ copyrighted artwork.
`Therefore, any income derived from such activities was gained at the Plaintiffs’ expense and without anylegal
`
`justification.
`
`N u
`
`w a u
`
`w
`
`35.The Defendant was aware or should have been awarethatthe financial benefits he received werethe result
`
`of unauthorized useofPlaintiffs’ copyrighted work. This awareness is evidenced by Defendant’s initial compliance
`with the DMCA takedown notice and subsequent counter-notices, indicating his knowledgeof the copyright claims
`
`and the content in question.
`
`36.1t is against equity and good conscience to allow Defendant to retain the benefits derived from the
`unauthorized use of Plaintiffs' copyrighted artwork. By retaining these benefits, Defendant is unjustly enriched at
`Plaintiffs’ expense, causing Plaintiffs financial harm and competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.
`
`37.Plaintiffs seek disgorgementofall profits obtained by Defendantas a result of his infringing activities, in
`addition to any other remedies deemed appropriate by the Court. Plaintiffs also request that the Court order
`restitution in an amount to be determined attrial, which reflects the income unjustly earned by Defendant from his
`
`oa
`
`~ o
`
`o
`
`oO
`
`infringing actions.
`
`PRAYERS/SUBMISSIONS:
`
`WHEREFORE,Plaintiffg Aislynn T. Harrison amd=Chris—Harrison respectfully request that the Court grant the
`
`followingrelief:
`a.
`Issue a preliminary injunction, followed by a permanentinjunction, enjoining Defendant Yang Pengzhao,his
`agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with him fram repraducing,
`
`distributing, displaying, or selling any infringing reproductions of the copyrighted artwork entitled "Bible
`
`Wall Art of 63,779 Cross References Visualization";
`
`b. Order the Defendant to remove all listings and referencesto the infringing items from all websites and other
`
`sales platforms underhis control or influence, including Amazon.
`c. Award statutory damages for copyright
`infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), for each act of
`
`infringement committed by the Defendant;
`d. Award compensatory damages for losses suffered due to false designation of origin and unfair competition as
`
`outlined under the Lanham Act;
`
`e. Award compensatory and punitive damages for the Defendant’s participation in a civil conspiracy that
`
`resulted in further financial harm to Plaintiffs;
`
`f. Order disgorgement of all profits received by the Defendant as a result of unjust enrichment, and any
`
`economic advantages gained from the unauthorized use of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted artwork.
`
`g. Award Plaintiffs the full costs of this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees as provided under 17 U.S.C.
`§ 505 and other applicable laws, due to the willfulness of the Defendant’s conduct and the complexity of the
`
`

`

`legal issues involved.
`
`h. Order the Defendant to deliver up for destruction all unauthorized copies of the copyrighted artwork,
`
`including any related marketing materials, digital files, and other derivatives in his possession.
`
`i. Require the Defendantto file with the Court and serve upon Plaintiffs within thirty (30) days after entry of the
`
`injunction, a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the Defendant
`
`» N
`
`o w B
`
`S
`
`has complied with the injunction.
`
`Award prejudgmentand postjudgment interest on all amounts awarded.
`
`Plaintiffs request a trial by jury onall triable issues.
`
`Grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate under the circumstances.
`
`ui
`
`oa
`
`N
`
`mo
`
`nt
`
`SSS
`Respectfully submitted this 22nd_day of May, 2024.
`
`
`
`Ok-
`
`Aislynn T. Harrison,
`
`Chris-Herrison,
`
`d/b/a The Real Houselights / Frameable Faith,
`
`Pro Se Plaintiffs,
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`We herebycertify that on S | 12| 202 wecaused a true and correct copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT
`FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT
`INJUNCTION along with the SUMMONSto be served upon the Defendant, Yang Pengzhao, at his Provided
`
`address/Email. The documents were addressedas follows:
`
`Yang Pengzhao
`
`NANCHONGSHIGAOPINGQUHUAHEGUILAIMAOYIYOUXIANGONGSI
`
`Nanchong,Sichuan Province
`
`China
`
`Phone Number: 13185213121
`
`weierpengliu@sina.com
`
`I further certify that on the same date,
`
`I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT and
`
`SUMMONSto be served upon Amazon, Inc., as a non-party platform involved in the transaction of the infringing
`
`materials. Service was accomplished via electronic mail, certified mail, or personal service to the following:
`
`Amazon's designated agent for service or legal department.
`
`

`

`This service was performed in accordance with the rules and statutes of the United States of America and the State
`
`bh
`
`of Connecticut.
`
`Thiscertificate is filed in compliance with Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The necessity for and
`
`mannerofthis service are dictated by the geographic dispersion of the parties involved and the requirementsofthe
`
`applicable statutes and rules.
`
`N w a
`
`y w
`
`i
`
`Respectfully submitted this 22nd_day of May, 2024.
`oa
`
`
`
`Aislynn T. Harrison,
`
`Chris-Harrison,
`
`d/b/a The Real Houselights / Frameable Faith,
`
`Pro Se Plaintiffs,
`
`Vb—
`
`N o
`
`o
`
`oO
`
`