Your Schedule A Case Just Got Harder: What Chrome Hearts Means for Brand Owners

Brand owners fighting online counterfeiters in federal court have relied on "Schedule A" litigation as their primary enforcement tool for years. File one lawsuit, name dozens or hundreds of anonymous sellers, freeze their assets, and collect default judgments — often without any defendant ever showing up to fight. A ruling issued on May 18, 2026, from the Northern District of Illinois makes clear that this playbook has limits, and brand owners who ignore them risk having their cases dismantled.

In Chrome Hearts LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 26 C 497 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2026), Judge Virginia Kendall severed six defendants from a 92-defendant trademark and copyright infringement action, finding that Chrome Hearts failed to establish any connection between the moving defendants and the rest of the case. The opinion is the latest in a growing line of NDIL decisions tightening the joinder requirements that underpin Schedule A litigation — and it effectively closes the door on the "swarm" theory that once allowed brand owners to bundle unrelated sellers into a single action.

What Is Schedule A Litigation?

Schedule A cases are a form of trademark enforcement developed primarily in the Northern District of Illinois. A brand owner files a single complaint alleging that dozens — sometimes hundreds — of anonymous online sellers are infringing its trademarks by selling counterfeit goods. The defendants are identified only by their seller aliases (store names on platforms like AliExpress, DHgate, or standalone e-commerce sites) and listed on a confidential "Schedule A" attached to the complaint.

The plaintiff typically moves ex parte for a temporary restraining order that freezes the defendants' marketplace accounts and payment processor funds. Because these sellers are usually based overseas, most never appear. The plaintiff then obtains default judgments and collects the frozen funds.

Over 4,200 Schedule A cases were filed in the Northern District of Illinois between 2013 and early 2025, making it the national epicenter of this enforcement strategy.

What Happened in Chrome Hearts

Chrome Hearts, the luxury jewelry and accessories brand, filed suit against 92 e-commerce sellers, alleging trademark infringement, copyright infringement, counterfeiting, and false designation of origin. The court issued a TRO in January 2026 and a preliminary injunction the following month.

Six defendants — all jewelry seller aliases owned by the same person — appeared and moved to dismiss or sever, arguing they had been improperly joined with the other 86 defendants. They submitted a declaration from their common owner denying any relationship, communication, or coordination with the other sellers.

Chrome Hearts responded with two arguments. First, it claimed the joinder question was moot because default judgment had already been entered against the other defendants. Judge Kendall rejected this, holding that joinder is assessed based on the allegations in the operative complaint, regardless of whether other defendants have defaulted. Second, Chrome Hearts invoked the "swarm" theory from Bose Corp. v. Partnerships, 334 F.R.D. 511 (N.D. Ill. 2020), arguing that all defendants participated in the same mass occurrence of counterfeiting, making joinder proper even without coordination.

Judge Kendall rejected this too, and her analysis is where the opinion matters most for brand owners.

The "Swarm" Theory Is Effectively Dead for Contested Cases

In Bose, Judge Durkin held that online counterfeiters could be treated like participants in a BitTorrent "swarm" — an interconnected, anonymous wave of infringement that collectively harms a trademark owner, even if individual participants never communicate with each other. Under this theory, the mass harm itself was the "occurrence" that justified joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2).

The Bose court acknowledged that this was an expansive reading of Rule 20. Critically, it noted that its ruling was shaped by the expectation that none of the defendants would ever appear. It explicitly stated that if any defendant showed up and raised defenses distinguishing itself from the swarm, the court would sever that defendant.

That is exactly what has happened — repeatedly. In Tang v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2024 WL 68332 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024), Judge Durkin himself — the author of Bose — significantly narrowed his own ruling. He held that the swarm theory does not apply to "distinct competitors" who appear and contest joinder. Allegations that defendants sold similar products, used similar marketing strategies, or operated on the same platforms were insufficient to establish a transactional link.

Chrome Hearts follows Tang and makes the point even more emphatically. Judge Kendall catalogued every joinder argument Chrome Hearts raised — and rejected each one:

Same infringement, same way: Alleging that defendants all infringed the same marks in the same manner does not establish a transactional link. Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021); Viking Arm AS v. Partnerships, 2024 WL 2953105, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024).
Same platform: That defendants all sold on the same type of online marketplace does not establish joinder. Zaful (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Individuals, 2025 WL 71797, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2025); Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024).
Chat rooms and shared tactics: Vague allegations that defendants communicate through chat rooms or share evasion strategies do not support joinder without evidence. Roadget, 2024 WL 1858592, at *7.
Similar product images and descriptions: Counterfeiters copying the same original product naturally produce similar-looking listings. That similarity does not prove coordination. Estée Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. Partnerships, 334 F.R.D. 182, 188 (N.D. Ill. 2020).

Chrome Hearts even conceded in its complaint that if any defendant provided identifying information distinguishing itself from the group, the complaint would need to be amended. The moving defendants did exactly that, and the court held Chrome Hearts to its own concession.

What This Means for Brand Owners

The practical takeaway is straightforward: Schedule A litigation still works against defendants who never appear. But the moment a defendant shows up and contests joinder, a brand owner needs more than boilerplate allegations to keep the case together.

For companies planning an online counterfeiting enforcement campaign, the Chrome Hearts opinion suggests several steps:

Build the evidentiary record before filing. Conduct test purchases from multiple defendants and look for shared payment accounts, common shipping origins, identical packaging, or other concrete links. In Bailie v. Partnerships, 734 F. Supp. 3d 798, 805 (N.D. Ill. 2024), the court found joinder proper where purchase receipts showed the same company was paid for orders from different seller aliases and the same email address appeared across multiple transactions. That level of factual support is what it takes.

Group related sellers together, not the entire marketplace. If investigation reveals clusters of sellers with common ownership or shared infrastructure, join those clusters. Do not assume that every seller of a counterfeit product can be lumped into one action simply because they all sell on the same platforms.

Anticipate appearances. The assumption that no defendant will ever show up is increasingly unreliable. Chinese sellers are retaining U.S. counsel and contesting these cases with growing frequency. A complaint built on conclusory joinder allegations will not survive a motion to sever.

Understand the cost of severance. When the court severs defendants, it opens a new case — with a new filing fee and potentially a new judge. If joinder was the only reason certain defendants were in your case, you may end up litigating multiple smaller actions instead of one large one. That is not necessarily a bad outcome, but it should be anticipated in the enforcement budget and strategy.

The Broader Trend

Chrome Hearts is not an isolated ruling. It is part of a sustained shift in the Northern District of Illinois toward greater scrutiny of Schedule A cases. Judge Kness has stayed all newly filed Schedule A cases on his docket to reassess whether the model comports with the Federal Rules. Multiple judges have issued standing orders imposing heightened requirements for joinder, service, and TRO applications. The era of frictionless Schedule A enforcement is ending.

Brand owners who adapt — by investing in pre-filing investigation, tightening their joinder allegations, and preparing for contested proceedings — will continue to use Schedule A litigation effectively. Those who rely on the old playbook will find their cases picked apart one motion at a time.

If your business needs to enforce its trademarks against online counterfeiters or is evaluating its intellectual property enforcement strategy, The Law Office of Krista Krepp can help. Contact us at contact@krepplaw.com or schedule a consultation.