What a procedure in schedule a cases means for brands

A brief review of the dockets for a trio of federal district courts in the United States shows a striking trend: A steady stream of symptoms is “submitted to the partnerships identified in Appendix A and non -legal associations”. These complaints, which are led by Daimler Truck, Harley-Davidson, Metallica, Inc. and Manchester United to Chanel, Omega, Burberry and Birkenstock, are due to the fact that the defenders are in a “schedule” in a “schedule” in a “schedule” in a “schedule” Relatives “Pedizia, in a” relative in a “relative”, was initiated as “schedule. And in many cases the list of accused is submitted under seal so that (at least initially) they do not know that litigation is conducted against them.

The cases then go as follows: “The plaintiff entered an ex -part application to enter a sealed temporary injunction ('Tro') to determine [the defendants from] Marko Zoretic and Jack Hendershott write for sale and sell the allegedly hurtful products. “The assumption that the plaintiff's application -which occurs routinely, because the accused do not receive the opportunity to oppose him -provides the plaintiff for online marketplaces, which then close the corresponding product lists and set up the assets.” And all of this occurs before the accused learn about the case that the case is led against them.

This type of enforcement of copyright, patent and trademark rights appeals to the plaintiffs for several reasons. On the one hand, the submission under Seal ensures that the shameful Chinese “counterfeiters” are kept in the dark, which prevents them from destroying and/or transferring relevant documentary evidence and/or assets, the plaintiffs have argued. At the same time, the mass liability of accused, which is characteristic of these cases, offers from the point of view of the resources, since the plaintiffs only submit a complaint in contrast to dozens or even hundreds (and which can pay with the associated costs).

Against this background, the US district court for the northern district of Illinois has become the unofficial home of these submissions. Almost 3,000 cases of Appendix A have been in the ND Ill. (Chicago has been home to one of the law firms that leads such cases, which could explain the choice of the event location, since “these cases do not normally have a actual connection to the forum states.

Assembly criticism from the court

As a growing number of companies that largely use the same handful of law firms – are dependent on registrations in order to take widespread suspected counterfeits and/or injuries, some diseases have started to push back. In November, for example, a trio of federal judges in Illinois made decisions, which are mainly on improper occasions with the schedule A (including in a case of Toyota Motor Sales).

> The problem is that in these cases the accused “usually have no relationship with each other,” claims Eric Goldman, a professor and associate dean for research at Santa Clara University School of Law, a sad program for improper legal disputes about intellectual property. Instead, the right of rights “a meeting of alleged violations on an online market and counts them on a complaint … [and] Afterwards, generally claims that the accused are connected to each other without factually supporting factually. “

These decisions follow from a devastating statement by ND Ill. Judge Steven Seeger in December 2023, in which he refused Zorro Productions' application for a temporary injunction against 310 accused. According to Richter Seeger, the plaintiffs want to “sneak up to the accused in this case and hit their counterfeiting process[s] And do this under covering the darkness. They want to see relief without giving the accused the chance of what they hit. “

What does this increasing skepticism of the judges mean for the plaintiff for the case marking? From now on it may not be too much if the permanent flow of schedule is a complaint. “In the northern district of Illinois Post-ToyotaAs well as in the southern district of New York and in the southern district of Florida, ”said Fackrell. And that makes sense, “she says as” only a few judges on a very large bank [in Illinois]Press back. So I guess that's that [plaintiffs] Will simply continue to submit until this new strategy is shot down or something else brings the entrepreneur problem into your head. “

> Fackrell also notes: “In the Toyota case, the plaintiff's lawyer does not seem to have any really big arguments in favor of the Joinder. So why insert and risk a bad decision by the seventh circuit? Instead, they simply seem to be submitted and hope that the other judges of the skeptical group will not join. “

Even if these cases come again and again in the middle of a potentially increasing setback, Fackrell realizes that some interesting developments are underway. After the decision in ToyotaFor example, the same lawyers behind this case have decided to quickly change a separate schedule of a case complaint and only to interlock it on a defendant. “I also saw that this maneuver that hits the judge – at least with a judge” – judge Steven Seeger – who seems to be increasingly skeptical of the schedule against a model when the judge has decided to quickly become a defendant. ”

The overall picture (and problem?)

The underlying voltage that increases in connection with these cases is not the aggressiveness of the enforcement. And in fact, the logic behind such suits (at least for me) makes the market enforcement on the modern market-the dynamics (and permanent development) of the third-party market platform model. Goldman claims that the rights owners behind these cases “have the feeling that it is not logistical or financially feasible to pursue dealers individually, which is why they prefer to create dealers in mass positions”, about a case.

However, Goldman also explains that “individual complaints are exactly what the Joinder rules normally require”, he writes, and courts should not be in the business of “manufacturers”[ing] A problem bypass of these rules. ”

Fackrell agrees and announces TFL that “online injury is obviously a very big problem, but the problem is to compensate for the proper process with enforcement”. It indicates that the above sets for the plaintiffs do not mean in the cases that the plaintiffs could not still sue the accused “if they actually work together”. The plaintiffs should “not be able to rewrite the federal rules of civil procedure for their own convenience,” she says.

“Federal disputes are expensive. The proper procedure is expensive. Nobody has a constitutional right to cost-effective wages than profitable-IP enforcement disputes, ”according to Fackrell. “But everyone has a constitutional right to a proper procedure, even if they are counterfeiting.”