The Battle Over Beanie Baby Guides

The Copyright Claims Board (CCB) has handed down another final determination, this one involving a copyright fight over Beanie Baby pricing guides.

Though it’s easy to dismiss the determination as yet another default determination, meaning that the respondents had not participated in the case, this is a case where, in my opinion, not much would have changed if the respondents had participated.

The reason is simple. They had previously acknowledged what they were doing and had already agreed that it was copyright infringement. They had even shuttered most of their online operations before the case was filed.

In the end, the CCB ruled in favor of the claimants, finding that the respondents had infringed on their copyright and were liable for $3,000 in statutory damages.

So how did the CCB reach this conclusion? It turns out that it wasn’t that difficult.

Understanding the Case

The claim was filed by three authors, Karen Holmes (who led the case), Karen Booker and Rebecca Estenssoro. The trio had co-authored three separate guides for pricing Beanie Babies collectibles, all of which were registered with the US Copyright Office in March 2020.

They sold the guides online for between $5.95 and $9.95 each or in combo packs ranging from $13.95 and $15.95. They claim that one of the respondents, Robert Nunes purchased all three of the guides at issue in September 2024 and then began to sell copies of them on his various websites.

They claim that Nunes, along with Maryann Nunes, removed their eBay listings after being contacted about the infringement. they also did the same with their website, which they “parked” as a way to shut it down. However, when the claimants filed the case, the listings were still up on another website, prompting Holmes to file the case on December 31, 2024.

Initially, the CCB rejected the case, requiring two amended complaints to be filed. However, the third claim, filed in February 2025, was accepted, allowing the case to move forward. Though the Nuneses were served with the paperwork, they did not respond, opt out or otherwise participate in the case.

From there, the case was fairly straightforward. The claimants argued that the Nuneses had infringed their copyright, showing screenshots of the various listings. They also highlighted the email communication between the parties before the case was filed.

The board had no issue finding that the respondents had infringed on the claimants’ copyright. It even said, when weighing if the respondents had any potential defenses, that “The Board has considered the facts in this case and finds that no such defense exists to this claim.

The only question left was the amount of damages. The claimants had filed for a “smaller claims” proceeding, meaning that the damages were capped at $5,000. The board started with the statutory minimum of $750 per work. It then raised the damages based on the commercial nature of the infringement and the length of time that the infringement had been ongoing.

The board then arrived at $1,000 per work, resulting in a total of $3,000 in damages for the infringement.

The claimants now have the challenge of collecting those damages, which can be enforced in a court of law.

Analyzing the Outcome

With a lot of default determinations, there’s a sense that the case is only half-decided. Process service isn’t perfect, many don’t understand what the CCB is and there are a myriad of reasons a respondent may not respond to a CCB claim being filed.

However, that’s not the case here.

Between the in-person service and previous correspondence, I think it’s reasonable to say that the respondents were aware of the case. However, I also don’t think that there is any defense that they could have raised or provided.

It’s pretty clear from the evidence provided that they did infringe, they knew that they were infringing and, honestly, they’re lucky that it was only $3,000 in damages.

To be clear, the low damage amount is partially due to decisions made by the claimants. They opted for the smaller claims proceeding, which caps the damages at $5,000. So, even if the CCB wanted to award more damages, there would be a hard limit.

It’s also worth noting that the claimants didn’t provide any evidence of lost sales or actual damages. The CCB, typically, looks at actual damages and uses that as a basis for a statutory damages award. In other cases where no actual damages were shown, the amount of statutory damages was usually set at $750, the statutory minimum.

Still, it feels like the CCB missed an opportunity to send a stronger message. The respondents in this case were, almost certainly, aware of the proceedings and the evidence against them is extremely strong. They infringed, they admitted to the infringement and they were doing so in the most commercial way possible.

While they couldn’t go over the $5,000 cap, they could have doubled the statutory minimum, granting $1,500 per infringed work, or $4,500 total.

But I have to admit that this is largely an academic exercise. It doesn’t matter if the claimants get $3,000, $4,500 or $45 million if there is no way to collect the damages. It seems unlikely that the respondents will start participating in the process now that the check is due.

The claimants have the same issue that many other default determination winners have faced, they have a damage award in hand, but no easy way to collect it. Yes, they can go to court, but going to court was what the CCB was meant to help them avoid.

Still, I can’t deny that the CCB got this one overall right. There really wasn’t much doubt about what happened, even considering that it is a default determination. All of the important information was already in the record and the respondents really didn’t have a defense.

Bottom Line

Default determinations often feel incomplete, but this one does not.

I really don’t see what argument, if any, the respondents could have made. They might have been able to argue for different damages, but they just as easily could have raised the damage award by showing how much money they had made.

My biggest issue with this case is also one of my longest-standing issues with the CCB. It’s that the CCB doesn’t do enough to deter respondents from simply not participating in a case. Considering that they can opt out of the process if they want, choosing not to respond or participate should be treated more harshly.

That’s especially true in cases like this one where the evidence indicates that the respondents were aware of the case and made the active decision not to participate. Oddly, that may have been the best decision that they could have made as damages were limited and there’s not much guarantee that the claimants will be able to collect in the first place.

But until the CCB addresses that particular issue, there will always be more cases like this one. When not participating is a valid play, some will always take it. That doesn’t help the CCB serve its role as a small claims court for copyright matters.

Header Image: daryl_mitchell from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons