JM v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment Won in 71 Days Over Counterfeit Hanging Beverage Trays
JM secured a sweeping default judgment against more than 100 online marketplace sellers — including storefronts on Amazon, Temu, AliExpress, and eBay — accused of selling counterfeit hanging beverage trays bearing JM’s protected trademark and copyrights. The court awarded $100,000 in statutory damages per defendant and ordered platform-level asset freezes across PayPal, Stripe, Payoneer, and major e-commerce platforms.
Fast default victory in a mass-defendant e-commerce counterfeiting sweep
Filed on 21 November 2023 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge John Robert Blakey, this action saw plaintiff JM assert trademark and copyright infringement against a Schedule A roster of more than 100 defendants — predominantly China-based online storefronts operating across Amazon, AliExpress, Temu, eBay, DHgate, and Joybuy. The disputed product is a hanging tray designed for a single open beverage, protected in part by design patent USD0744789S (application no. US29/372956).
The case closed on 31 January 2024 — just 71 days after filing — when the court granted JM’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment. No defendant appeared or filed a response, triggering the default mechanism. The judgment is comprehensive: a permanent injunction bars all infringing activity, domain registrars are directed to transfer or disable defendant domains, and third-party platforms are ordered to freeze and release funds held in defendants’ accounts toward the $100,000-per-defendant statutory damages award.
The 71-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated cadence typical of Schedule A counterfeiting cases in N.D. Illinois, where ex parte TROs and default posture often produce outcomes within months. The public record does not disclose total aggregate damages collected, the number of defendants who ultimately had assets frozen, or whether any defendant subsequently moved to vacate the default — variables that materially affect the practical enforcement value of the judgment.
Filing to settlement in 71 days
Resolved in 71 days — well below the median for multi-defendant IP infringement cases in N.D. Illinois
Default Judgment: Permanent Injunction and $100,000 Per-Defendant Statutory Damages
Default judgment: what it means when no defendant appears
When defendants fail to respond to a complaint, the plaintiff may move for entry of default and subsequently default judgment. The court accepts well-pleaded allegations as true and awards the requested relief. Here, every named defendant defaulted, enabling JM to obtain a permanent injunction and statutory damages without contested litigation. Default judgments in Schedule A cases are common but enforceability against overseas sellers varies significantly.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)$100,000 per defendant for willful trademark infringement
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2), a plaintiff may elect statutory damages of up to $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods for willful infringement. The court awarded $100,000 per distinct defaulting defendant — a moderate-range election that balances deterrence with the practicality of recovery from small-scale online sellers. The order clarifies the award applies once per defendant even where multiple aliases are listed.
15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2)Asset freezes ordered across Amazon, Temu, PayPal, Stripe, and others
The judgment binds third-party providers — including Amazon, AliExpress, Temu, eBay, Joybuy, Shopify, Walmart, LianLian, PayPal, Payoneer, and Stripe — requiring them to freeze and release defendant funds within 14 days. This mechanism, standard in N.D. Illinois Schedule A actions, converts the judgment into near-immediate partial collection where platform balances exist, without requiring the plaintiff to chase defendants in foreign jurisdictions.
Third-party provider freezeDefendant domains transferred or disabled at plaintiff’s election
Registries including VeriSign, Neustar, and Afilias, along with registrars such as GoDaddy, Namecheap, and Name.com, are ordered within seven days either to transfer defendant domain names to JM’s control or to disable them entirely. This dual-track remedy gives JM flexibility: it can take over domains for redirect or brand protection purposes, or simply neutralise them to disrupt ongoing infringing sales.
Domain transfer or disablementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | JM | Company | Consumer product IP holder — asserting trademark, copyright, and design rights in hanging beverage traySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A | Company | 100+ online marketplace storefronts, primarily China-based, selling alleged counterfeit beverage tray productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Edward Judge | Attorney | Counsel for JMSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Patrycia Piaskowski | Attorney | Counsel for JMSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zareefa Burki Flener | Attorney | Counsel for JMSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John Robert Blakey | Chief Judge | Illinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The default judgment’s language is deliberately broad — permanently enjoining not just the named defendants but all persons ‘acting in active concert’ with them, binding third-party platforms by notice, and preserving JM’s right to commence supplemental proceedings under FRCP 69. This architecture is designed for an enforcement environment where defendants operate under multiple aliases and reappear on new storefronts. The $100,000-per-defendant award signals willfulness was unchallenged, but actual recovery depends entirely on platform-held balances at the time of the freeze order.
USD0744789S — Ornamental Design for a Hanging Single-Open Beverage Tray
USD0744789S (filed under application number US29/372956) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a hanging tray designed to hold a single open beverage. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect novel, non-functional visual characteristics of a product — here, the specific aesthetic configuration of the tray. The ‘D’ designation confirms this is a design rather than utility patent, meaning protection is tied to the product’s look rather than its functional mechanism.
In the consumer goods and kitchenware space, design patents are increasingly deployed alongside trademark and copyright registrations to create overlapping IP coverage that strengthens both infringement claims and damages arguments. A design patent holder can assert infringement where a competitor’s product is substantially similar in appearance to an ordinary observer — a standard that courts have found relatively plaintiff-friendly. For competitors in the hanging organiser and beverage accessory category, this patent represents a design boundary that should be evaluated before product development or marketplace listing.
Should your team run an FTO check against USD0744789S before entering the hanging tray market?
Any brand, manufacturer, or marketplace seller operating in the hanging beverage organiser or single-serve tray category should treat USD0744789S as a live clearance risk. The JM enforcement action demonstrates active monitoring and willingness to pursue 100+ defendants simultaneously — including small storefronts. If your product shares visual characteristics with the patented tray design, an FTO analysis is warranted before listing on Amazon, AliExpress, Temu, or similar platforms.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map their designs against USD0744789S claim scope, identify design-around opportunities, and monitor for continuation or related filings. With Schedule A enforcement campaigns increasingly targeting marketplace sellers at scale, proactive FTO clearance — and ongoing claim monitoring — is a lower-cost alternative to being named in the next round of Schedule A defendants.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0744789S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A Counterfeiting Cases Involving Consumer Product Design Rights
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the consumer goods counterfeiting IP landscape
This judgment illustrates both the power and the limits of the Schedule A enforcement model against cross-border e-commerce counterfeiters.
Schedule A actions remain the dominant tool for product IP holders facing marketplace counterfeiting
The N.D. Illinois Schedule A playbook — mass joinder, TRO, platform freeze, default — compresses enforcement timelines to weeks. For IP holders with registered trademarks or design patents, this model offers scalable deterrence that individual defendant suits cannot match. The 71-day close here is consistent with that pattern.
Platform-level asset freezes are the enforcement backbone — not the court order itself
A default judgment against overseas sellers is only as valuable as the assets it can reach. Ordering platforms like Amazon, Temu, and PayPal to freeze and release funds transforms an otherwise unenforceable foreign-defendant award into real recovery. Brands pursuing this strategy should prioritise jurisdictions and platforms where seller balances are most likely to be held.
JM v The — key questions answered
JM obtained a default judgment on 31 January 2024, 71 days after filing. The court permanently enjoined all defaulting defendants, awarded $100,000 in statutory damages per defendant for willful trademark and copyright infringement, and ordered third-party platforms including Amazon, Temu, PayPal, and Stripe to freeze and release defendant funds to JM.
JM asserted rights under design patent USD0744789S (application no. US29/372956), which protects the ornamental design of a hanging tray for a single open beverage. The case also involved trademark and copyright claims — a layered IP strategy that enabled JM to elect statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2).
Schedule A cases allow a plaintiff to sue a large group of anonymous or pseudonymous online sellers in a single action. The plaintiff typically seeks an ex parte TRO to freeze defendants’ platform accounts, then proceeds to default judgment if defendants fail to appear. N.D. Illinois is a preferred venue for this model due to its established procedural familiarity with the approach.
The order required Amazon, AliExpress, Temu, eBay, Joybuy, Shopify, Walmart, LianLian, PayPal, Payoneer, and Stripe to freeze funds in defendants’ accounts within seven days of receiving the order, and to release those funds to JM within 14 days — up to the $100,000-per-defendant statutory damages cap.
Yes. A defendant may move to vacate a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) by demonstrating, among other things, excusable neglect or lack of notice. In practice, many overseas marketplace defendants lack U.S. counsel or awareness of proceedings, which can support a 60(b) motion. However, the public record in this case does not indicate any defendant moved to vacate the judgment.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.