Dolls Kill, Inc. v. Mengeryt

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued September 30, 2025
Decided October 30, 2025
Before
MICHAEL Y SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2841
DOLLS KILL, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MENGERYT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 1:24-cv-01960
Steven C. Seeger,
Judge.
ORDER
Dolls Kill, a clothing brand, sued several online merchants for copyright
infringement, winning a default judgment against two. The district court awarded Dolls
Kill statutory damages under the Copyright Act. But Dolls Kill insists it was entitled
under the Act to a disgorgement of the infringer’s profits. Because the Act vests the
choice of damages in the plaintiff, we vacate the judgment and remand the case for the
district court to address Dolls Kill’s request for disgorgeable profits.
Dolls Kill is known for clothing designs with alternative appeal, like the design
at issue in this case, the “Teddy Deady Backpack.” Another merchant, MengEryt,
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 24-2841 Page 2
hawked a backpack identical to Dolls Kill’s copyrighted design on Amazon. In this
action, Dolls Kill sued MengEryt and fourteen other Amazon storefronts for
infringement. Dolls Kill eventually settled its claims against the other storefronts, but
two defendants—MengEryt and Galawaqe—failed to appear, so the district court
entered default against them.
As the victor in a copyright infringement suit, Dolls Kill pursued damages under
the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 504. The Act provides copyright owners with a
choice between two kinds of damages: actual damages (including an infringer’s
disgorgeable profits) or statutory damages, awarded within the court’s discretion.
17 U.S.C. § 504(b)–(c). Dolls Kill sought the defendants’ disgorgeable profits under
§ 504(b), totaling $273,423.22 from MengEryt and $20,206.16 from Galawaqe. The
district court instead awarded $1,000 in statutory damages from MengEryt and
Galawaqe for willful infringement under § 504(c)(2). Dolls Kill has since settled with
Galawaqe and now appeals the default judgment against MengEryt who did not
participate in this appeal.
Under the Copyright Act, a copyright holder “is entitled” under subsection (b) to
actual damages or “may elect” under subsection (c) to receive statutory damages.
17 U.S.C. § 504(a)–(c). A copyright owner pursuing damages under § 504(b) may seek
the infringer’s ill-gotten profits rather than actual damages. See Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash,
Baptie & Co., LLP., 329 F.3d 923, 931 (7th Cir. 2003). When seeking disgorgeable profits,
the copyright owner need “present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue” from the
infringing product. 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). The infringer then bears the burden of mitigating
the award by proving deductible expenses or that portions of the profit are not
attributable to the infringement. Id.
Alternatively, a copyright holder may seek statutory damages under § 504(c).
The court has discretion to award between $750 and $30,000 per infringed work; if the
court finds the infringement willful, it may award up to $150,000 in damages per work.
Id. § 504(c)(1)–(2). The copyright holder must elect to receive statutory damages before
final judgment. Id. § 504(c)(1).
On appeal, Dolls Kill argues that the district court erred by awarding statutory
damages instead of disgorgeable profits. According to Dolls Kill, the Copyright Act lets
the copyright holder choose its form of damages, yet the district court disregarded Dolls
Kill’s choice of disgorgeable profits without explanation. Dolls Kill adds that it
supported the request for nearly $300,000 in disgorgeable profits with proof of
MengEryt’s gross revenue—an unsigned declaration from Dolls Kill’s attorney attesting

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 24-2841 Page 3
that Amazon disclosed during third-party discovery that MengEryt made that amount
selling the backpacks. Because MengEryt never offered proof contesting the award,
Dolls Kill argues it is entitled to all gross revenue.
The district court erred in awarding statutory damages because the plain
language of the Copyright Act leaves the choice of damages to the plaintiff. A copyright
owner “is entitled” to actual damages and profits, and it is the “copyright owner” who
“may elect” instead to receive statutory damages. 17 U.S.C. § 504(b)–(c). Here, Dolls Kill
sought the defendant’s profits rather than statutory damages. The statute required the
district court to honor that choice, so we vacate the judgment.
But the Act also requires a plaintiff seeking disgorgeable profits to present proof
of the infringer’s gross revenue. Id. § 504(b). Dolls Kill argues that the unsworn
declaration from its attorney suffices. We leave it to the district court on remand to
decide whether Dolls Kill has proved its entitlement to disgorgeable profits.
On a final note, we acknowledge that a flood of similar claims of intellectual
property infringement with no particular ties to the Northern District of Illinois have
swamped and, understandably, troubled the district courts. See generally, Eicher Motors
Ltd. v. P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 25-CV-02937, 2025
WL 2299593, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025).* District courts have broad discretion in
managing these cases, which often depart from “the general rule in favor of adversarial
proceedings,” especially when they result in a default judgment. Id. Cf. Dyson Tech. Ltd.
v. David 7 Store, 132 F.4th 526, 529 (7th Cir. 2025) (trademark plaintiffs may receive
windfall when infringer fails to offer evidence of deductions).
But even under a default judgment, “the victor must still prove up damages,”
Domanus v. Lewicki, 742 F.3d 290, 303 (7th Cir. 2014), and the court must “ascertain the
amount of damages with reasonable certainty,” e360 Insight v. The Spamhaus Project,
500 F.3d 594, 602 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing In re Catt, 368 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir. 2004)).
* Known as “Schedule A” cases, actions like this one are filed under seal against unnamed
defendants “Identified in Schedule A.” Id. at *1. The defendants are usually anonymous online
merchants, selling goods from abroad on e-commerce platforms like Amazon or Etsy. Id. at *2. In these
cases, plaintiffs often seek an emergency TRO, prejudgment restraint on assets, and approval for
electronic service of process—all ex parte. Id. As here, many Schedule A cases resolve in a default
judgment. Id.

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 24-2841 Page 4
On remand, the district court must give effect to Dolls Kill’s choice of
disgorgeable profits. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). But we leave to the district court’s discretion
how to proceed regarding that choice, including whether to permit Dolls Kill to
supplement the record.
We VACATE the judgment and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this
order.

-- 4 of 4 --