Karl Florida, SVP Revenue Recovery at Corsearch, examines why Schedule A litigation has become an essential enforcement mechanism for protecting brands and consumers from online counterfeiting.
Global retail e-commerce sales exceeded USD 4.3 trillion in the last year and continue to grow rapidly. Alongside this expansion, online counterfeiting has flourished, fuelled by the anonymity, scale, and accessibility of digital marketplaces. The OECD and EUIPO estimate that global trade in counterfeit goods is worth approximately USD 467 billion annually, much of which happens online.
For brands, tackling this threat requires a combination of technological and legal tools. Monitoring technology enables rights holders to identify infringing listings and notify marketplaces, which are then required to remove them through notice-and-takedown procedures. This helps reduce consumer harm and protect revenue.
Taking enforcement further
However, counterfeiters frequently reappear under new aliases, making long-term disruption difficult. This is where Schedule A litigation has emerged as a powerful complement to traditional enforcement strategies.
Schedule A litigation allows brand owners to target infringing online storefronts and their associated payment accounts through a single US federal lawsuit. The term “Schedule A” refers to the attachment to the complaint that identifies defendants by their online seller names or aliases. Rather than pursuing numerous individual actions, rights holders can address dozens or even hundreds of infringing sellers simultaneously, significantly improving efficiency while reducing cost and complexity.
Addressing counterfeiting at scale
The scale of the problem illustrates why this approach is necessary. A typical Corsearch Schedule A case targets around 360 infringing sellers. Collectively, those sellers may have sold approximately 95,000 counterfeit products. These goods are often of poor quality and, in some sectors, can pose serious safety risks. Counterfeit bike components, toys, and other safety-critical products can expose consumers to significant harm.
The sellers involved frequently operate outside established regulatory frameworks, do not contribute tax revenues, and undermine legitimate businesses and jobs. Most importantly, they are highly persistent. In a representative sample of recent Corsearch cases, marketplaces had acted on an average of 40,000 takedown requests in the month before litigation was filed, yet large-scale infringement continued.
Schedule A litigation has proven effective at disrupting this activity. Corsearch cases have achieved average revenue recoveries of more than US$350,000 while reducing the number of counterfeit sellers targeting a brand by 53%, based on validated case study results.
Responding to criticisms of Schedule A
Despite these beneficial outcomes, the procedure has attracted criticism. Some commentators argue that rights holders are exploiting procedural loopholes, particularly through the use of Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs), asset freezes, and the joinder of multiple defendants within a single action. Others point to the growing number of Schedule A filings as evidence of overuse.
Such criticisms overlook the realities and misinterpret the legal foundations of the process. A recent study by Kari Kammel and Jessica Boeve of Michigan State University, Beyond the Brick-and-Mortar Paradigm: The Legal and Procedural Foundations of Schedule A Litigation in Combating Online Counterfeiting, examines the development of Schedule A litigation and its role in modern trademark enforcement.
The study concludes that growth in Schedule A filings closely mirrors the expansion of online commerce and the corresponding rise in counterfeit sales by third-party sellers. In other words, the increasing use of Schedule A is largely a response to the growing scale of online infringement rather than evidence of procedural abuse.
Online counterfeiters are not traditional defendants
The reality is that online counterfeiters differ fundamentally from the parties involved in traditional intellectual property disputes. They exploit anonymity, operate across jurisdictions, rapidly create new seller accounts, and routinely evade enforcement efforts. As noted in earlier legal scholarship, counterfeiters often enjoy practical immunity from conventional cease-and-desist letters and civil litigation because they can ignore them, quickly relocate, or re-establish operations under new identities.
This creates unique enforcement challenges. Traditional remedies frequently fail because counterfeiters can simply disappear when notified of impending legal action, only to resume their activities elsewhere. The online environment amplifies these tactics, allowing infringers to evade enforcement efforts and operate at unprecedented speed and scale.
A court-supervised enforcement mechanism
Against this backdrop, Schedule A litigation provides courts and rights holders with a practical mechanism to address modern counterfeiting networks. Critics have questioned whether joining large numbers of defendants in a single case is fair. However, US procedural rules explicitly grant courts discretion to add or remove parties when appropriate and to manage cases in a manner that is “just, speedy, and inexpensive.”
Ultimately, judges retain oversight and determine whether joinder is appropriate in each case. Courts balance due process considerations, evidentiary requirements, and procedural fairness before granting relief. Schedule A litigation, therefore, operates within an established legal framework and remains subject to judicial control throughout the process.
An essential tool for modern brand protection
As counterfeiters continue to adapt and exploit digital marketplaces, brand owners require enforcement tools that are equally agile. Schedule A litigation has demonstrated its ability to disrupt counterfeit networks, recover revenue, and reduce infringement at scale. Used responsibly and under court supervision, it represents a proportionate and effective response to a uniquely modern challenge.
For rights holders seeking to protect consumers, preserve brand integrity, and promote fair competition in digital marketplaces, Schedule A litigation remains one of the most essential tools available.
Written by Karl Florida
SVP Revenue Recovery, Corsearch
You may also like…
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
Contact us to publish in the IP knowledge Hub
