Tag: Schedule A

Posted on

Defendants’ Profits of Less Than $700 Do Not Support Plaintiff’s Claim for $50,000 in Statutory Copyright Infringement Damages

Plaintiff flew too high with its $50,000 statutory damage claim for copyright infringement of its hummingbird feeder images. The court clipped damages to only $1000 per defaulting defendant. Plaintiff failed to explain why $50,000 was appropriate and reasonable in view of the four defendants’ respective profits of $253.77, $666.42, $91.44, and $226.24.

Case: HB Feeder, LLC v. P’ships Identified on Schedule A, No. 25 CV 01359, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180111 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 15, 2025).

Posted on

Insufficient Explanation of Confusion and Plaintiff’s Products Dooms Schedule A Trademark Case

Plaintiff’s motorcycle championship trademark claims in a Schedule A case ran out of gas at default judgment because they lacked sufficient factual detail. The complaint alleged that the defendants’ use of plaintiff’s MOTOGP trademarks to sell counterfeit products caused confusion. But, the complaint failed to provide facts explaining how or why a consumer would be confused. Also, the court faulted the plaintiff for not providing a description of plaintiff’s genuine products. Therefore, the court denied default judgment and released defendants’ financial accounts.

Case: Dorna Sports v. Individuals…on Amended Schedule A, No. 24 CV 11676, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177866, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 11, 2025).

*Note: The court used the words “ordinary observer” in stating “Plaintiff fails to provide any actual facts explaining how or why an ordinary observer would be deceived.” That’s a design patent claim reference. But it is consumer confusion that is considered in trademark cases.

Posted on

Shipping options to Illinois not enough alone to confer personal jurisdiction in Schedule A trademark case

Screenshots of purchase pages on Walmart’s e-commerce platform showing shipping options to Illinois were not enough to confer specific personal jurisdiction over defendants in a Schedule A trademark case. There was no evidence of an actual sale to Illinois residents, written confirmation of sales with an Illinois shipping address, or shipping confirmation to an Illinois address. Therefore, the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff claimed ownership of trademarks including LUCKY 13 used in connection with clothing and that the defendants were selling counterfeit LUCKY 13 products. But without evidence of sales to Illinois, its luck ran out when it sought default judgement against the defendants.

Case: Blue Sphere, Inc. v. Individuals, No. 25 CV 004715, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176670 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 10, 2025).