The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a $1,055,000 damages award against Vonnic, Inc. for selling counterfeit KN95 masks to Bluemar Promotions, LLC during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a memorandum opinion filed Thursday.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Susan Graber, Lawrence VanDyke, and Johnnie Rawlinson, upheld the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's ruling in favor of Bluemar Promotions in the breach of contract case.
The dispute centers on KN95 masks that Vonnic sold to Bluemar during the height of the pandemic when demand for personal protective equipment was at its peak. Bluemar alleged that Vonnic provided counterfeit masks in violation of their contractual agreement and warranty obligations.
District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald initially granted partial summary judgment to Bluemar, finding that Vonnic had breached its contractual obligations. The case then proceeded to a jury trial on Vonnic's affirmative defense of timely revocation, which the jury rejected. Following the jury's decision, the district court entered judgment for Bluemar in the amount of $1,055,000.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's grant of summary judgment under the de novo standard, citing *Arcona, Inc. v. Farmacy Beauty, LLC* (9th Cir. 2020). This standard means the appellate court reviewed the legal conclusions independently without deferring to the lower court's analysis.
In its brief opinion, the appeals court addressed Vonnic's challenge to the district court's finding that the company made express representations to Bluemar regarding the authenticity of the KN95 masks. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that Vonnic had made such representations under California law.
The case reflects the broader legal consequences stemming from pandemic-era fraud involving medical equipment and personal protective equipment. During 2020 and 2021, federal and state authorities prosecuted numerous cases involving counterfeit or substandard medical supplies as demand for protective equipment far outpaced supply.
KN95 masks became particularly sought-after alternatives to N95 respirators during the pandemic's early stages. The Chinese-standard KN95 masks were approved for emergency use by healthcare workers when N95 supplies were critically low. However, the market also became flooded with counterfeit versions that failed to meet safety standards.
The legal framework for this case involved both contract law and warranty claims. Bluemar's successful breach of contract claim suggests that Vonnic made specific promises about the masks' authenticity that it failed to fulfill. The warranty claims likely centered on implied or express warranties that the masks met certain quality or authenticity standards.
Vonnic's attempted defense of timely revocation appears to have been an argument that the company properly canceled or withdrew from the contract within the legally required timeframe. However, the jury's rejection of this defense indicates that Vonnic either failed to revoke the contract in time or did not properly follow the procedural requirements for contract revocation under applicable law.
The $1,055,000 award represents a substantial financial consequence for Vonnic. This amount likely includes compensatory damages for Bluemar's losses from receiving counterfeit products instead of genuine KN95 masks, potentially including the difference in value between authentic and counterfeit masks, costs associated with discovering the fraud, and other economic losses.
The Ninth Circuit's affirmance of the judgment sends a clear signal about the legal risks companies face when misrepresenting the authenticity of medical equipment. The decision reinforces that contractual promises about product authenticity carry significant legal weight, particularly in the medical supply context where public health and safety are at stake.
The case was submitted to the Ninth Circuit panel on Feb. 4, 2026, without oral argument. The court noted in its memorandum that the panel unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision based on the written briefs alone, as permitted under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2).
The opinion is marked as a memorandum disposition that is not appropriate for publication and does not create binding precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. This designation means the decision applies specifically to this case but cannot be cited as precedential authority in future cases.
The ruling represents the final resolution of the dispute between Bluemar and Vonnic, barring any potential petition to the Supreme Court, though such petitions in commercial disputes are rarely granted certiorari. The decision provides legal closure to a case that illustrates the ongoing judicial response to pandemic-related fraud in the medical equipment market.