An Illinois federal judge has permanently dismissed a so-called “Schedule A” trademark infringement lawsuit, sharply rebuking the plaintiff for repeatedly attempting to bundle together defendants that courts have already ruled cannot be joined in a single action, calling the tactic “an egregious form of forum shopping.”
U.S. District Judge Robert Blakey dismissed with prejudice a suit brought by Marshall Amplification PLC, which accused numerous online sellers of offering unauthorized and unlicensed versions of its headphones and apparel. Schedule A cases typically involve intellectual property owners suing long lists of online merchants, often anonymously, for alleged infringement.
In a minute order dated Jan. 12, Judge Blakey said Marshall “has attempted to join defendants it has already thrice conceded … may not properly be joined in one suit.”
“Although joinder decisions may involve some measure of discretion,” the judge wrote, “repeatedly naming the exact same group or subgroup of defendants in new cases until a case is assigned to a judge the plaintiff believes to be hospitable to plaintiff’s own theory of joinder constitutes a willful abuse of the judicial process.”
Marshall described itself in the complaint as the maker of “one of the most recognized product lines in rock music” and said it was seeking to stop e-commerce operators from damaging its reputation and goodwill by selling counterfeit goods bearing its trademarks.
According to the complaint, the defendants’ alleged conduct occurred simultaneously and in the same online marketplaces, creating a single negative consumer impression and constituting the same series of transactions. Marshall also alleged that the sellers used multiple aliases to conceal their identities and the scope of their counterfeiting activities.
The lawsuit listed more than 20 trademarks registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. As is typical in Schedule A cases, the identities of the defendants were filed under seal.
Judge Blakey rejected Marshall’s approach, noting that if the company had a good-faith factual and legal basis for joining the defendants, it could have litigated the issue in its earlier cases and pursued appeals if necessary. Instead, the judge said, Marshall abandoned those cases when challenged and refiled new ones seeking to join the same defendants based on the same allegations.
“Plaintiff cut and ran, then filed a new suit,” Blakey wrote. “That strategy not only constitutes an egregious form of forum shopping, it also consumes scarce judicial resources, as plaintiff asks judge after judge to make the same exact determination, hoping for a more favorable outcome.”
Citing the abuse of the judicial process, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.
Marshall’s counsel did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Friday. The defendants have not appeared in the case.
Marshall is represented by attorneys from Greer Burns & Crain Ltd. The case is Marshall Amplification PLC v. Xingrunshangmao et al., No. 1:25-cv-13829, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
