Saper Law Defends Online Retailers Sued for Trademark Infringement

Big Brands Continue to Sue Online Retailers for Trademark Infringement Claims

Are you selling products on Amazon or eBay? Do you use PayPal to process your payments? Are you sure the products you are selling do not infringe on the trademarks or copyrights of other brands?

Before you begin selling your products on these websites, it is important to understand the implications of an intellectual property lawsuit that could be brought against you.

Background information:

In order to stop the sale of counterfeit or infringing products, big brands are hiring lawyers, especially in the Northern District of Illinois, to take legal action through trademark infringement lawsuits. These suits are primarily brought under the USA Trademark Act, called the Lanham Act.

What is trademark infringement?

Trademark infringement is the unauthorized usage of a trademark or service mark on or in connection with goods and/or services in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake concerning the source of the goods and/or services. In other words, if you use someone else’s brand to sell your products in a way that makes a consumer think you are the official company selling the brand, you are infringing on the legitimate brand’s trademark.

What are the penalties?

If the trademark owner is able to prove infringement, available remedies may include the following:

  1. a court order that the defendant stop using the accused mark and shutting down the defendant’s Paypal, Ebay, Amazon, Ali Baba, etc. merchant accounts. (This usually happens if the court grants Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, or preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction).
  2. an order requiring the destruction or forfeiture of the infringing products or goods,
  3. money damages (including defendant’s profits, any damages sustained by the plaintiff, and the costs of the action),
  4. an order that the defendant pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.

How are the lawsuits filed?

In most cases, luxury brand companies suspect possible counterfeiting when they notice that numerous merchants are selling their products online at unreasonably low prices. Upon suspicion, luxury brand companies will then have an investigator search for and buy the infringing products sold online.

Then, the luxury brands file a complaint and sue the online merchants, attaching the investigator’s findings.

Since many of these merchants are in China, the luxury brands do not first formally serve the defendants. (Whether this is proper depends on the facts of each case.)  Instead, the luxury brand companies ask the Court to freeze the PayPal or other financial accounts of the online retailers via a temporary restraining order or “TRO.” Once the TRO is in place, they then email the accounts associated with the retail sites apprising them of the lawsuit.  If the Chinese or oversees merchants do not respond to the complaint within 21 days of being “served” via email, the luxury brand companies will eventually obtain a “default judgment” against the Chinese or oversees merchants.

Should you hire an attorney?

If you have a lot of money frozen in your frozen PayPal accounts or if you cannot do business because your online store has been shut down, it is very helpful to hire an attorney to represent you. An attorney who understands United States’ trademark laws and who is familiar with the court procedures of the United States Federal Courts may be able to negotiate a favorable settlement on your behalf or get the case dismissed.

Without an attorney, you may not negotiate a favorable settlement or you may miss critical court deadlines because you do not understand court rules or procedures.

Saper Law can help!

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois is where many luxury companies file lawsuits for trademark infringement and related claims. Saper Law’s experienced attorneys regularly appear before Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to represent e-commerce stores accused of trademark infringement.  Daliah Saper, the Principal Attorney at Saper Law Offices, 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 regarding trademark litigation or a domain name dispute, contact us at (001) 312.527.4100 or email us at ds@saperlaw.com.

We previously wrote about defending these IP infringement cases in this post and this post:

This article is also written in Chinese for individuals and businesses for which English is not their first language

New cases:

NBA Properties, Inc. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-06508

Karma Culture LLC v. Conscious Mind Products LLC 1-18-cv-06519

Richemont International SA et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-06555

Engineered Abrasives, Inc. v. Richerme et al 1-18-cv-06562

Animex Foods Sp Z oo sp k v. Belmont Sausage Company 1-18-cv-06572

The Whitehall, LLC v. Houston Hotel Owner, LLC 1-17-cv-08383

Luxottica Group SpA et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-06608

Volkswagen AG et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-06611

Image Media Advertising, Inc. v. Image Media One, LLC 1-18-cv-06642

David Gilmour Music Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-05777

Natural Organics, Inc. v. Salud Natural Entrepreneur, Inc.
1-18-cv-05814

Chapter 4 Corp. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identifed on Schedule A
1-18-cv-06434

Iron Maiden Holding Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-06449

Christian Dior Couture, S.A. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-06402

Gianni Versace, SpA v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-06412

Trias Holding AG v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”
1-18-cv-06416

The Segerdahl Corporation d/b/a SG360° v. Ferruzza et all 1-17-cv-03015

Levi Strauss & Co. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-06374

Levi Strauss & Co. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-05866

Cocoon Innovations, LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-06343

PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-6351

PopSockets LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-06364

Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” 1-18-cv-06205

FONA International Inc. v. McCormick & Company, Incorporated
1-18-cv-06213

Everwash, Inc. v. Everwash LLC
1-18-cv-06219

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust et al v. The Partnership and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-06093

Eye Safety Systems, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-06098

LVMH Swiss Manufactures SA et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-06067

H-D USA, LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
1-18-cv-06077

Global Merchandising Services Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-05953

Luxottica Group SpA et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-05876

Wham-O Holding, Ltd. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-05878

Snow Systems, Inc. v. Sneller’s Landscaping, LLC
1-18-cv-05842

Snow Systems, Inc. v. Glen Haven Snow Systems, LLC
1-18-cv-05845

Polyblank Designs Limited v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-05846

Millennium IP, Inc. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-05856

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Education.com Holdings, Inc.
1-18-cv-05863

Levi Strauss & Co. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-05866

Danziger Kosher Catering USA, LLC et al v. Dimensions Events, Inc. et al
1-18-cv-05870

NEXT Payment Solutions Inc. v. CLEAResult Consulting, Inc.
1-17-cv-08829

Happy Camper Pizzeria LLC v. Neumann et al
1-17-cv-06008

Poetic Cases, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-05301

GS Holistic, LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-05262

Luxottica Group SpA et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-05194

Oakley, Inc. v. Shenzhen Globalegrow E-Commerce Co., Ltd. 1-18-cv-05101

Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” 1-18-cv-05052

Shenzhen Wenwen New World Trading Company Limited v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-04778

Richemont International SA et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” 1-18-cv-04777  *Plaintiffs include: Cartier International AG, Montblanc-Simplo GmbH, Chloe SAS, Officine Panerai AG, Van Cleef & Arpels SA

Trias Holding AG v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-04866

Eye Safety Systems, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 1-18-cv-04843

Monster Energy Company v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A  1-18-cv-04846

Entertainment One UK Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A  1-18-cv-04926

Entertainment One UK Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A  1-18-cv-04928

Entertainment One UK Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” 1-18-cv-04957

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

Entertainment One UK Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No.1-18-cv-02950

Luxottica Group SpA et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No.1-18-cv-02990

Kiel James Patrick LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No.1-18-cv-03777

Millennium IP, Inc. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-03778

David Gilmour Music Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-02763

Volkswagen AG et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Case No. 1-18-cv-03229

PopSockets LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-032321

Wham-O Holding, Ltd. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-03264

Oakley, Inc. v. Shenzhen Sailvan Ecommerce Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 1-18-cv-03341

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-03453

Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-03480

Trias Holding AG v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1-18-cv-03522

Gianni Versace, SpA v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-03908

Iron Maiden Holdings Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No.1-18-cv-03875

Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-03992

Pink Floyd (1987) Limited v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-03996

Christian Dior Couture, SA v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-04121

Burberry Limited, a United Kingdom company et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, Case No. 1-18-cv-04223

Herschel Supply Company Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-04236

Board of Trustees of The University of Arkansas, A Body Politic and Corporate v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

Gianni Versace, SpA v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-05385

Levi Strauss & Co. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-05405

Benefit Cosmetics LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-05432

Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1-18-cv-05435

Past 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

 

A list of plaintiff-companies that recently brought trademark lawsuits against Chinese merchants and their brands includes

 

1.大众 Volkswagen AG

2.鲍勃斯科特 PopSockets

3.雷.安德生Ray Anderson

4.威猛奧Wham-O(holding)

5.美加 BeautyPlus

6. 太阳Oakley

7. 西部数据Western Digital

8. 施华洛世奇Swarovski

9. 特里亚斯 Trias

10. 毛伊吉姆 Maui Jim

11. 斯平玛斯特Spin Master Ltd. (Paw Patrol)

12. 博士Bose

13. 保加利亚休闲Bulgaria Spa

14. 卡尔文·克莱恩Calvin Klein Trademark Trust

15. 加拿大鹅Canada Goose Inc.

16. 加拿大鹅Canada Goose Inc.

17. 克罗心Chrome Heats

18. 茧包包Cocoon bags

19. 哈雷 Harley-Davidson

20. 哈雷 Harley-Davidson

21. 里维斯 Levi’s

22. 陆逊梯卡 Luxottica

23. 基尔詹姆斯Kiel James Patrick

24. 千年Millennium IP, Inc.

25. 大卫吉尔默David Gilmour Music

26. 米·希尔费格Tommy Hilfiger

27. 粉红弗洛依德Pink Floyd

28. 克丽丝·迪奥Christian Dior

29. 宝格丽Burberry

 

 

A previous list of plaintiff-companies and their brands includes:

 

珠宝Jewels

1.卡地亚Cartier

2.蒂芬尼Tiffany & Co.

3.宝嘉丽Bvlgari

4.梵克雅宝Van Cleef & Arpels

5.海瑞温斯顿Harry Winston

6.蒂爵Derier

7.德米亚尼Damiani

8.宝诗龙Boucheron

9.御木本Mikimoto

10.施华洛世奇Swarovski

 

 

皮具Handbags

1.路易•威登Louis Vuitton

2.夏奈尔Chanel

3.迪奥Dior

4.古孜Gucci

5.瓦伦蒂诺•加拉瓦尼Valentino Garavani

6.普拉达Prada

7.乔治•阿玛尼Giorgio Armani

8.登喜路Dunhill

9.芬迪Fendi

10.蔻驰Coach

 

 

名表Watches

1.百达翡丽Patek Philippe & Co.

2.爱彼Audemars Piguet

3.伯爵 Piaget

4.积家Jaeger-LeCoulter

5.江诗丹顿Vacheron Constantin

6.劳力士 Rolex

7.卡地亚Cartier

8.万国IWC

9.芝柏Girard-Perregaux

10.欧米茄 Omega

 

 

眼镜 Glasses

1.普拉达Prada

2.奥克利Oakley

3.珠迪丝•雷伯Judith Leiber

4.唐那•凯伦Donna Karan

5.圣罗兰Yves Saint Laurent

6.唐纳•卡兰Donna Karan

7.路易•威登Louis Vuitton

8.夏奈尔Chanel

9.迪奥Dior

10.卡地亚Cartier

 

 

名笔 Pens

1.帕克Parker

2.万宝龙Montblanc

3.威尔•永锋Wahl-Eversharp

4.华特曼Waterman

5.卡地亚Cartier

6.犀飞利Sheaffer

7.地球牌Ideal

8.奥罗拉Aurora

9.高仕Cross

10.万特嘉Montegrappa

 

高尔夫球具 Golf

1.登禄普Dunlop

2.泰勒梅TaylorMade

3.阿迪达斯Adidas

4.耐克 Nike

5.本候根Ben Hogan

6.因托尼Etonic

7.威尔森Wilson

8.马基高MacGregor

9.卡拉威Callaway

10.平Ping

 

 

 

X