Intellectual property owners previously utilized "Schedule A" litigation as a primary mechanism against counterfeiters and infringers on platforms like Amazon. This approach involved filing a single lawsuit against dozens or hundreds of defendants listed in an appendix to the complaint. By serving these defendants via email and obtaining rapid temporary restraining orders, plaintiffs could freeze assets before the accused were aware of the legal action. It was an efficient, high-volume enforcement model.
The legal landscape is shifting. Recent rulings from the Seventh Circuit have significantly constrained this practice, forcing IP holders to rethink how they protect trademarks and monitor online marketplaces. Recent Federal Circuit Decisions Highlight Key Developments in Intellectual Property Law
The Mechanics of Schedule A Litigation
Understanding recent court decisions requires an analysis of Schedule A case mechanics. When a brand discovers widespread infringement, hiring individual lawyers to sue each seller is cost-prohibitive. Instead, plaintiffs file one comprehensive complaint listing all infringers in Schedule A.
The typical workflow involves three critical steps:
- Filing Under Seal: The list of defendants is kept confidential to prevent them from moving assets.
- Service by Email: Because many infringers are overseas and their physical addresses are unknown, plaintiffs often serve the complaint via email.
- Temporary Restraining Order (TRO): Courts issue emergency orders freezing bank accounts and e-commerce storefronts before the defendants can respond.
If the defendants do not answer, they face default judgments. This pressure often forces settlements or asset forfeitures, providing a deterrent against counterfeiting.
The Hague Service Convention Hurdle
A significant constraint on this model emerged in Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd. (May 29, 2026). The Seventh Circuit addressed whether email service is valid when targeting defendants in China.
Kangol sued numerous Chinese manufacturers for trademark infringement and counterfeiting. They served these defendants via email and obtained a default judgment after they failed to respond. Later, one defendant challenged the judgment, arguing that service by email violated the Hague Service Convention - a treaty governing how legal documents are transmitted across international borders.
The court agreed. The Hague Service Convention provides an exhaustive list of permitted service methods. While Article 10(a) allows service by postal channels if the destination state does not object, China has explicitly objected to this method. Consequently, the court held that because China objected, and no other treaty-based path for email service exists, serving a Chinese defendant via email is prohibited.
Implication for Businesses: Targeting infringers in countries that have objected to Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention renders email service unviable. Plaintiffs must identify valid alternative methods of service, which can be expensive, slow, and often impractical for small-scale sellers. USPTO Expands Trademark Search for Non-Traditional Marks
The Personal Jurisdiction Gatekeeper
The Seventh Circuit’s scrutiny extended beyond international service. In Yinnv Liu v. Monthly (March 31, 2026), the court tightened the rules on personal jurisdiction in the United States.
Previously, plaintiffs could establish jurisdiction by showing that online storefronts were accessible in the forum state. The Seventh Circuit rejected this "website accessibility" standard. Instead, the court required proof of actual sales within the jurisdiction. Evidence such as screenshots of a checkout page with a local shipping address was deemed insufficient without proof that a transaction actually completed.
For plaintiffs managing hundreds of defendants in a Schedule A case, this creates logistical challenges. To prove jurisdiction for each defendant, firms must purchase products from every single seller to confirm sales and establish a sufficient connection to the court’s jurisdiction. This transforms a streamlined legal strategy into an exhaustive forensic accounting exercise. Navigating Trademark Law: Insights Into Confusability and Monitoring
The High Bar for Emergency Relief
Courts are also demanding stricter justification for the emergency measures that define Schedule A cases. In Eicher Motors Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (August 8, 2025), the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion for a TRO.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) requires "specific facts" showing that "immediate and irreparable injury" will result before the defendant can be heard. The court noted that Schedule A cases rarely meet this high bar because the mere existence of potential infringement does not automatically equate to immediate, irreparable harm without concrete evidence. This ruling signals that judges are less willing to grant ex parte relief in bulk IP cases.
Strategic Shifts for IP Owners
These rulings suggest that the era of easy, low-cost Schedule A litigation is ending. The strategy remains viable but is becoming more expensive and difficult to execute. Key considerations for trademark monitoring and enforcement include:
- Due Diligence is Critical: Vague online listings are no longer sufficient. Identifying specific sales activity and verifiable jurisdictional links is now a prerequisite for filing suit.
- Service Complexity: International service requires careful adherence to treaty obligations. Email service is risky in many jurisdictions and may lead to dismissed cases or vacated judgments, wasting significant legal resources.
- Cost-Benefit Analysis: The cost of purchasing inventory to prove jurisdiction and navigating complex international service rules may outweigh the recoverable damages in smaller infringement cases.
- Alternative Enforcements: Brands should consider leveraging platform-specific tools, such as Amazon’s Brand Registry, and using cease-and-desist letters more aggressively before resorting to litigation. These administrative routes remain largely unaffected by federal court rulings on personal jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Trademark confusability remains a core legal concept, but the procedural pathways to enforce rights have narrowed. The Seventh Circuit’s recent decisions reflect a broader judicial trend of curbing mass litigation tactics that bypass due process concerns. For intellectual property owners, success now depends less on volume and more on precision, requiring robust monitoring systems and strategic enforcement plans tailored to these new legal realities. Trademark Confusability and Monitoring in Modern Sports and Entertainment