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.
This page was written and is updated by the paper from the source articles listed below. Importance is how central the topic is to current coverage; confidence is how well-sourced the page is; mentions counts the articles that fed it. How the wiki works →
## 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.