Schedule A Cases ­Can Be a Procedural Weapon Against Online Counterfeiters

Many businesses are turning to Schedule A cases to try to stop online counterfeiters, who can be difficult to identify on third-party online marketplaces. Schedule A refers to an IP case where a plaintiff typically sues numerous defendants, allegedly selling counterfeit products or infringing trademarks, under seal with an attached document titled “Schedule A” that lists the defendants. Leading brands such as Kendra Scott, NBA, Birkenstock, and Christian Dior have recently filed Schedule A cases.

In 2021, counterfeit and pirated goods made up $467 billion of global trade and, with the ease of counterfeit sales online, a Schedule A case may be one of the few tools capable of addressing the issue. Counterfeiters often use an alias that makes their identification and location difficult to ascertain. Rather than pursue hundreds of separate cases, a plaintiff can consolidate all defendants into a single Schedule A case to save legal fees, time and energy.

After filing a Schedule A complaint, a plaintiff may also file an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), which freezes alleged counterfeiters’ accounts. Schedule A complaints are typically filed in federal district court under seal to help plaintiffs ascertain the identity of counterfeiters during discovery and prevent money from leaving a counterfeiter’s account. In an ex parte motion, named defendants are not given notice and thus have no opportunity to appear at court.

If a TRO is granted, the plaintiff can serve the relevant third-party platform, which may be required to provide information on the identity, location, operation and financials of the defendants. A TRO enables a plaintiff to freeze payment accounts (and funds unrelated to the infringing activity), take down listings, seize domain names, and block the shipment of inventory. At this point, defendants become privy to being named in the suit.

The plaintiff may then move for a preliminary injunction and, finally, for a default judgment if defendants do not respond. Because alleged counterfeiters are often foreign entities, default judgments are typically granted (and not contested).

Defendants subject to a Schedule A case should quickly seek legal representation and move to dismiss. Possible defenses include improper joinder, lack of jurisdiction, defective service, no infringement, lack of confusion, and fair use. Acting immediately upon knowledge of being included in a Schedule A case is in a named business’s best interest, as damages can reach up to $2 million per trademark for willful infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) of the Lanham Act, and judgments may include permanent account terminations, among other consequences.

Schedule A cases are commonly filed in the Northern District of Illinois (N.D. Ill.), which has been known to grant TROs and asset freezes. Approximately 4,207 Schedule A cases were filed in the N.D. Ill. between January 2013 and February 2025. Since 2020, 83 percent of Schedule A cases have been filed there.

However, in June 2025, a N.D. Ill. judge stayed over 50 Schedule A cases to reevaluate whether the adjudication process of such cases is a fair and proper use of judicial discretion.

Criticisms against Schedule A cases include concerns about power dynamics imbalances, false positive identification of counterfeiters, and due process violations. Schedule A cases may produce negative ramifications for smaller businesses that financially depend on online marketplace listings, particularly if an account is frozen without notice and sales are suspended. Many are non-U.S. businesses that may unintentionally infringe on brands due to cultural differences and language barriers.

In the N.D. Ill. order staying Schedule A cases, the judge determined to reevaluate the appropriateness of ex parte proceedings, the routine sealing of the docket, granting TROs on an ex parte basis, granting prejudgment asset restraints, and the mass joinder of defendants.

Thus, while Schedule A cases can be an effective procedural tool for businesses that fall victim to hundreds of counterfeiters and trademark infringers, it's unclear whether the current process of Schedule A cases in the N.D. Ill. will survive with increased scrutiny.

Armin Ghiam is a partner in Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP’s Intellectual Property group in the firm’s New York office.

Casie Hahn is a summer associate in Hunton’s New York office.