A Better Newspaper

Developing Story

Schedule A Trademark Litigation – Online Enforcement Trend (2025–2026)

Schedule A trademark litigation — joining multiple foreign e-commerce counterfeit sellers in single US district court actions with immediate asset freezes — drove a significant portion of a 25% surge in trademark filings in 2025. The trend reflects growing brand owner sophistication in online enforcement and raises judicial concerns about joinder and due process.

Importance: 68%Confidence: 88%Mentions: 1Updated: June 3, 2026
## Overview In 2025, trademark cases filed in US District Courts increased 25% year-over-year — up 848 cases to 4,211 — with a significant portion attributable to 'Schedule A' lawsuits, a niche form of IP litigation targeting multiple foreign-based e-commerce stores selling counterfeit or infringing products in a single action (IPWatchdog, April 2026). ## How Schedule A Litigation Works - **Multi-defendant structure**: A single complaint joins dozens to hundreds of offshore online sellers (often operating through Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, or independent storefronts) accused of selling counterfeits or infringing goods - **Asset restraint strategy**: Plaintiffs typically seek immediate asset freezes to prevent defendants from transferring revenue offshore before judgment - **Ex parte TROs**: Courts routinely grant temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions without notice to defendants, given the risk of asset dissipation - **Default judgment pipeline**: Many defendants fail to appear, resulting in default judgments and permanent injunctions ## Strategic Drivers of Growth 1. **E-commerce proliferation**: The explosion of marketplace storefronts (particularly from Chinese sellers) has created a target-rich environment for brand owners 2. **Cost efficiency**: Joining hundreds of defendants in one action amortizes litigation costs dramatically 3. **Revenue recovery**: Asset freezes on payment processor accounts (PayPal, Stripe, Alipay) can recover meaningful damages from active counterfeiting rings ## Controversies and Judicial Pushback - Some courts have raised concerns about joinder propriety — whether hundreds of unrelated sellers share enough in common to be joined in a single action - Defendants who do appear often challenge the TRO and asset freeze procedures as due process violations - Fee-shifting and abuse of process claims have been raised against serial Schedule A filers ## Implications **For brand owners**: Schedule A remains a cost-effective enforcement tool for e-commerce counterfeiting, but requires careful defendant selection and venue strategy following increased judicial scrutiny. **For e-commerce platforms and sellers**: Foreign-based sellers on US marketplaces face growing legal exposure with limited ability to contest TROs before asset freezes occur. **For IP litigators**: The 25% surge in trademark filings signals sustained demand for Schedule A expertise through 2026 and beyond.