Blue Horizon Innovation LLC: Three Schedule A Suits Before Judge K. Michael Moore Over the BPPEG and AOMRCOL Marks

On October 20, 2026, Fort Lauderdale firm Palmer Law Group, P.A. filed three Schedule A trademark lawsuits in Miami federal court for Blue Horizon Innovation LLC. All three were assigned to Judge K. Michael Moore:

• Two cases assert the BPPEG mark (bathroom and household goods) against 26 Amazon and Walmart sellers, split between the two cases.
• The third asserts the AOMRCOL mark (bags and wallets) against 15 more sellers.

Within two days, Judge Moore entered his standing Omnibus Order Regarding Schedule “A” Causes of Action in each case. It sets demanding conditions for any restraining order, asset freeze or alternative service, and requires a verified report on prior suits. By October 24, Blue Horizon had conceded that its first two complaints did not justify joining multiple sellers. It cut each BPPEG case to a single defendant.

This post has been rebuilt from the court filings in all three cases, along with USPTO records. It covers:

• who Blue Horizon is;
• where its trademarks came from;
• what Judge Moore requires;
• what the evidence shows;
• what sellers and brand owners should take from it.

The three cases at a glance

	Case 1	Case 2	Case 3
Case number	1:26-cv-27421-KMM	1:26-cv-27424-KMM	1:26-cv-27382-KMM
Filed	Oct. 20, 2026	Oct. 20, 2026	Oct. 20, 2026
District judge	K. Michael Moore	K. Michael Moore	K. Michael Moore
Magistrate judge (discovery)	Yeney Hernandez	Yeney Hernandez	Yeney Hernandez
Mark asserted	BPPEG, Reg. No. 7,724,044	BPPEG, Reg. No. 7,724,044	AOMRCOL, Reg. No. 6,425,202
Platforms	Amazon (14)	Walmart (3), Amazon (9)	Walmart (13), Amazon (2)
Defendants in original complaint	14	12	15
Defendants after amendment	1 (youna shop)	1 (pingping stor)	15 (no amendment in the record we reviewed)
Demand on civil docket	None listed	$500,000,000	None listed
Counts	(I) Infringement and counterfeiting, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. (II) False designation of origin, § 1125(a).	Same	Same
Damages prayer	Statutory damages of up to $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark (§ 1117(c)(2))	Same	Same
Omnibus Order entered	Oct. 22 (ECF 6)	Oct. 22 (ECF 7)	Oct. 21 (ECF 6)
Deadline to comply (14 days)	Nov. 5, 2026	Nov. 5, 2026	Nov. 4, 2026
Status	Amended complaint and response filed Oct. 24	Amended complaint and response filed Oct. 24	Awaiting compliance with the Omnibus Order
Plaintiff’s counsel	Andrew J. Palmer, Palmer Law Group, P.A.	Same	Same

These cases sit within a larger same-day filing program by the same firm. Case 3 (27382) was filed in sequence with CEDARFIRM LLC (27380, Judge Huck) and Bridlington Bud LTD (27381, Judge Martinez). Cases 1 and 2 (27421, 27424) were filed alongside CEDARFIRM’s second case (27422, Judge Bloom).

Who is Blue Horizon Innovation LLC?

Blue Horizon Innovation LLC describes itself as a Wyoming limited liability company. Its principal place of business is listed as 30 N Gould St, Ste R, Sheridan, Wyoming 82801. That is the same address CEDARFIRM LLC uses, and one of the country’s best-known commercial registered-agent addresses:

• ICIJ reported in March 2025 that more than 266,000 companies were formed using it between 2019 and 2024.
• The Sheridan Press reported in March 2026 that it houses 26 registered agents representing close to 300,000 Wyoming LLCs.

Wyoming does not require LLCs to disclose their members publicly. Federal beneficial-ownership reporting no longer applies to U.S.-formed companies after FinCEN’s March 2025 interim rule.

The court papers and USPTO records point to a narrow role:

On the present record, Blue Horizon appears to function as a U.S. holding vehicle for trademarks registered by individuals in China. It took assignment of two unrelated registrations from two different Chinese registrants and asserted them in three Miami Schedule A suits filed on a single day. We found no evidence that it makes or sells any product, runs any storefront or website, or does business beyond owning, “licensing” and enforcing these registrations.

That is our reading of the documents, not a court finding. Blue Horizon has not yet had to answer these points, and we will update this post if it shows an operating business. What the record shows:

Indicator	What the filings and USPTO records show
Origin of the marks	BPPEG was registered to Wu, Yufei, an individual in Shenzhen, Guangdong. AOMRCOL was registered to Li, Yuanying, an individual in Shenyang, Liaoning. Both now list Blue Horizon as owner.
Relationship between the marks	None apparent: bathroom and household goods (Class 21) and bags and wallets (Class 18), from unrelated registrants
Timing	AOMRCOL’s ownership change was recorded at the USPTO on March 4, 2026, about 7½ months before suit. BPPEG’s assignment date is not in the filings.
Blue Horizon’s own sales	None alleged. The complaints say only that Blue Horizon “has licensed and authorized e-commerce merchants” to sell the goods. No licensee is named.
Disclosure of the assignments	None. The complaints never mention that the marks were acquired, from whom, or when.
Corporate identity in its own filings	The Case 1 amended complaint opens: “ALBION BRAND FOUNDRY LTD (‘Plaintiff’ or ‘ALBION BRAND’) … brings this Amended Complaint.” Albion Brand Foundry is a different Palmer Law Group client, a U.K. company. The Case 2 amended complaint describes Blue Horizon only as “a limited liability company formed in the US.”
Enforcement activity	Three suits in one day against 41 seller aliases, with a $500 million demand on one docket

The Albion paragraph is almost certainly a template error, carried over from another client’s pleading. But it appears in a sworn-adjacent filing made specifically to satisfy a federal judge’s order. It also underlines how interchangeable these plaintiffs’ pleadings are. Defendants are entitled to ask who the real party in interest is.

Chart of trademarks asserted:

	BPPEG	AOMRCOL
Asserted in	Case 1 (27421) and Case 2 (27424)	Case 3 (27382)
U.S. Reg. No.	7,724,044	6,425,202
Serial No.	98-670,434	90-275,844
Mark type	Standard characters	Standard characters
Application filed	July 28, 2024	October 24, 2020
Claimed first use (anywhere / in commerce)	May 18, 2024 / May 18, 2024	September 4, 2020 / September 4, 2020
Published	January 21, 2025	May 4, 2021
Registered	March 11, 2025, Principal Register	July 20, 2021, Principal Register
International class	21	18
Goods in the registration	Dinnerware; pots; toothpicks; vases; baking mats; drinking glasses; pet brushes; shower racks; soap containers; soap dishes; toilet brushes; toilet tissue holders; toothbrush cases	Backpacks; briefcases; handbags; reticules; satchels; suitcases; book bags; canvas shopping bags; chain mesh coin purses; coin purses; garments for pets; gym bags; leather bags; leather bags, suitcases and wallets; messenger bags; purses and wallets; shoulder bags; travel bags; trekking poles; umbrellas and parasols
Original registrant	Wu, Yufei (individual, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, China)	Li, Yuanying (individual, Shenhe District, Shenyang, China)
Current owner of record	Blue Horizon Innovation LLC (Wyoming)	Blue Horizon Innovation LLC (Wyoming)
Ownership change	Not stated in the filings	USPTO “automatic update of assignment of ownership,” March 4, 2026
Products accused	Case 1: wall-mounted toothbrush holders. Case 2: a sea-turtle toilet paper holder.	Bags and wallets (no evidence exhibit in the record we reviewed)
Goods the complaints claim beyond the registration	“Grills, trays, candle holder sets” (Case 2 complaint); “household cleaning tools, brushes, personal care products” (Case 1 complaint)	—
Incontestable (§ 1065)?	No	No (no Section 15 affidavit shown)
Section 8 declaration of use due	March 11, 2030 to March 11, 2031	Window open now: July 20, 2026 to July 20, 2027
Reexamination window (non-use, § 1066b)	Until March 11, 2030	Until July 20, 2026 (closed)
Expungement window (never used, § 1066a)	Opens March 11, 2028	Open now (3 to 10 years after registration)

Points to note:

1. Neither registration is incontestable. Both remain open to cancellation on any ground that would have barred registration (15 U.S.C. § 1064), including non-use, fraud and likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark.
2. The use claims are aggressive. BPPEG claims use on 13 different kinds of goods as of a single date, from dinnerware to pet brushes. AOMRCOL claims 20, from briefcases to trekking poles and pet garments, on another single date. A use-based registration requires actual use on every listed good when the application is filed. One specimen per class was enough to get through examination.
3. AOMRCOL faces a use deadline right now. To keep the registration past July 20, 2027 (or the six-month grace period after it), Blue Horizon must file a sworn Section 8 declaration with specimens showing current use for each listed good. If it is not using the mark on goods it does not itself sell, that declaration will be difficult to make honestly. Any goods not in use must be deleted. AOMRCOL is also now eligible for an expungement petition for goods on which the mark was never used.
4. The complaints reach beyond the registration. Grills, trays, candle holder sets, household cleaning tools and personal care products are not in BPPEG’s registration. The § 1114 claim, and any counterfeiting damages, extend only to goods covered by the registration.

Where the marks came from

BPPEG and Wu, Yufei

The BPPEG certificate shows Reg. No. 7,724,044 issued on March 11, 2025 to Wu, Yufei, an individual with an address in Nanshan District, Shenzhen. The application was filed July 28, 2024, about ten weeks after the claimed first use.

A third-party trademark directory lists 37 U.S. filings under the owner name “WU, TUFEI” (30 registered and 7 pending). Most date from 2024, and nearly all are short coined letter strings: YAINB, YICGD, YVYEM, YUERYO, YYDZM, YZMK, ZGRED, ZMOMZ, ZMQNW, WDDYU, WPKRM, WUAZM, XUSEN, WYCT, XOISO, HBMYN, BKDH, DNSL and BPPEG, among others. Coined, unpronounceable letter strings are a recognized feature of marks filed by Chinese e-commerce sellers and filing agents, because they clear quickly and are easy to register in bulk.

Two cautions:

• The address differs. The directory’s address for that owner is in Bao’an District, Shenzhen, not the Nanshan District address on the BPPEG certificate.
• The name is common. “Wu Yufei” is a common name. We have not confirmed from USPTO records that every filing in that list belongs to the same person.

What is clear: BPPEG is one of a large batch of similar coined marks filed in the same name in the same year. At least one has now been moved to a Wyoming LLC and asserted in two federal lawsuits.

AOMRCOL and Li, Yuanying

The AOMRCOL certificate shows Reg. No. 6,425,202 issued on July 20, 2021 to Li, Yuanying, an individual in Shenhe District, Shenyang. The application was filed October 24, 2020, about seven weeks after the claimed first use.

USPTO prosecution entries show:

• changes of attorney or domestic representative and of correspondence address in August 2021, a month after registration;
• an “automatic update of assignment of ownership” on March 4, 2026, after which Blue Horizon appears as owner;
• no Section 8 filing yet.

The original registrant’s other filings, if any, are not shown in the materials we reviewed.

The pattern, and its limits

Blue Horizon’s two marks follow the same path as CEDARFIRM’s (EXLEAF from Xie, Tianhua; LADYGYM from Jianjun Ma):

• an individual Chinese registrant files a use-based application shortly after a claimed first-use date, with a sweeping goods list;
• the registration issues and is later assigned to a Wyoming LLC at 30 N. Gould Street;
• months later, Palmer Law Group asserts it in Miami Schedule A suits.

The complaints do not disclose any of that history. Practitioners have described a market in which “numerous IP agents in China offer to sell US IP registrations at extremely low prices,” sometimes “US$200 or even less.” They describe it as making it “economically rational to acquire US IP rights … as a litigation weapon.”

Whether the registrants filed these marks intending them for sale and enforcement is something only discovery can prove. Buying a registration is lawful. But the history gives defendants concrete, documentable questions:

1. Was goodwill transferred, or only the certificate? An assignment without the goodwill of a business (an assignment in gross) is invalid under 15 U.S.C. § 1060(a)(1).
2. Was each mark in use on every listed good when the application was filed? If not, those goods are vulnerable. If the applicant knew the claim was false, the registration may be void for fraud (In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009), which requires proof of intent to deceive).
3. Who are the “licensed and authorized” merchants? A licensor that controls no product quality risks a finding of naked licensing and abandonment. A plaintiff with no products on the market will struggle to show the irreparable harm to its own goodwill that injunctive relief requires.
4. Who shares in any recovery? Both original registrants, any licensees, and any litigation funder are proper subjects of discovery.

Judge Moore’s Omnibus Order

Judge Moore’s standing order, entered in each case on his own motion within two days of filing, is one of the most demanding Schedule A orders in the district. It denies any pending motions without prejudice and sets conditions for refiling within 14 days:

• Separate TRO and preliminary-injunction motions.
• Justify any asset freeze. A freeze is permitted only to preserve assets for equitable relief, citing Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 333 (1999).
• Personal jurisdiction over EACH defendant. The motion must detail the steps taken to verify jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute (§ 48.193(1)(a)(1), (2) and (6)) or Rule 4(k), citing Meier v. Sun Int’l Hotels, 288 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2002).
• All four injunction factors as to EACH defendant, and, for ex parte relief, specific sworn facts and an attorney certification under Rule 65(b)(1).
• Alternative service only on evidence. The plaintiff must show its efforts to confirm each defendant’s address, each defendant’s domicile, and whether the proposed method is permitted under the Hague Convention given that domicile, citing Zuru (Singapore) Pte. v. Schedule A (S.D.N.Y. 2022).
• Joinder. Any motion for a TRO, injunction or alternative service must show that the claims arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” under Rule 20(a)(2)(A).
• A verified prior-suits report within 14 days. Counsel must search federal court records nationwide for earlier suits against the defendants over the plaintiff’s IP. For any settled suit, counsel must disclose the settlement terms, including attorney’s fees, and whether the defendant complied.
• No sealing or anonymity by default. Motions to seal or proceed pseudonymously are “disfavored.”
• Consequences. Noncompliant complaints must be amended, and failure to comply “will result in the dismissal of this case…without further notice” under Rule 41(b).

Judge Moore’s paperless pretrial order adds more requirements:

• a scheduling conference within 60 days of the complaint, absent an enlargement;
• a joint scheduling report 10 days after that, a deadline not tolled by amended complaints;
• no telephonic appearances “for any purpose”;
• notice of any settlement within 24 hours.

Discovery is referred to Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez under her published discovery procedures.

How Blue Horizon responded

On October 24, in Cases 1 and 2, Blue Horizon filed short responses and amended complaints.

The responses answer an order Judge Moore did not enter. Each says: “The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why all Defendants other than the first-named Defendant on Schedule A should not be severed and dismissed.” That is the language of Judge Huck’s order in the companion CEDARFIRM case, not Judge Moore’s Omnibus Order. Judge Moore’s order contains no severance directive. The responses then:

• Concede the point. Blue Horizon “concedes that the Complaint, as filed, does not adequately establish a sufficient basis for joinder” of the 14 (Case 1) and 12 (Case 2) defendants.
• Drop all but one defendant per case. Case 1 keeps youna shop, the first-named defendant. Case 2 keeps pingping stor, which was defendant no. 4, not the first-named.
• Do not oppose dismissal without prejudice of the other 24 sellers.

In the filings we reviewed, the responses are not verified and do not report a prior-suits search. Judge Moore’s order expressly requires both, within 14 days. Blue Horizon still has until November 5 to file that report. For Case 3 (AOMRCOL, 15 defendants), no amended complaint or response appears in the record we reviewed. Its 14-day deadline runs on November 4.

The single-defendant amended complaints

The amended complaints in Cases 1 and 2 are five pages each and nearly identical:

• Defendants. Each names one seller, “believed to be” operating from Guangzhou (youna shop) or Yiwu, Zhejiang (pingping stor).
• Damages. Each still seeks statutory damages of up to $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark, plus an order requiring the marketplaces and payment processors to “disable Defendant’s accounts … and restrain funds held therein.”
• Allegations. They now allege “actual confusion” and dilution. No dilution count is pleaded, and no fact supporting actual confusion is identified.
• Product descriptions. They describe the accused products as “toothbrush holders” (Case 1) and “toilet tissue holders” (Case 2). The registration covers “toothbrush cases” and “toilet tissue holders.”

What the evidence exhibits show

Exhibit 2 to each amended complaint is a set of Amazon screenshots. Case 1 has 16 pages captured October 3 and 14, 2026. Case 2 has 13 pages captured September 6, 2026.

• The products are sold as “Generic.” The Case 2 listing, a resin sea-turtle toilet paper holder, shows “Brand: Generic.” Neither listing displays BPPEG as a brand name, on the product, or on packaging.
• “bppeg” appears only as a stray word in the bullet text. In Case 1, the description reads: “Holds multiple toothbrushes in bppeg separate slots,” and “making the bppeg brushing routine easier.” In Case 2: “The bppeg hand painted teal blue finish” and “The bppeg sturdy front flippers securely cradle standard and jumbo rolls.” The word is dropped, lowercase, into the middle of sentences where it serves no grammatical purpose.

That matters for liability. Trademark infringement requires use of the mark as a mark, to identify source, in a way likely to confuse buyers. A meaningless word buried in a description of a “Generic” product is a weak basis for a counterfeiting claim. The listings do not show who added the word or when. Amazon’s listing-edit history, obtainable in discovery, would.

• Checkout pages, not completed purchases. Each exhibit includes an Amazon checkout page with a delivery address in Miami. Judge Moore requires proof of personal jurisdiction as to each defendant, and these pages show the “Place your order” step, not an order confirmation or a delivered product. The Case 2 page shows the order total in Hong Kong dollars (“Order total: HKD 177.33”), meaning the buying account was set to pay in HKD. Defendants should ask whether any sale to Florida actually occurred, and who placed the order.

Same mark, two cases

Blue Horizon split its BPPEG claims into two lawsuits filed the same day before the same judge, against 14 and 12 sellers. It paid two filing fees but avoided putting 26 defendants in one case. Judge Moore’s order now limits both cases to a single defendant each. The 24 dismissed sellers could be sued again, but each new case would require a new filing fee, a new verified prior-suits report and a new showing of jurisdiction.

Known Schedule A defendants

These are all of the seller aliases Blue Horizon has publicly named. Being named is an allegation, not a finding: no court has found any of these sellers liable.

Case 1, BPPEG (1:26-cv-27421-KMM), Amazon

#	Seller alias	Amazon seller ID	Status
1	youna shop	A2TPX9QKCLHTBX	Sole remaining defendant
2	qiaopupu	A1AGRW30HJ6IN4	Dropped Oct. 24
3	yanchuchuya	A11KKHH7KMR835	Dropped
4	yingshishop	A1WM32J6FDAJPZ	Dropped
5	minxuanstore	A1H2VRMHQOK66I	Dropped
6	qiyaya stor	A257BGR64H8ZL7	Dropped
7	sijinghe	A1TWSNRQBHKAHS	Dropped
8	shangyanstore	A3MBX12K840ROX	Dropped
9	zaihong	A3VO8N858UGBLH	Dropped
10	zhaozhao stor	AH4BQARW9YU9P	Dropped
11	zhuzhuxiang	AJULY63HAT61Q	Dropped
12	chenxinyongamz	A1F5JO4KLD2B4T	Dropped
13	yang qian stor	A1HM9M127BJ3V9	Dropped
14	songzeze	ACLJZQFLCO8JF	Dropped

Case 2, BPPEG (1:26-cv-27424-KMM), Walmart and Amazon

#	Seller alias	Platform / store ID	Status
1	xiurongstore	Walmart 103153288	Dropped Oct. 24
2	cehuang	Walmart 103241960	Dropped
3	weijing	Walmart 103122942	Dropped
4	pingping stor	Amazon AA5NEZK054HW0D	Sole remaining defendant
5	shifengstore	Amazon AA27NI7IKM8JTTX	Dropped
6	minminrao stor	Amazon AAD0CWD27H87GK	Dropped
7	yuyufanfan	Amazon AASAO9H8R0085P	Dropped
8	mengyaya	Amazon AA2WH4ABW932LQ1	Dropped
9	junyunyun	Amazon AA3JR14G57GZROK	Dropped
10	xiaotao stor	Amazon AAI1IQ8KA69LVZ	Dropped
11	yao lv shop	Amazon AA87E6UWUFNDQN	Dropped
12	tala shop	Amazon AAB7LH0WQ3DRC3	Dropped

All nine Amazon IDs in Case 2 begin with a doubled “AA,” and several are 15 characters long. In CEDARFIRM’s LADYGYM case, the same firm’s complaint listed IDs with a doubled “AA” that its later notice corrected to a single “A.” The Case 2 IDs should be checked before any freeze order issues.

Case 3, AOMRCOL (1:26-cv-27382-KMM), Walmart and Amazon

#	Seller alias	Platform / store ID
1	mingda	Walmart 103109066
2	ziti	Walmart 103250498
3	nagan	Walmart 103229218
4	ruge	Walmart 103232023
5	qidu	Walmart 103227239
6	junhu	Walmart 103133528
7	sunzhi	Walmart 103150224
8	huashop	Walmart 103146216
9	wuining	Walmart 103150235
10	yuzhen	Walmart 103144247
11	xiaoqingshop	Walmart 103161480
12	luopei	Walmart 103224532
13	jujin	Walmart 103156111
14	leqingshigaofengmojuyouxiangongsi	Amazon A2G4MCVK8VJUVG
15	Pinxuan	Amazon AU064YYJCHBS6

Totals: 41 seller aliases named across the three cases. After the October 24 amendments, 17 remain: 1 in Case 1, 1 in Case 2 and 15 in Case 3.

Overlap with the CEDARFIRM cases. Walmart seller weijing (store 103122942), Case 2 defendant no. 3, is the same store ID as the first-named defendant in CEDARFIRM’s original EXLEAF complaint before Judge Huck. That defendant was also dropped from that case on October 24. A seller named sunzhi (Case 3, no. 7) appears among the other sellers on the Walmart EXLEAF listing in CEDARFIRM’s evidence exhibit. The same small set of Walmart storefronts recurs across different Palmer plaintiffs asserting different Chinese-origin marks. That is relevant to the prior-suits reports Judge Moore and Judge Bloom require. It also supports a seller’s argument that it is being sued serially over unrelated marks.

Timeline

Date	Event
Sept. 4, 2020	Claimed first use of AOMRCOL (Li, Yuanying)
Oct. 24, 2020	AOMRCOL application filed
July 20, 2021	AOMRCOL registered
Aug. 2021	AOMRCOL attorney/representative and correspondence changes
May 18, 2024	Claimed first use of BPPEG (Wu, Yufei)
July 28, 2024	BPPEG application filed
Mar. 11, 2025	BPPEG registered
Mar. 4, 2026	USPTO records AOMRCOL ownership update; Blue Horizon becomes owner of record
July 20, 2026	AOMRCOL Section 8 window opens
Sept. 6, 2026	Case 2 evidence captured (pingping stor)
Oct. 3 and 14, 2026	Case 1 evidence captured (youna shop)
Oct. 20, 2026	All three complaints filed; all assigned to Judge Moore
Oct. 21, 2026	Case 3: pretrial order and Omnibus Order
Oct. 22, 2026	Cases 1 and 2: pretrial orders, discovery referral and Omnibus Orders
Oct. 24, 2026	Cases 1 and 2: amended single-defendant complaints and responses
Nov. 4, 2026	Case 3 deadline to comply with Omnibus Order
Nov. 5, 2026	Cases 1 and 2 deadline for verified prior-suits report and any refiled motions
Dec. 19, 2026	60-day scheduling-conference deadline under the pretrial orders, absent enlargement
July 20, 2027	AOMRCOL Section 8 deadline (grace period to Jan. 20, 2028)

Recommendations for sellers named in Blue Horizon’s cases

1. Know where you stand. If you are youna shop, pingping stor or one of the 15 AOMRCOL defendants, you remain a defendant. If you were dropped from Case 1 or 2, you were dismissed without prejudice and could be sued again. Keep your records.
2. Hold the plaintiff to Judge Moore’s order. No TRO, asset freeze or email service should issue without the defendant-by-defendant showings the Omnibus Order requires: jurisdiction, domicile, Hague Convention analysis, joinder and the four injunction factors. Point out any gap.
3. Demand the real party in interest. The Albion Brand Foundry paragraph, the undisclosed assignments and the Wyoming registered-agent address all justify asking who owns and controls Blue Horizon, and who shares in any recovery.
4. Attack the registrations. Request the assignment documents and proof of transferred goodwill. Pull the specimens from the USPTO file. Consider:
   • a cancellation petition for non-use or fraud;
   • for AOMRCOL, an expungement petition for goods never used.

Watch whether Blue Horizon files a truthful Section 8 declaration for AOMRCOL by July 2027.

1. Use the evidence against itself. A “Generic” product with a stray lowercase word in its bullet points is not a counterfeit in any ordinary sense. Insist on proof that you used BPPEG as a brand, and on Amazon’s edit history for the listing.
2. Challenge jurisdiction. An unfinished checkout page priced in Hong Kong dollars is not a sale into Florida.
3. Limit any freeze. Under Grupo Mexicano, as Judge Moore’s order recognizes, restraint is available only to preserve equitable relief such as disgorgement of profits from the accused product, not an entire account balance.

Recommendations for brand owners

1. Expect Judge Moore’s order on day one. Prepare jurisdiction, domicile and joinder evidence for each defendant before filing, along with a verified prior-suits search.
2. If you acquired your mark, disclose it. Record the assignment, document the goodwill transferred and be ready to prove quality control over licensees. Silence about a recent assignment from a foreign individual invites the questions this post raises.
3. Assert only the goods you are registered for, and only against sellers who use your mark as a brand.
4. Proofread. The wrong plaintiff’s name in an amended complaint, a response to an order the judge did not enter, and malformed seller IDs all cost credibility at the moment you are asking for extraordinary ex parte relief.

What to watch

• Whether Blue Horizon files verified prior-suits reports by November 4 and 5, and what they disclose about weijing and other repeat defendants.
• Whether it seeks a TRO or alternative service against youna shop, pingping stor or the AOMRCOL defendants under the Omnibus Order’s conditions.
• How Case 3 responds to the joinder requirement for its 15 sellers.
• Whether Judge Moore addresses the Albion Brand Foundry error or the mismatch between the responses and his order.
• Whether Blue Horizon files a Section 8 declaration for AOMRCOL, and with what specimens.
• New Palmer Law Group filings asserting other marks in the same names (Wu, Yufei; Li, Yuanying) or by other Wyoming LLCs at 30 N. Gould Street.

If you or your business have been sued by trademark infringement and/or related allegations by Blue Horizon(and/or by Palmer Law Group) the Southern District of Florida – email [email protected] or call 305-374-8303 on how to defend your rights.