What Is It

A trademark holder may file a complaint alleging trademark infringement against hundreds of defendants identifying them as the “Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations” on Schedule A, which may be filed separately from the complaint or under seal. Infringers often use an alias and as a result, the actual names and locations of many of the defendants are unknown to the plaintiff. In such case, the plaintiff may list the assumed names on Schedule A.

Why File Schedule A Cases

After filing the complaint and Schedule A, the plaintiff may file an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the “secretly named” defendants before they can transfer their assets or destroy evidence. As a result, the defendants do not receive notice of the proceedings nor an opportunity to appear. Instead, if the court grants the TRO, the plaintiff presents the TRO to the internet marketplaces demanding that they stop selling infringing or counterfeit products and sends the TRO to the merchants to freeze the defendants’ accounts. This is typically when the defendants first learn of the lawsuit against them.

Additionally, because plaintiffs can bring hundreds of defendants selling their counterfeit or infringing products into one case, plaintiffs can save on attorneys’ fees and costs, rather than litigating numerous cases across the country.

Northern District of Illinois

Schedule A cases are common in the Northern District of Illinois (Northern District). For example, from January 3, 2013, through February 14, 2025, roughly 4,207 Schedule A cases were filed in the Northern District based on a trademark docket search conducted in Westlaw where defendants’ names included “Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations.” One judge in the Northern District went so far as to say “[i]t has become the Northern District of Illinois vs. the Internet.” BRABUS GmbH v. Individuals Identified on Schedule A Hereto, 20-CV-03720, 2022 WL 7501046, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2022). This is also due, in part, to the Northern District becoming a popular forum for granting ex parte TROs. However, not all judges in the Northern District are familiar with Schedule A cases.

Best Practices in Filing Schedule A Cases

Due Diligence in Preparing Schedule A

It is imperative that the plaintiff and its counsel conduct due diligence when gathering the list of defendants on Schedule A. Otherwise, the plaintiff may be ordered to pay the attorneys’ fees and costs of the improperly joined defendants like in Opulent Treasures, Inc. v. the Individuals et. al., Case No. 23-cv-14142 (N.D. Ill. April 8, 2024) (ECF No. 94). In Opulent, the plaintiff prevailed on an ex parte TRO against more than 200 defendants, including two affiliates of defendant, Ya Ya Creations, Inc. (Ya Ya), an active defendant in a lawsuit the plaintiff filed in California federal court based on the same set of facts as the Northern District case. Id. at ECF No. 94 at 1-2. It was not until after Ya Ya incurred substantial attorneys’ fees and costs that the plaintiff realized its mistake in including the two affiliates in this case. Id. As a result, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $98,276.20 to Ya Ya. Id. The court reasoned that a bad faith finding was not required to avoid sanctions. Id. at 3. Rather, fee reimbursements are warranted under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) when, like here, a “reasonable inquiry” could have prevented the increased litigation costs. Id. at 3-4.

Review the Court’s Standing Order

For example, in the Northern District, many district judges have standing orders addressing various requirements for Schedule A cases. At least one judge has her own standing order for Schedule A cases, which includes citations to pertinent case law covering personal jurisdiction, joinder, service of process via electronic means as well as what must be included in TROs. Additionally, many Northern District judges include templates for submitting proposed orders for TROs, preliminary injunctions, and default judgments and require any deviation from the templates to be redlined and explained to the court. Moreover, some include a schedule of information that must be filed for cases seeking ex parte injunctive relief where Schedule A was filed under seal. Further, some Northern District judges require a $1,000 bond for each defendant named in Schedule A, which can add up quickly if the plaintiff is suing hundreds of defendants.

The Importance of Joinder

In Schedule A cases where the defendants are too numerous or unconnected, plaintiffs may be required to file a memorandum addressing whether joinder is proper under Rule 20(a)(2). At least one judge in the Northern District invites plaintiffs in her standing order to amend Schedule A instead of filing such memorandum. Pursuant to Rule 20(a)(2), defendants may be joined in a single action if: “(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).

As the court in Bose Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” stated, Rule 20(a)(2) may not be satisfied simply because defendants have identical websites copying plaintiff’s style and each other. See 334 F.R.D. 511, 514 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (“Bose points out similarities among the aliases’ webpage designs and marketing information, arguing that these similarities permit a plausible inference that the aliases are actually all connected in some way. But even if the webpages were all identical, that would not overcome the likelihood that Defendants are just copycats, both of the Bose style—which is precisely the claim here—and of each other.”). Yet, the court in Bose Corp. found joinder was proper due, in part, to practical reasons and “occurrences” of mass harm by defendants, who acted as a swarm of counterfeiters, assisted by their anonymity and the international reach of the internet to violate plaintiff’s trademarks. Id. at 516.

However, other courts in the Northern District have cautioned against some of the reasoning in Bose Corp. See e.g., Zaful (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P’ships, & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule A, 24 CV 11111, 2025 WL 71797, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2025) (“This Court declines Plaintiff’s invitation to adopt Bose Corp.’s reasoning. There are innumerable bad acts conducted using the internet that have a substantial impact in the aggregate – courts must require more than that to establish joinder.”) (citation omitted); see also Bailie v. P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule A, 734 F. Supp. 3d 798, 804 (N.D. Ill. 2024) (“Without a limiting principle, adopting the approach taken in Bose would undermine a consistent line of cases in this district holding that ‘Rule 20(a)’s requirement for a common transaction or occurrence is not satisfied where multiple defendants are merely alleged to have infringed the same patent or trademark.’”) (quoting Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 187 (N.D. Ill. 2020)).

Accordingly, joinder is a fact-specific analysis that not only differs across jurisdictions but may differ among judges in each district. Plaintiffs, thus, should pay close attention to how judges in their district apply Rule 20(a)(2) in Schedule A cases.

How Can TROs Affect Infringers’ Online Marketplace and How to Notify the Online Marketplace with the TRO?

TROs in Schedule A cases can require the online marketplaces to provide expedited discovery relating to the identity and location of the defendants, the nature of defendants’ operations, and financial information related to the same. The court can also require such marketplaces to cease any advertisement for the defendants’ counterfeit products. Additionally, the TRO can require the marketplaces to enjoin the accounts, funds, or other assets of the defendants from being transferred or disposed.

The prevailing plaintiff should serve the TRO on the online marketplace by following the procedures of the marketplace. Some of this information may be available on the marketplace’s website or may require the plaintiff’s attorney to call the marketplace and confirm their procedure for court orders. To expedite the process, counsel for the plaintiff should contact the online marketplaces before the TRO is entered so if the court grants such relief, the plaintiff can immediately serve the same on the online marketplaces.

What Actions Can Defendants Take if They Are the Subject of an Improperly Granted Ex Parte TRO?

Assuming a defendant has not incurred substantial fees and costs from the improperly granted TRO, contact plaintiff’s counsel and demand dismissal with prejudice. Otherwise, the defendant can move for an emergency motion for a TRO and, if warranted, seek attorneys’ fees and costs like in Opulent.

Contact one of Taft’s Intellectual Property Litigation attorneys if you find yourself involved in Schedule A trademark litigation.