Saper Law Offices Represents Chinese Merchants with Frozen PayPal Accounts

Saper Law Offices Represents Chinese Merchants with Frozen PayPal Accounts Sued for Online Counterfeiting and Trademark Infringement

Since 2015, the PayPal accounts of thousands of merchants in China have been frozen and sometimes surrendered as a result of trademark lawsuits brought by luxury brand owners. These lawsuits accuse Chinese merchants of selling counterfeit luxury brand goods such as Louis Vuitton, Bvlgari, Fendi, Patek Philippe, YSL, Parker, Chanel, Dunlop, and Cartier.* (See a more comprehensive list of brands below.)

Sometimes, these lawsuits address massive infringement counterfeiting schemes run by sophisticated Chinese merchants who own hundreds of stores and make millions of dollars off of unquestionably counterfeit goods.  However, other times, such lawsuits involve small Chinese merchants who only mistakenly sell counterfeit goods, who sell mostly legitimate products, or PayPal account holders who sell nothing but only lend their account to friends or family without any knowledge of any possible counterfeiting activity.

The Typical Lawsuit

In most cases, a luxury brand company or companies notice that numerous Chinese merchants are selling luxury brand goods online at unreasonably low prices and suspect possible counterfeiting.  The luxury brand companies then collect information about the online store’s catalogue of goods and file a trademark and counterfeiting lawsuit in U.S. federal court, using the PayPal accounts to identify the defendants.

The luxury brand companies then ask the Court to freeze those PayPal accounts via a temporary restraining order or “TRO.”  After the TRO, if the Chinese merchants do not respond to the complaint within 21 days, the luxury brand companies will eventually obtain a “default judgment” against the Chinese merchants.

Help From Saper Law

Saper Law represents e-commerce stores, including many in China.  We have litigated these cases in the Northern District of Illinois United States District Court and obtained favorable settlements on behalf of our clients.

Daliah Saper, the Principal Attorney at Saper Law, studied at Fudan University in Shanghai.  She understands Chinese clients’ concerns and has attorneys on staff that can counsel clients in both English and Mandarin.

If you have questions about trademark litigation or a domain name dispute, contact us at (001) 312.527.4100 or email us at ds@saperlaw.com.

Representative cases:

Richemont International SA et al. v. The Partnerships et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05991;

Luxottica Group SPA v. Meidan Chen et al., Case No. 16-cv-6468 NDIL;

Chrome Hearts LLC v. The Partnerships, et al., Case No. 14-cv-6602;

Calvin Klein et al. v. Wenben Zhou et al., Case No. 15-cv-5143;

Deckers Outdoor Corporation v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:14-cv-08114;

Michael Kors, L.L.C. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:14-cv-07872;

Oakley, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:14-cv-07714;

River Light V, L.P. et al. v. The Partnerships et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-6611;

Burberry Limited et al. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:14-cv-06287;

MCM Holding AG v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:17-cv-03194;

River Light V, L.P. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:17-cv-03252;

Burberry Limited, a United Kingdom company et al v. The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A, Case No. 1:17-cv-03255.

Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:17-cv-05664

MCM Holding AG v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:17-cv-05666

Luxottica Group S.p.A. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:17-cv-05691

Levi Strauss & Co. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:17-cv-06006

River Light V, L.P. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:17-cv-05999

Otter Products, LLC et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:17-cv-06009

Jiamuhe (Shenzhen) Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:17-cv-06106

PopSockets LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:17-cv-06101

Patagonia, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:17-cv-06175

H-D USA, LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:18-cv-02862

Levi Strauss & Co. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1:18-cv-02866