Using “Schedule A” Litigation to Combat Online Trademark Infringement

Why It Matters

The approach gives brands a faster, broader tool to halt counterfeit sales and recover damages, protecting revenue and reputation in a market where online infringement is exploding.

Key Takeaways

• Schedule A suits bundle hundreds of online infringers together
• Most filings target Northern District of Illinois for broader reach
• Ex parte TROs can freeze counterfeit sellers’ accounts instantly
• Default judgments often deliver permanent injunctions and statutory damages
• Serving international defendants and gathering evidence remain costly hurdles

Pulse Analysis

Online trademark infringement has become a top‑of‑mind risk for brands as e‑commerce platforms enable counterfeiters to launch dozens of anonymous storefronts overnight. Traditional litigation—filing a separate case against each infringer—quickly becomes prohibitively expensive and time‑consuming, especially when sellers operate across borders. This environment has driven companies to seek collective enforcement mechanisms that can address the scale of the problem without draining resources.

Schedule A litigation offers that collective punch. Plaintiffs file a single complaint in a federal court, most often the Northern District of Illinois, and attach a Schedule A list enumerating hundreds of known and unknown defendants. The court’s broader “minimum contacts” standard in that district allows the case to capture sellers who could reasonably foresee sales to Chicago consumers, effectively extending jurisdiction worldwide. An ex parte temporary restraining order can then be served on the offending marketplace, freezing the infringer’s account and pressuring settlement or, if the defendant fails to respond, resulting in a default judgment that includes a permanent injunction and statutory damages.

Despite its efficiency, Schedule A litigation is not a silver bullet. Serving process on foreign defendants and extracting digital evidence from payment processors, shipping carriers, and platform logs can be resource‑intensive. Moreover, the ex parte nature of the TRO raises due‑process concerns that courts monitor closely. Companies considering this route should partner with seasoned IP attorneys who can navigate service challenges, manage discovery costs, and ensure that the litigation strategy aligns with broader brand‑protection goals. When executed properly, Schedule A suits can dramatically reduce counterfeit exposure while delivering meaningful financial recoveries.