Judge Says Amazon Must Face Direct and Vicarious Copyright Claims Over Merch on Demand Products

An Ohio judge has ruled that Amazon must face trial on claims that its Merch on Demand service directly and vicariously infringed an apparel company’s copyrights, although the company’s contributory-infringement claim was dismissed.

In an October 14 opinion, U.S. District Judge Douglas R. Cole of the Southern District of Ohio denied Amazon and plaintiff Weekend Warrior Clothing LLC—a T-shirt company founded by two brothers—summary judgment on most of their competing claims. A jury must therefore decide whether Weekend Warrior owns valid copyrights in the designs at issue and whether Amazon’s involvement in displaying, manufacturing and selling allegedly infringing merchandise makes it liable for infringement.

Weekend Warrior sells humorous apparel under the USA Drinking Team brand, featuring designs based on holidays, drinking culture and patriotic themes. The company alleges that third-party creators uploaded copies of its artwork to Amazon’s Merch on Demand platform, producing approximately 560 accused listings and more than 20,000 orders between March 2020 and February 2025.

Merch on Demand allows creators to upload artwork and select products on which it can appear. Amazon generates product images, creates listings and controls pricing, availability and sales terms. If a customer orders an item, Amazon manufactures and ships it, collects payment and pays the creator a royalty.

Weekend Warrior sued Amazon for direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement rather than pursuing the individual uploaders.

But the judge found that there was a “genuine dispute of material fact” over the validity of Weekend Warrior’s copyrights because Amazon presented evidence suggesting that 21 designs may incorporate preexisting material from sources including beer brands and films. The judge thus denied Weekend Warrior’s Motion for Summary Judgment. But Judge Cole found Amazon had not established that the underlying works were themselves validly copyrighted or that the uses were unlawful rather than fair use. Nevertheless, the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find that some of Weekend Warrior’s designs were unauthorized derivative works.

Weekend Warrior also failed to conduct the detailed, design-by-design analysis needed to demonstrate that every accused product copied protected expression. Some listings appeared to contain exact copies, while others differed in fonts, positioning or other elements. The court said it would not independently sort through hundreds of pages of comparisons to determine which products were identical.

Amazon nevertheless failed to defeat the direct-infringement claim. Cole adopted the “volitional conduct” requirement used by other courts to separate direct infringement from liability for users’ actions. Under that doctrine, a platform generally is not a direct infringer when its automated systems merely store or transmit material selected by users.

Amazon’s operation, however, may go substantially further. The company reviews creators and designs, sets prices, identifies itself as the seller, manufactures products, handles shipping and returns, and receives customer payments. A reasonable jury could therefore find that Amazon actively caused the display and sale of infringing products rather than merely providing an automated forum.

Cole compared the service to a print shop that stores customers’ images, advertises copies in its window, selects the sales price and pays the original customer a royalty whenever another shopper buys one. At some point, the court explained, the shop ceases to be a passive provider and becomes actively involved in selling the product.

The court reached a different conclusion on contributory infringement, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment. Under Cox, a service provider is contributorily liable only when it intends its service to facilitate infringement, such as by inducing infringement or creating a service without substantial noninfringing uses.

Weekend Warrior produced no evidence that Amazon encouraged creators to infringe copyrights, and Merch on Demand plainly has commercially significant lawful uses. Cole therefore entered judgment for Amazon on that claim.

The vicarious-infringement claim survived because Amazon can review listings, remove products and terminate creator accounts while retaining a direct financial interest in each sale. The court was particularly critical of Amazon’s handling of Weekend Warrior’s infringement notices, which its automated system labeled fraudulent before directing subsequent emails to the trash. Judge Cole said that “a reasonable jury could conclude that Amazon allowed [the Notices of Claimed Infringement] to fall into a vacuum and go unheeded, and thus could likewise conclude that Amazon had not reasonably implemented a repeat infringer policy,” which also precluded granting Amazon’s partial summary judgment motion on its Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) defense.

Claims involving two designs, “Ameri-CAN v2” and “Down Goes Liver,” were dismissed without prejudice because no infringing listings had been identified. The remaining direct and vicarious claims will now proceed to trial.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author: Mactrunk
Image ID: 40145553