.png)
Licensed in California, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Texas, Washington, the District of Columbia, and before the USPTO.
© 2025 Lloyd & Mousilli. All rights reserved.
The term Schedule A refers to an exhibit attached to the complaint that lists all of the defendant sellers, websites, or online storefronts accused of infringement. In these cases, the plaintiff often does not yet know who operates each online store or where they are located. Instead, the lawsuit identifies the defendants by their marketplace usernames, domain names, or email addresses, all of which are collected in that “Schedule A.”
Because these defendants are often anonymous or based internationally, plaintiffs usually request that the court seal the list, keeping it confidential until emergency relief is granted. This allows the plaintiff to act quickly, freezing assets and taking down listings before sellers can remove evidence or transfer funds. The Northern District of Illinois is recognized as the go-to venue for Schedule A litigation.
The rise of Schedule A litigation reflects the speed and scale of online infringement. A single rights holder might discover dozens (or even hundreds) of sellers offering counterfeit versions of their products across multiple marketplaces. Rather than filing separate lawsuits for each seller, a Schedule A case allows all of them to be named together in one action.
This consolidated approach can be efficient for both plaintiffs and the courts. Plaintiffs can obtain emergency relief across multiple platforms through one order, and courts can manage related claims in a single proceeding. Once the initial injunction is granted, marketplaces like Amazon, Walmart, or eBay receive the court order and are required to remove infringing listings, freeze seller funds, and disclose identifying information about the defendants.
A Schedule A case typically begins with a rights holder’s investigation and documentation of counterfeit listings. Once sufficient evidence of infringement is compiled, the complaint is filed under seal with a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), usually ex parte, meaning without notifying the defendants.
If the court grants the TRO, the plaintiff serves the order on the relevant online platforms and payment processors, who are then required to freeze the sellers’ accounts and remove infringing listings. After that, the case proceeds to the next stage of service of process, typically through email.
Many defendants never respond, resulting in default judgments and permanent injunctions. Others choose to appear, negotiate settlements, or challenge the allegations. In some cases, once the identities of key defendants are revealed, the matter transitions into a more traditional litigation process involving discovery and motions practice.
Amorepacific Corporation et al. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, filed in the Northern District of Illinois, highlights how these lawsuits evolve. In this case, Amorepacific, owner of the LANEIGE skincare brand, alleged that various online sellers were offering counterfeit products under its trademark.
The court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Amorepacific against one of the defendants, Juanhe Co. Ltd., finding that the record established unauthorized use of the mark and a likelihood of consumer confusion. The company sought statutory damages under the Lanham Act, which are often used in Schedule A cases where actual damages are difficult to quantify. This decision showcases how a Schedule A case, which often begins as a large-scale enforcement effort, can narrow over time into focused litigation against specific defendants once their identities are confirmed.
At Lloyd & Mousilli, we advise clients across industries on strategic enforcement against online counterfeiters and unauthorized sellers. Our attorneys can evaluate when Schedule A litigation is appropriate, build the strong supporting record needed to obtain court relief, and provide expert legal counsel throughout the litigation process.
Our team leverages our Illinois attorneys for Schedule A claims in the Northern District of Illinois that has seen favorable results including immediate injunctive relief, asset freezes, expedited discovery, takedowns, default judgements, and damage recovery.
If your brand is facing counterfeit listings or online infringement, don’t wait for the problem to grow. Schedule a free consultation with Lloyd & Mousilli to discuss how we can help protect your IP and enforce your rights today.
