Book a demo
Geekcommerce v. Schedule A Defendants — TIRECOCKZ Trademark & Design Patent Infringement | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:23-cv-24255
FiledNov 2023
ClosedJan 2024
Patent Litigation

Geekcommerce v. Schedule A Defendants: Preliminary Injunction Granted in 63 Days

Geekcommerce, LLC secured a preliminary injunction against 80+ e-commerce sellers accused of counterfeiting the TIRECOCKZ branded prank penis-shaped valve stem cap, asserting both trademark rights and the USD991156S design patent. The court froze defendants’ marketplace accounts and diverted funds to a court-held account within just 63 days of filing.

Resolution time
63days
63 days — faster than the typical Schedule A trademark injunction timeline in S.D. Fla.
Patents asserted
1
USD991156S (US29/695169) — TIRECOCKZ valve stem cap; novelty design patent
Outcome
Injunction Granted
Preliminary injunction issued — defendants barred from selling, advertising, or transferring assets
Cost ruling
$10,000 Bond
Plaintiff posted $10,000 injunction bond, held with the Court pending final disposition
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Swift injunction in Florida’s active Schedule A e-commerce enforcement docket

Geekcommerce, LLC filed suit on November 7, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against a large group of anonymous online sellers — collectively identified as ‘Schedule A’ defendants — including named storefronts such as Elfindea, Foshanshi Nanhaiquyuchongshangmao Youxiangongsi, and dozens of marketplace accounts operating across Amazon, eBay, Walmart, and similar platforms. The complaint alleged infringement of the TIRECOCKZ trademark and the USD991156S design patent, both covering a novelty prank penis-shaped tire valve stem cap.

Within 63 days of filing, the court entered a sweeping preliminary injunction on January 10, 2024 barring all named defendants from manufacturing, importing, advertising, selling, or distributing products bearing the TIRECOCKZ mark or practicing the ‘156 design patent. The order also required payment processors including Amazon, PayPal, eBay, Stripe, and Walmart to freeze and divert to a court-held account all funds associated with defendants’ seller accounts. The clerk was simultaneously directed to close the case for administrative purposes only, with all parties retaining the right to reopen.

The 63-day resolution timeline is consistent with the accelerated posture of S.D. Florida’s ‘Schedule A’ IP enforcement programme, which is designed to move quickly against anonymous or overseas sellers before assets dissipate. The administrative closure following injunction — rather than a final judgment — suggests the case may remain dormant unless defendants challenge the order or plaintiff pursues damages. The public record does not disclose whether any defendant appeared, opposed the motion, or whether settlement discussions occurred alongside the injunction proceedings.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:23-cv-24255
CourtFlorida Southern
Judge/
FiledNovember 7, 2023
ClosedJanuary 9, 2024
Duration63 days
OutcomeInjunction Granted
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisInjunction Granted
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Florida Southern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to settlement in 63 days

63 days — faster than the typical Schedule A trademark injunction timeline in S.D. Fla.

Case timeline: Complaint filed May 13 2025, DEC–JAN — 63 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Geekcommerce, LLC v The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A from filing to voluntary dismissal. Source: PACER, Florida Southern District Court. NOV 7 2023 Complaint filed DEC–JAN 2023 Pre-trial proceedings JAN 9 2024 Resolved consent judgment 63 DAYS TOTAL
Court ruling

Preliminary injunction granted — assets frozen, listings enjoined court-wide

Legal mechanism

What a preliminary injunction actually does here

A preliminary injunction is an interim court order — not a final judgment on the merits. Here, it immediately bars defendants from selling or advertising TIRECOCKZ-branded products and products practising the ‘156 design patent. It also freezes their financial accounts held by major payment processors. The injunction remains in force until the court sets a hearing date or modifies the order, preserving the status quo while the litigation proceeds.

Interim order — not a final verdict
Asset freeze scope

Funds diverted to court — the financial enforcement mechanism

The order directed Amazon, PayPal, eBay, Stripe, Walmart, Cloudflare, Camel FinTech, and ContextLogic to immediately identify, restrain, and divert to a court-held account all funds associated with defendants’ seller IDs. This cross-platform asset freeze is a hallmark of S.D. Florida Schedule A practice and is designed to prevent defendants from liquidating funds before a damages award can be enforced.

Cross-platform asset restraint
Administrative closure

Case closed administratively — but not finally resolved

The clerk’s direction to ‘close this case for administrative purposes only’ does not constitute a final disposition. Any party may move to reopen at any time. This procedural mechanism is routinely used in S.D. Florida Schedule A cases after injunction is secured — it clears the active docket while the injunction remains live and plaintiff monitors compliance or pursues settlement with individual defendants.

Docket closed — injunction remains live
Design patent enforcement

USD991156S: design patent as a dual enforcement lever

Alongside the TIRECOCKZ trademark, plaintiff asserted the ‘156 design patent (US29/695169), covering the ornamental appearance of the valve stem cap. Design patents in infringement actions apply an ‘ordinary observer’ test — would an ordinary buyer mistake the accused product for the patented design? The injunction’s explicit prohibition on ‘making, using, selling, importing and/or offering to sell products that practice the ‘156 Design Patent’ signals the court found sufficient basis at the preliminary stage.

Design patent + trademark dual assertion
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:23-cv-24255 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffGeekcommerce, LLCCompanyIP enforcement company — holder of TIRECOCKZ trademark and USD991156S design patentSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule ACompany80+ anonymous e-commerce marketplace sellers, many suggesting China-based operationsSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAngela NievesAttorneyCounsel for Geekcommerce, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJoel Benjamin RothmanAttorneyCounsel for Geekcommerce, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge /Chief JudgeFlorida Southern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Stipulation of dismissal — official text

“Accordingly, having considered the Application and having found good cause, we ORDER that the Application [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED and that a preliminary injunction be entered as follows: Each Defendant, its officers, directors, employees, agents, subsidiaries, distributors, and all persons in active concert or participation with any Defendant having notice of this Preliminary Injunction are hereby restrained and enjoined until further order of this Court: Case 1:23-cv-24255-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2024 Page 4 of 12 5 a. From manufacturing, importing, advertising, promoting, offering to sell, selling, distributing, or transferring any products bearing or using the TIRECOCKZ Mark, or any confusingly similar trademarks, other than those actually manufactured or distributed by Plaintiff; and b. From secreting, concealing, destroying, selling off, transferring, or otherwise disposing of: (i) any products, not manufactured or distributed by Plaintiff, bearing and/or using the TIRECOCKZ Mark, or any confusingly similar trademarks; or (ii) any evidence relating to the manufacture, importation, sale, offer for sale, distribution, or transfer of any products bearing and/or using the TIRECOCKZ Mark, or any confusingly similar trademarks; or (iii) any assets or other financial accounts subject to this Preliminary Injunction, including inventory assets, in the actual or constructive possession of, or owned, controlled, or held by, or subject to access by, any Defendant, including, but not limited to, any assets held by or on behalf of any Defendant; c. From making, using, selling, importing and/or offering to sell products that practice the ‘156 Design Patent. Each Defendant, its officers, directors, employees, agents, subsidiaries, distributors, and all persons in active concert or participation with any Defendant having notice of this Order shall immediately discontinue, until further order of this Court, the use of the TIRECOCKZ Mark, or any confusingly similar trademarks and the ‘156 Design Patent, on or in connection with all Internet based e-commerce stores owned and operated, or controlled by them, including the Internet based ecommerce stores operating under the Seller IDs. This order is limited to the Defendants’ listings using the TIRECOCKZ Mark, or any confusingly similar trademarks and the ‘156 Design Patent, on or in connection with all Internet based e-commerce stores owned and operated, or controlled by them, Case 1:23-cv-24255-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2024 Page 5 of 12 6 including the Internet based e-commerce stores operating under the Seller IDs, and does not apply to the Defendants’ entire e-commerce stores. Each Defendant, its officers, directors, employees, agents, subsidiaries, distributors, and all persons in active concert or participation with any Defendant having notice of this Preliminary Injunction shall immediately discontinue, until further order of this Court, the use of the TIRECOCKZ Mark, or any confusingly similar trademarks, within domain name extensions, metatags or other markers within website source code, from use on any webpage (including as the title of any web page), from any advertising links to other websites, from search engines’ databases or cache memory, and any other form of use of such terms that are visible to a computer user or serves to direct computer searches to Internet based e-commerce stores registered, owned, or operated by any Defendant, including the Internet based e-commerce stores operating under the Seller IDs. Each Defendant shall not transfer ownership of the Seller IDs during the pendency of this action, or until further order of the Court. Each Defendant shall continue to preserve copies of all computer files relating to the use of any of the Seller IDs and shall take all steps necessary to retrieve computer files relating to the use of the Seller IDs that may have been deleted before the entry of this Preliminary Injunction. Upon receipt of notice of this Preliminary Injunction, Defendants and all financial institutions, payment processors, banks, escrow services, money transmitters, or marketplace platforms, including but not limited to Amazon Payments, Inc. (“Amazon”), Cloudflare.com (“Cloudflare”), Camel FinTech Inc., PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”), eBay, Inc. (“eBay”), Stripe, Inc. and/or Stripe Payments Company (“Stripe”), Walmart.com (“Walmart”), and their related companies and affiliates shall, to the extent not already done, (i) immediately identify all financial accounts and/or sub-accounts, associated with the Internet based e-commerce stores operating under the Seller IDs, store numbers, infringing product numbers, and/or the e-mail addresses identified on Schedule “A” Case 1:23-cv-24255-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2024 Page 6 of 12 7 to the Complaint, as well as any other accounts of the same customer(s); (ii) identify all other accounts which transfer funds into the same financial institution account(s) or any of the other financial accounts subject to this Preliminary Injunction; (iii) restrain the transfer of all funds, as opposed to ongoing account activity, held or received for their benefit or to be transferred into their respective financial accounts, and any other financial accounts tied thereto; and (iv) immediately divert those restrained funds to a holding account for the trust of the Court. Upon receipt of notice of this Preliminary Injunction, Defendants and all financial institutions, payment processors, banks, escrow services, money transmitters, or marketplace platforms receiving notice of this Preliminary Injunction, including but not limited to, Amazon, Cloudflare, Camel FinTech Inc, ContextLogic, PayPal, eBay, Stripe, Walmart and their related companies and affiliates, shall further, to the extent not already done, provide Plaintiff’s counsel with all data that details: (i) an accounting of the total funds restrained and identify the financial account(s) and sub-account(s) which the restrained funds are related to; (ii) the account transactions related to all funds transmitted into the financial account(s) and sub-account(s) which have been restrained; (iii) the historical sales for the Defendants’ listings that are alleged to infringe Plaintiff’s trademarks, copyrights and patents; and (iv) the true identities along with complete contact information including email addresses of all Defendants. No funds restrained by this Preliminary Injunction shall be transferred or surrendered by any Defendant, financial institution, payment processor, bank, escrow service, money transmitter, or marketplace website, including but not limited to, Amazon, Cloudflare, Camel FinTech Inc, ContextLogic, PayPal, eBay, Stripe, Walmart, and their related companies and affiliates for any purpose (other than pursuant to a chargeback made pursuant to their security interest in the funds) without the express authorization of this Court. Case 1:23-cv-24255-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2024 Page 7 of 12 8 No Defendant whose funds are restrained by this Preliminary Injunction may transfer said funds in possession of any financial institution, payment processor, bank, escrow service, money transmitter, or marketplace website, including but not limited to, Amazon, Cloudflare, Camel FinTech Inc., PayPal, eBay, Stripe, Walmart, and their related companies and affiliates restrained by this Preliminary Injunction to any other financial institution, payment processor, bank, escrow service, money transmitter or marketplace website without the express authorization of this Court. Any Defendant or financial institution account holder subject to this Preliminary Injunction may petition the Court to modify the asset restraint set out in this Preliminary Injunction. This Preliminary Injunction shall apply to the Seller IDs, associated e-commerce stores and websites, and any other seller identification names, e-commerce stores, websites, or financial accounts which are being used by Defendants for the purpose of counterfeiting the TIRECOCKZ Mark and/or unfairly competing with Plaintiff and/or infringing the ‘156 Design Patent. This Preliminary Injunction shall remain in effect until the date for the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction set forth below, or until such further dates as set by the Court or stipulated by the parties. The bond in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($10,000.00) posted by the Plaintiff, see Notice of Filing Injunction Bond [ECF No. 15-001], is sufficient and shall remain with the Court until a final disposition or until this Preliminary Injunction is dissolved or terminated. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case for administrative purposes only. Any party may move to reopen the case at any time.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:23-cv-24255, Florida Southern District Court · Filed January 9, 2024

The preliminary injunction order is notably broad in scope: it enjoins not just direct sales but also advertising, importing, metatag use, domain name transfers, and SEO-directed search activity tied to the TIRECOCKZ mark. The explicit inclusion of the ‘156 design patent alongside trademark claims in a single injunctive order is significant — it means defendants cannot sidestep the order by cosmetically rebranding the product while retaining the infringing ornamental design. The fund diversion mechanism to a court-held account, rather than simply freezing assets in place, gives plaintiff meaningful negotiating leverage in any subsequent settlement discussions with individual defendants.

PACER case 1:23-cv-24255 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USD991156S — Ornamental design for a novelty tire valve stem cap

Publication No.USD0991156S
Application No.US29/695169
Patent details
AssigneeGeekcommerce, LLC
ProductTIRECOCKZ Mark + USD991156S — novelty valve stem cap ornamental design
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionNovember 7, 2023

USD991156S (application number US29/695169) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a novelty prank penis-shaped tire valve stem cap sold under the TIRECOCKZ brand. Design patents protect the visual characteristics of an article of manufacture — not its function. The ‘156 patent gives Geekcommerce exclusive rights to the specific ornamental design, enabling enforcement against sellers whose products an ordinary observer would find substantially similar in appearance.

In the novelty accessories and automotive aftermarket space, design patents have become a critical tool against mass-marketplace counterfeiting. Because the product’s commercial value is tied almost entirely to its distinctive appearance and branding, a design patent paired with a registered trademark creates a dual enforcement barrier that is difficult for copycat sellers to circumvent without completely redesigning the product. The S.D. Florida court’s willingness to grant preliminary injunctions on design patent grounds at the ex parte or early motion stage makes this a particularly potent combination for brand owners in this category.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against USD991156S before entering the valve stem cap market?

Any brand, manufacturer, or marketplace seller considering designing, importing, or listing novelty valve stem cap products — particularly in the automotive accessories and prank gift categories — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against USD991156S and related design patent families. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is actively enforcing, and the S.D. Florida Schedule A mechanism means enforcement can move from filing to asset freeze in under 90 days with minimal prior notice to defendants.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map ornamental design patent claims against proposed product aesthetics, identifying design-around opportunities before market entry. Claim monitoring alerts can flag new design patent filings in the valve stem cap and automotive novelty accessories space, giving you early warning of emerging IP risk. Running an FTO now is substantially cheaper than defending a Schedule A preliminary injunction with frozen marketplace funds.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0991156S to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar Schedule A trademark & design patent enforcement cases in e-commerce

PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Geekcommerce, LLC patent enforcement history, Florida Southern case history, Geekcommerce, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
S.D. Fla. Schedule A injunctionsAutomotive novelty design patentsSRIPLAW enforcement actionsAmazon seller asset freeze cases
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the e-commerce counterfeiting enforcement landscape

This case exemplifies the rapid-injunction playbook increasingly used by brand owners against anonymous marketplace sellers in S.D. Florida.

S.D. Florida remains a preferred venue for Schedule A IP enforcement actions

The Southern District of Florida has become one of the most active courts for Schedule A actions targeting anonymous e-commerce sellers. The combination of a willing judiciary, established TRO and PI procedures, and the ability to freeze global payment processor accounts without defendants initially appearing makes it a structurally attractive venue for brand owners with limited seller identification.

Dual trademark + design patent assertion strengthens the preliminary injunction case

Asserting both a registered trademark and a design patent in the same action gives plaintiff two independent grounds for injunctive relief. Even if one claim were to weaken on the merits, the other may independently sustain the injunction. Product teams and marketplace operators should treat design patents as a serious enforcement instrument — not merely a backstop to trademark claims.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Includes sector IP trends, Judge Treadwell’s case history, and FTO risk assessment for the truck equipment space
Payment processor freeze dataSettlement leverage patternsS.D. Fla. Schedule A win rates
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Geekcommerce v The — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Run your own FTO before entering the novelty automotive accessories market

This case shows how quickly a design patent holder can freeze your marketplace accounts and diverted funds. Use PatSnap Eureka to run an FTO against USD991156S and monitor new filings in this product category before launching.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.