Published November 2, 2026 · Last reviewed November 2, 2026 · Robert H. Thornburg
Bridlington Bud LTD is one of the most prolific Schedule A plaintiffs in Miami federal court. Our search finds that there are at least sixty-six separate Schedule A lawsuits for “Bridlington Bud LTD” in Florida federal courts. Of those actions, more than fifty have been filed in the Southern District of Florida cases filed between September 2025 and October 22, 2026 alone. All of these filings have been brought by attorney Andrew J. Palmer.
This post focuses on the four most recent Schedule A cases, filed between October 12 and October 22, 2026 before four Miami Federal Judges:
| Case | Judge | Filed | Mark asserted |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1:26-cv-27131-DPG | Darrin P. Gayles | October 12 | TELOLY |
| 1:26-cv-27218-RKA | Roy K. Altman | October 15 | ACDANC |
| 1:26-cv-27381-JEM | Jose E. Martinez | October 20 | ACDANC |
| 1:26-cv-27455-KMM | K. Michael Moore | October 22 | DESIGNICE |
Together these four lawsuits filed in October 2026 name 155 seller aliases on Walmart and Amazon.
This post provides a detailed overview based on publicly available information to date, including various motions filed, declarations in support, evidence submitted by the Palmer Law Group, as well as USPTO records as to the underling trademark registrations that have been asserted. It covers:
- who Bridlington Bud is;
- the trademarks it asserts and where they came from;
- how the four judges approach Schedule A cases;
- every accused seller, including sellers that turn up in more than one case and in suits by other Palmer Law Group plaintiffs.
Who is Bridlington Bud LTD?
In every complaint, Bridlington Bud describes itself as “a private limited company formed in the UK.” Its principal place of business is 198 Charlton Lane, London SE7 8HJ, United Kingdom, which is the same address the USPTO lists for it as trademark owner.
Its Rule 7.1 disclosures (filed October 16 before Judge Gayles, October 22 before Judge Altman, and October 23 before Judge Martinez) each state that it has “no subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, parent corporations, or publicly held corporations owning 10% or more of its stock.” That statement says nothing about the individuals who own or control it.
Three features of Bridlington’s profile stand out:
- It does not claim to make or sell anything itself. Each complaint alleges only that Bridlington “has licensed and authorized e-commerce merchants” to sell the goods on Walmart.com or Amazon.com. No licensee is named in any of the four cases.
- Its marks are unrelated and acquired. Bridlington asserts registrations for brushes and kitchen containers (ACDANC), socks and hats (TELOLY), jewelry (DESIGNICE), and earlier, electronics (GJX). The one registration history we could fully trace, ACDANC, began with an individual applicant in Zhejiang, China and reached Bridlington through recorded assignments.
- It sues at volume. It has filed dozens of cases in about 14 months, often several a week. It has also filed against at least two named sellers (“SLANGO” and “Huayong Store”) rather than a Schedule A list.
Unlike the Wyoming LLCs Palmer Law Group represents in other cases (CEDARFIRM LLC and Blue Horizon Innovation LLC, both at a Sheridan registered-agent address), Bridlington is a U.K. company. That matters for defendants: U.K. Companies House publicly lists every company’s directors and its “persons with significant control.” A search of the Companies House register for “Bridlington Bud” should show:
- when it was incorporated;
- who runs it;
- who controls it;
- whether it has filed accounts showing any trading activity.
We have not yet confirmed those details, and we will add them when we do. Palmer Law Group’s other U.K. Schedule A plaintiffs include Albion Brand Foundry Ltd, a company we have reported was incorporated in June 2025, and The Galleon Guild Ltd.
The USPTO Trademark Registrations that are being asserted in these Schedule A cases
| ACDANC | TELOLY | DESIGNICE | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asserted in | Altman (27218) and Martinez (27381) | Gayles (27131) | Moore (27455) |
| U.S. Reg. No. | 6,362,407 | 6,476,524 | 6,658,994 |
| Serial No. | 90-186,940 | 90-346,670 | 90-612,782 |
| Filed / registered | Filed Sept. 17, 2020 (TEAS Plus); registered May 25, 2021 | Filed late 2020; registered 2021 (based on serial and registration numbering; confirm on TSDR) | Filed Mar. 30, 2021 (TEAS Plus); published Dec. 14, 2021; registered Mar. 1, 2022 |
| Basis and claimed first use | Use in commerce; first use Aug. 13, 2020 | Use in commerce (Class 25) | Use in commerce; first use Dec. 12, 2020 |
| Class | 21 | 25 | 14 |
| Goods (registration) | 18 items: combs; cruets; cleaning brushes for household use; clothes drying racks; containers for household or kitchen use; cookery moulds; cosmetic brushes; dental floss; empty spray bottles; eyelash brushes; grooming tools for pets; ice pails; kitchen mitts; make-up removing appliances; oral care kit; tea sets; toiletry sponges; electric toothbrushes | As pleaded: socks, hats, scarves, gloves and related clothing | 43 items, from agates, emeralds, jade, pearls and precious metals to clocks, wristwatches, watch straps, jewelry boxes, key rings, tie clips, pet jewelry and wooden bead bracelets |
| Original registrant | Zhang Yufei, an individual Chinese citizen (Xinchang, Zhejiang; Longhua, Shenzhen in the assignment) | Shenzhen Xingao Industrial Development Co., Ltd., a company in Shenzhen, China (as identified in public trademark records) | America Hermax Co., Limited, listed as a “China limited liability company” with an address in Mongkok, Kowloon (Hong Kong) |
| Attorney of record | None (withdrew Nov. 21, 2023); Zhang Yufei remains correspondent | Not reviewed | Jinggao Li, Dragon Sun Law Firm, PC, Norwalk, Connecticut (appointed Sept. 10, 2021) |
| Path to Bridlington | Zhang Yufei → Liangsword Limited (U.K.; executed and recorded Jan. 10, 2024; Reel/Frame 8312/0380) → Bridlington Bud LTD (executed May 30, 2025; recorded June 3, 2025; Reel/Frame 8885/0913) | Reported to have been held by Liangsword Limited in 2024; assignment records not reviewed | Two assignments, with USPTO update entries on the same dates as ACDANC’s (Jan. 24, 2024 and June 11, 2025); reported to have been held and asserted by Liangsword in 2024 |
| Bridlington’s place of organization per USPTO | United Kingdom | Not reviewed | China (the complaint says U.K.) |
| Products accused | Altman: brushes and oral-care tools. Martinez: airtight food storage containers (listings titled “ACDANC 2026 New Airtight Food Storage Containers …”) | Novelty socks and winter wear (listings titled, e.g., “TELOLY 3D Knit Animal Sloth Socks for Women”) | Jewelry and fashion accessories |
| Section 8 declaration of use | Window open now: May 25, 2026 to May 25, 2027. None filed; the courtesy reminder went to the original applicant’s e-mail address. | Five-to-six-year window (2026–2027; confirm on TSDR) | Mar. 1, 2027 to Mar. 1, 2028 |
| USPTO non-use challenges | Reexamination window closed; expungement (never used) available | Confirm on TSDR | Reexamination available until Mar. 1, 2027; expungement available now |
| Incontestable? | No | No affidavit shown | No |
Points worth noting:
- ACDANC is being asserted twice in one week, for different goods. Before Judge Altman, Bridlington says ACDANC is “especially associated with brushes” and lists toothbrushes, tongue cleaners and denture-cleaning brushes. Before Judge Martinez, five days later, it says ACDANC is “especially associated with food storage and household storage products.” Tongue cleaners and denture-cleaning brushes do not appear in the registration.
- ACDANC’s maintenance deadline is running. To keep the registration, Bridlington must file a sworn Section 8 declaration with specimens showing current use on each of the 18 listed goods by May 25, 2027 (or the six-month grace period after that). Goods not in use must be deleted. The USPTO’s courtesy reminder of that deadline went not to Bridlington but to the original applicant’s e-mail address in China, because the correspondence record was never updated.
- ACDANC and DESIGNICE moved together, through the same intermediary. USPTO assignment records show ACDANC passed from Zhang Yufei to Liangsword Limited, a U.K. company, in January 2024, then from Liangsword to Bridlington in May–June 2025. DESIGNICE shows ownership updates on exactly the same two dates. Seller-alert sites report that Liangsword also held DESIGNICE, TELOLY and GJX, and sued on them through Palmer Law Group in 2024. In other words, all three marks in these four cases appear to have come to Bridlington from the same predecessor plaintiff (see “The ACDANC assignment history” below).
- The marks appear on many unrelated products. A Walmart search for TELOLY returns listings across unrelated categories, including socks, hats, headlamps, cloth diapers, tote bags and pet coats. The record does not say which, if any, are sold by Bridlington’s “licensed” merchants.
The Trademark Applicants and their backgrounds
ACDANC: Zhang Yufei. The USPTO record lists Zhang Yufei, an individual Chinese citizen, as the original applicant.
- Filing. The application was filed through TEAS Plus on September 17, 2020, claiming use in commerce since August 13, 2020, on 18 goods ranging from tea sets and ice pails to pet grooming tools and electric toothbrushes.
- Examination. It was examined in February 2021 without any office action, published March 9, 2021, and registered May 25, 2021.
- Translation. The record includes a translation statement that “ACDANC” means “idiot” in English.
- Two addresses. The USPTO correspondence record still shows Zhang at a village address in Meizhu Town, Xinchang County, Zhejiang, with a 126.com e-mail address. The assignment Zhang signed in January 2024 gives a different address, in Shuidou Village, Longhua District, Shenzhen.
The ACDANC assignment history
The USPTO’s Assignment Center abstract of title for ACDANC (Serial No. 90186940) shows two recorded assignments. Together they trace the mark from its Chinese applicant, through an earlier Palmer Law Group plaintiff, to Bridlington Bud.
| Assignment 1 | Assignment 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Reel/Frame | 8312/0380 | 8885/0913 |
| Assignor | Zhang Yufei, individual, citizen of China (Longhua District, Shenzhen) | Liangsword Limited, limited company, United Kingdom |
| Assignee | Liangsword Limited, 22 Orchard Way, Burwell, Cambridge CB25 0EQ, United Kingdom | Bridlington Bud LTD, private limited company, 198 Charlton Lane, London SE7 8HJ, United Kingdom |
| Conveyance recorded | “Assigns the entire interest” | “Assigns the entire interest” |
| Executed | January 10, 2024 | May 30, 2025 |
| Recorded | January 10, 2024 (same day) | June 3, 2025 |
| Document length | 2 pages | 2 pages |
| Recording correspondent | Not clearly shown | Laura Ann Lavi, 999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 207, Seattle, WA |
The prosecution history fills in the timeline around those transfers:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sept. 17, 2020 | Application filed (TEAS Plus), claiming use since Aug. 13, 2020 |
| May 25, 2021 | Registered on the Principal Register |
| Nov. 20–21, 2023 | Owner-address and correspondence changes filed; attorney of record withdraws |
| Jan. 5, 2024 | Liangsword Limited incorporated in the U.K. (as reported by seller-alert sites) |
| Jan. 10, 2024 | Zhang Yufei assigns ACDANC to Liangsword; recorded the same day |
| May 2024 | Liangsword sues on ACDANC through Palmer Law Group (reported as No. 24-cv-60843, S.D. Fla.) |
| May 30, 2025 | Liangsword assigns ACDANC to Bridlington Bud; recorded June 3, 2025 |
| Aug.–Sept. 2025 | Bridlington Bud begins filing Schedule A cases in Miami through Palmer Law Group |
| Apr. 17–Oct. 20, 2026 | 31 notices of suit entered on the ACDANC registration |
| May 25, 2026 | Section 8 courtesy reminder e-mailed to Zhang Yufei’s address of record |
| May 25, 2027 | Section 8 deadline (six-month grace period to Nov. 25, 2027) |
Why the assignment history matters.
- Liangsword is a predecessor plaintiff, not a passive holder. Liangsword Limited was a Palmer Law Group Schedule A plaintiff in the Southern District of Florida in 2024. Its case Liangsword Ltd. v. Schedule A, No. 0:24-cv-60618, was filed April 16, 2024, and was listed on Justia with Andrew J. Palmer as counsel. In that case:
- the court granted a TRO in May 2024;
- on August 6, 2024, the TRO was vacated, and a preliminary injunction denied, as to the defendants who appeared;
- one group of appearing defendants was dismissed with prejudice;
- a default judgment was entered against the rest in October 2024.
Chinese seller-alert sites report that Liangsword was incorporated in the U.K. on January 5, 2024. They also report that it held six U.S. marks, including ACDANC, DESIGNICE, TELOLY and GJX, and filed Palmer Law Group suits on AUQ (No. 24-cv-60533), DESIGNICE (Nos. 24-cv-60809 and 24-cv-61979) and ACDANC (No. 24-cv-60843). We have independently confirmed only the Justia docket for No. 24-cv-60618.
- The handoff. Liangsword was incorporated, took the ACDANC assignment five days later, and sued on the mark within about four months. About 16 months after that, Liangsword passed the mark to Bridlington Bud, a different U.K. company, and the same lawyer resumed suing on the same marks under the new plaintiff’s name. Defendants and courts are entitled to ask:
- why the portfolio changed hands;
- what, if anything, was paid;
- whether the two companies share owners or controllers;
- whether Bridlington is bound by the outcomes in Liangsword’s cases, including the vacated TRO, the denied injunction and the dismissals with prejudice.
Companies House records for both companies would show their directors and persons with significant control.
- No recorded transfer of goodwill. The USPTO recordation system offers a distinct conveyance type for an “assignment of the entire interest and the goodwill.” Both ACDANC assignments were recorded only as “assigns the entire interest.” The two-page documents themselves may contain goodwill language, and recordation is, as the USPTO notes, a ministerial act that does not determine validity. But whether any goodwill (a business, products, customers) passed with the registration is a central question. An assignment in gross is invalid under 15 U.S.C. § 1060(a)(1), and the assignee then cannot rely on the assignor’s use.
- The paper trail stops at the registration. Nothing in the USPTO record shows that Zhang Yufei, Liangsword or Bridlington ever sold ACDANC-branded goods. Each successive owner relied on the registration certificate and on unnamed “licensed” merchants.
- Same dates, same path for DESIGNICE. DESIGNICE’s two ownership updates appear on the same USPTO dates as ACDANC’s (January 24, 2024 and June 11, 2025). Its assignment abstract should be pulled to confirm that it too passed from America Hermax to Liangsword to Bridlington.
- Repeat litigation over the same mark. Bridlington’s own certification before Judge Altman admits that defendant lianquanshop was sued over ACDANC before, in No. 26-cv-22140. If Liangsword also sued ACDANC defendants in 2024, Bridlington’s prior-suits certifications, which address only suits “by Plaintiff,” may be incomplete. Judge Moore’s and Judge Altman’s orders ask about any prior suits “for any alleged violations of the Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights.” Whether a predecessor owner’s suits count is a question defendants should put to the court.
TELOLY: Shenzhen Xingao Industrial Development Co., Ltd. Public trademark records identify the TELOLY registrant as a Shenzhen company rather than an individual. That is a different profile from the individual registrants behind ACDANC and behind the marks asserted by CEDARFIRM and Blue Horizon. A Chinese manufacturing or trading company owning a brand is common and, standing alone, unremarkable. The question is how and when the registration reached Bridlington, and what goodwill came with it.
DESIGNICE: America Hermax Co., Limited (Kowloon) and Dragon Sun Law Firm, PC. The registration certificate for Reg. No. 6,658,994 names America Hermax Co., Limited, described as a “China limited liability company.” Its address is a room in the Ho King Commercial Centre on Fa Yuen Street in Mongkok, Kowloon, a Hong Kong commercial building. Despite its name, nothing in the record connects the company to the United States. We found no public information about America Hermax beyond the USPTO record.
The application history:
- Filing. It was filed through TEAS Plus on March 30, 2021, claiming use in commerce since December 12, 2020, on 43 kinds of goods. They range from fine jewelry, gemstones and precious metals to clocks, wristwatches, jewelry boxes, key rings and pet jewelry. One specimen, a single JPEG, was enough to register the entire class.
- Attorney change. On September 10, 2021, the USPTO recorded a revocation and appointment of attorney and a change of correspondence address.
- Registration. It was examined and approved for publication on November 9, 2021, apparently without an office action, and registered March 1, 2022.
- Assignments. Two assignments followed, with USPTO update entries on January 24, 2024 and June 11, 2025, the same dates as ACDANC’s.
- Lawsuits. Since June 2026, 15 notices of suit have been entered against the registration. The most recent were on October 14 and October 20, 2026.
The USPTO’s current owner record lists Bridlington Bud LTD at its London address but gives its “State or Country Where Organized” as China, while Bridlington’s complaints describe it as “formed in the UK.” The entry may be a data carry-over from a prior owner, but defendants are entitled to ask which is correct. A company organized in China would be subject to different disclosure, service and enforcement considerations than a U.K. company.
Dragon Sun Law Firm, PC
The attorney of record and correspondent on the DESIGNICE registration is Jinggao Li of Dragon Sun Law Firm, PC – who lists an address in Norwalk, Connecticut. Dragon Sun was appointed during prosecution, on September 10, 2021, and handled the application through publication and registration.
Dragon Sun is a Connecticut practice that also maintains a Chinese-language website. A patent and trademark analytics site attributes about 2,197 trademark matters to the firm. That is a high-volume U.S. filing practice, consistent with serving foreign, largely Chinese, applicants.
By the numbers: Dragon Sun registrations asserted by Palmer Law Group
How many registrations prosecuted by Dragon Sun has Palmer Law Group asserted? We cross-checked every registration we have identified in Palmer’s recent Schedule A cases against the attorney-of-record information in the USPTO records we reviewed.
| Registration | Reg. No. | Palmer plaintiff(s) | Attorney / correspondent on USPTO record | Dragon Sun? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DESIGNICE | 6,658,994 | Liangsword (2024, reported); Bridlington Bud (2026) | Jinggao Li, Dragon Sun Law Firm, PC (appointed Sept. 10, 2021) | Yes |
| ACDANC | 6,362,407 | Liangsword (2024, reported); Bridlington Bud (2025–26) | None today; prior attorney withdrew Nov. 21, 2023 (name not shown in our records); applicant is correspondent | Not determined |
| LADYGYM | 7,945,631 | CEDARFIRM | Edward Darius Robinson, San Diego, CA | No |
| AOMRCOL | 6,425,202 | Blue Horizon Innovation | Qin Tao, Pearland, TX (correspondent) | No |
| EXLEAF | 7,817,152 | CEDARFIRM | Not shown in the exhibits reviewed | Not determined |
| BPPEG | 7,724,044 | Blue Horizon Innovation | Not shown in the exhibits reviewed | Not determined |
| TELOLY | 6,476,524 | Liangsword (2024, reported); Bridlington Bud | Not reviewed | Not determined |
| GJX, AUQ, FACEGA, YOUSIMP | Various | Liangsword; Bridlington Bud | Not reviewed | Not determined |
| BESTSKY, CCOCC, XIRQI, gastropod | Various | Albion Brand Foundry | Not reviewed | Not determined |
| HIBIBUD, RAGUPEL | Various | The Galleon Guild | Not reviewed | Not determined |
What DESIGNICE adds to the picture. With DESIGNICE, the three marks in these four cases trace to three different Chinese or Hong Kong registrants:
- an individual in Zhejiang (ACDANC);
- a Shenzhen company (TELOLY);
- a Kowloon company (DESIGNICE).
Each claimed use on a long list of goods. At least two moved through the same chain of assignments on the same dates. All now belong to a single London-addressed company that sells nothing itself and sues in Miami.
That is the clearest documentary evidence yet that Bridlington’s portfolio was assembled from unrelated foreign registrants rather than built around its own products. Whether that portfolio supports the counterfeiting claims and ex parte relief Bridlington seeks is a question the courts have not yet been asked to decide.
What the pattern suggests, and what it doesn’t. Across Palmer Law Group’s recent plaintiffs (Bridlington Bud, Albion Brand Foundry, The Galleon Guild, CEDARFIRM and Blue Horizon), the same structure recurs:
- a U.S. registration filed by a Chinese individual or company on a use basis, often for a coined word with a long goods list;
- an assignment to a U.K. or Wyoming entity that does not itself sell the goods;
- assertion against dozens of Chinese marketplace sellers in Miami.
Practitioners have described a market in which “numerous IP agents in China offer to sell US IP registrations at extremely low prices”, making it “economically rational to acquire US IP rights … as a litigation weapon.”
Whether these particular registrations were created for that purpose is something only discovery can establish. Buying a trademark is lawful. But a plaintiff relying on an acquired registration must be able to prove:
- that goodwill was transferred, because an assignment in gross is invalid under 15 U.S.C. § 1060(a)(1);
- that the mark was actually in use on the registered goods;
- that it controls the quality of its licensees’ products.
The four October 2026 cases at a glance
| Gayles | Altman | Martinez | Moore | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case number | 1:26-cv-27131-DPG | 1:26-cv-27218-RKA | 1:26-cv-27381-JEM | 1:26-cv-27455-KMM |
| Filed | Oct. 12, 2026 | Oct. 15, 2026 | Oct. 20, 2026 | Oct. 22, 2026 |
| Magistrate judge | Detra Shaw-Wilder | Yeney Hernandez (per docket flag) | Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein | Yeney Hernandez (discovery referral) |
| Mark | TELOLY (Reg. 6,476,524) | ACDANC (Reg. 6,362,407) | ACDANC (Reg. 6,362,407) | DESIGNICE (Reg. 6,658,994) |
| Defendants | 56 (37 Walmart, 19 Amazon) | 15 (Walmart) | 9 (Walmart) | 75 (42 Walmart, 33 Amazon) |
| Demand on docket | None listed | $500,000,000 | None listed | None listed |
| Counts | § 1114 infringement and counterfeiting; § 1125(a) false designation | Same | Same | Same |
| First judicial action | Paperless order to show cause on joinder, Oct. 20 | Omnibus Order signed Oct. 20, entered Oct. 21 | Omnibus Order, Oct. 23 | Omnibus Order and pretrial orders, Oct. 23 |
| Next deadline | Joinder memorandum due Oct. 27 | Verified prior-suits response due Oct. 27 | Renewed alternative-service motion pending (responses due Nov. 9) | Compliance with Omnibus Order due Nov. 6 |
| Bridlington’s filings so far | Notice of entry of parties, Rule 7.1 disclosure, prior-suits certificate (Oct. 16); motion for alternative service (Oct. 16) | Rule 7.1 disclosure, prior-suits certification, motion for alternative service (Oct. 22) | Notice of entry of parties, Rule 7.1 disclosure, prior-suits certificate, motion for alternative service (Oct. 23); certificate re the Omnibus Order and renewed motion (Oct. 24) | Complaint only |
What each case record shows
Gayles (TELOLY, 56 defendants). Four days after filing, Bridlington entered all 56 sellers on the public docket and moved for service by e-mail and web publication. On October 20, Judge Gayles issued a paperless order to show cause. He noted that Bridlington alleges the 56 defendants acted “individually or jointly,” and wrote that “a plaintiff cannot satisfy Rule 20’s requirements by alleging that multiple defendants have infringed the same patent or trademark,” citing Omega, SA v. Individuals, Bus. Entities, & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule “A”, 650 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1352 (S.D. Fla. 2023). Bridlington must file a memorandum showing why joinder of all 56 is proper by October 27.
Altman (ACDANC, 15 defendants). Judge Altman’s Omnibus Order was signed October 20 and entered October 21, six days after filing. The copy entered on the Bridlington docket carries the caption of a different Palmer Law Group case, The Galleon Guild Ltd v. Schedule A, No. 26-cv-22189-ALTMAN. That is a clerical carry-over, but it shows the order is a standing template applied to every Schedule A case on his docket.
On October 22, Bridlington filed:
- its Rule 7.1 disclosure;
- a sworn prior-suits certification;
- an ex parte motion for e-mail and web-publication service, supported by declarations from Mr. Palmer and from Wei Zhang, described as a China resident with e-commerce experience who checked each defendant’s registered phone number and address.
The certification discloses that defendant no. 2, lianquanshop, was sued by Bridlington before, over the same ACDANC mark, in No. 26-cv-22140. That was the case Judge Dimitrouleas narrowed and Bridlington then voluntarily dismissed in July 2026. The verified response the Omnibus Order requires is due October 27.
Martinez (ACDANC, 9 defendants). Three days after filing, Bridlington entered the nine defendants on the docket and filed its disclosure, a prior-suits certificate and a motion for alternative service. Judge Martinez entered an Omnibus Order the same day, October 23. The next day Bridlington filed a second certificate of counsel “re [the] Order Regarding Prior Suits” and a renewed alternative-service motion under the caption “26-27381-CIV-MARTINEZ.” The renewed motion is substantively identical to the first, with updated exhibit citations. That sequence is consistent with an order denying pending motions without prejudice and requiring a prior-suits certification, as Judge Moore’s and Judge Altman’s orders do. The Martinez order itself was not among the filings we reviewed.
Moore (DESIGNICE, 75 defendants). Judge Moore entered his paperless pretrial order, discovery referral to Magistrate Judge Hernandez, and his Omnibus Order Regarding Schedule “A” Causes of Action on October 23, the day after filing. His requirements are described below. With 75 defendants on two platforms and no joinder allegations in the complaint, this case faces the steepest climb.
The alternative-service motions
Bridlington’s motions in the Gayles, Altman and Martinez cases ask to serve every defendant by e-mail and by a link to a Palmer Law Group cloud folder. Each argues that the Hague Service Convention does not apply because the defendants’ addresses are “not known.” Each says the addresses the sellers registered with Walmart and Amazon are “incomplete, false or phonetically translated with no separation.” The supporting evidence varies:
- Gayles. The Palmer declaration gives one example, defendant no. 1 (DINGFENG). It says a Google Maps and Baidu Maps search for its run-together Hebei address “yielded no results,” then states that “this issue applies to all Defendants.” There is no defendant-by-defendant showing.
- Altman and Martinez. These motions add the Wei Zhang declaration, which reports calls to each defendant’s registered phone number (“not in service” or “went unanswered”) and a verdict on each address. Several addresses Zhang rejects are complete Hong Kong commercial addresses with unit, floor, building and street. Defendant no. 1, xinde, lists a unit in the Shing Yip Industrial Building in Kwun Tong and the registered business name “XIN ZHI DE TRADING LIMITED.” Zhang says only that it “could not be independently verified.”
That matters. A complete, findable address takes a defendant back inside the Hague Convention. Different service rules also apply to Hong Kong than to mainland China. Judges Moore and Altman expressly require the plaintiff to address each defendant’s domicile and whether the requested method is permitted by the Hague Convention for that domicile.
How Judges Gayles, Martinez, Altman and Moore handle Schedule A cases
| Judge Darrin P. Gayles | Judge Jose E. Martinez | Judge Roy K. Altman | Judge K. Michael Moore | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First move in these cases | Targeted paperless order to show cause on joinder, 8 days after filing | Omnibus Order 3 days after filing | Standing Omnibus Order 5–6 days after filing | Standing Omnibus Order 1 day after filing |
| Joinder | Applies Omega: infringing the same mark is not enough. In XYZ Corp. v. Schedule A, No. 24-cv-23549 (Apr. 17, 2025), he severed 75 of 76 defendants, kept only defendant no. 1, and held that “similar issues of liability, without more,” do not justify joinder. | Not shown in the filings we reviewed | Motions must explain why the infringements are “the same (rather than similar)” under Rule 20, and whether joinder promotes judicial economy | Any TRO, injunction or service motion must show the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence |
| Personal jurisdiction | Not addressed in the order to show cause | Not shown | Detailed steps to verify jurisdiction over EACH defendant under Florida’s long-arm statute or Rule 4(k) | Same as Altman |
| TRO and preliminary injunction | Granted TRO relief in Bridlington’s earlier case before him (No. 25-cv-25871) | Adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation on a preliminary injunction in Bridlington’s earlier ACDANC case (No. 25-cv-24038, Oct. 30, 2025) | Separate motions; all four injunction factors as to EACH defendant; Rule 65(b)(1) affidavit and attorney certification for ex parte relief | Same as Altman |
| Asset freezes | Not addressed | Not shown | Not addressed separately in the order | Must justify any freeze as preserving equitable relief under Grupo Mexicano |
| Alternative service | Motion pending, not yet ruled on | Original motion apparently superseded; renewed motion pending | Must show efforts to verify each address, each defendant’s domicile, and Hague compatibility for that domicile | Same as Altman |
| Prior suits | Plaintiff filed certificate | Certificates filed Oct. 23 and Oct. 24 “re” the Order | Verified response by Oct. 27, including settlement terms and attorney’s fees in any prior case | Verified response within 14 days, including settlement terms |
| Sealing | Schedule A filed publicly | Schedule A filed publicly | Not addressed | Sealing and pseudonymity “disfavored” |
| Sanction for noncompliance | Joinder memorandum due; severance likely if inadequate (as in XYZ) | Not shown | Dismissal without further notice (Rule 41(b)) | Dismissal without further notice (Rule 41(b)) |
Bottom line.
- Gayles goes straight to joinder and, on his own precedent, is likely to sever down to one defendant unless Bridlington can tie the 56 sellers together with real evidence.
- Altman and Moore use near-identical standing orders that put the burden on the plaintiff, before any relief, to prove jurisdiction, joinder, service and entitlement for each defendant. Moore adds explicit limits on asset freezes and sealing.
- Martinez’s order is not in the record we reviewed. Bridlington’s same-day and next-day filings suggest he too requires prior-suit disclosures and fresh motions.
- None of the four judges has yet entered a TRO, an asset freeze or an alternative-service order in these cases.
In Bridlington’s earlier cases, Blue Horizon’s cases before Judge Moore, and CEDARFIRM’s case before Judge Huck, orders like these led Palmer Law Group to cut its cases to one or two defendants within days.
Bridlington’s broader filing history
The PACER party search shows Bridlington’s filings accelerating: a handful in September 2025, steady filings through the winter, and more than 20 cases between August 20 and October 22, 2026 alone. Many earlier cases closed within two to six months, typically after defendant-by-defendant dismissals (likely settlements) or default judgments. Others closed within days, including:
- No. 26-cv-26837, filed September 30, closed October 11, 2026;
- Two of the three cases against “SLANGO”, which closed the day after filing.
The table below lists earlier cases we have confirmed in public sources and their notable events.
| Case number | Filed | Judge | Status / notable events |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1:26-cv-26837 | Sep. 30, 2026 | Darrin P. Gayles | Closed Oct. 11, 2026 |
| 1:26-cv-24721 | July 10, 2026 | Not confirmed | Closed Oct. 1, 2026 |
| 1:26-cv-22187 | Mar. 2026 | William P. Dimitrouleas | Omnibus order; joinder challenged; amended complaint narrowed to 1 defendant |
| 1:26-cv-22140 | Mar. 30, 2026 | William P. Dimitrouleas | ACDANC; narrowed to 2 defendants; e-mail service denied; voluntarily dismissed July 7, 2026. Defendant lianquanshop is now sued again before Judge Altman. |
| 1:26-cv-22033 | Mar. 26, 2026 | Not confirmed | TRO motion; clerk’s default; default judgment motion; closed June 1, 2026 |
| 1:25-cv-25871 | Dec. 2025 | Darrin P. Gayles | TRO; 7 defendants voluntarily dismissed; default judgment motion; closed Feb. 28, 2026 |
| 1:25-cv-25807 | Dec. 2025 | Jacqueline Becerra | ACDANC; TRO Dec. 30, 2025; preliminary injunction Jan. 27, 2026 |
| 1:25-cv-24328 | Sep. 22, 2025 | Not confirmed | Default final judgment against 5 defendants; closed Mar. 5, 2026 |
| 1:25-cv-24099 | Sep. 9, 2025 | Not confirmed | GJX (electronics); closed Dec. 30, 2025 |
| 1:25-cv-24042 | Sep. 5, 2025 | Beth Bloom | $5,000 TRO bond; preliminary injunction; default judgment and permanent injunction; satisfaction of judgment |
| 1:25-cv-24038 | Sep. 5, 2025 | Jose E. Martinez | Preliminary injunction recommendation adopted Oct. 30, 2025; closed Mar. 2, 2026 |
| 1:25-cv-23871 | Aug. 28, 2025 | Jacqueline Becerra | 7 defendants voluntarily dismissed; default judgment and permanent injunction; closed Dec. 2025 |
Key decisions in earlier Bridlington cases
Most Bridlington Bud cases have gone the plaintiff’s way, but not all of them. Four rulings stand out.
Preliminary injunction for the ACDANC mark (Judge Becerra, Jan. 27, 2026)
In 1:25-cv-25807, the court entered a TRO and asset restraint on December 30, 2025, then converted it to a preliminary injunction on January 27, 2026.
- Sellers were served by email and by posting the case documents on a Palmer Law Group file-sharing link.
- No defendant appeared at the hearing. Three defendants had opposed the motion, but they settled with the plaintiff beforehand.
- PayPal, Payoneer, and Walmart were ordered to locate and freeze the defendants’ accounts within two business days.
- The court found the plaintiff’s $5,000 bond sufficient.
Default judgments with statutory damages
In 1:25-cv-24328, the court entered a default final judgment against five sellers: JECOEPER TRADE, WEIPAGS, Twflaqlo, JINESXIAO, and Ryankkkk. It imposed a permanent injunction and awarded statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), finding the amount justified by the sellers’ willfulness and the need for deterrence. The dollar amount was not visible in the public summary.
In 1:25-cv-24042, Judge Bloom held a 10-minute preliminary injunction hearing on October 15, 2025, and later entered a default judgment and permanent injunction. The plaintiff filed a satisfaction of judgment as to Defendants 8, 9, and 13 on December 6, 2025, which typically means those judgments were paid, likely from frozen funds. It moved for return of its bond on January 13, 2026.
Pushback from Judge Dimitrouleas (2026)
1:26-cv-22140 shows the risks for plaintiffs:
- March 30, 2026: The court issued an omnibus order on Schedule A cases and asked about prior suits.
- April 14: The court ordered the plaintiff to explain why joining each of the 17 defendants in one case was proper under Rule 20.
- April 20: The plaintiff amended its complaint to sue only 2 sellers (shengxia and shengyushop). The court ordered all future filings to stop referring to a “Schedule A.”
- April 27: The court denied the motion for email service under Rule 4(f)(3).
- June 30: The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause for failing to serve within 90 days.
- July 7: The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice, and it was closed.
The same judge followed the same path in 1:26-cv-22187. After the court’s omnibus Schedule A order and an order to show cause, Bridlington Bud filed an amended complaint on April 20, 2026, against a single seller.
Judge Jacqueline Becerra and Palmer Law Group
Judge Becerra has handled more Palmer Law Group Schedule A cases than most judges in the district. Her docket includes at least three Bridlington Bud cases (Nos. 25-cv-23871, 25-cv-24911 and 25-cv-25807) and Albion Brand Foundry’s BESTSKY cases (Nos. 26-cv-25547 and 26-cv-25783). Her approach combines a demanding standing order at the outset with a willingness to grant relief once a plaintiff meets it.
Her standing Schedule A procedures order. In Palmer’s 2026 cases, Judge Becerra enters a paperless “order on procedures in Schedule ‘A’ cases” on the day the complaint is filed. In Albion’s cases, it was entered August 17 and August 25, 2026, the same days the complaints were filed. As summarized from those dockets, it requires:
- Service within 90 days under Rule 4(m), or dismissal without prejudice.
- Alternative-service motions backed by evidence. The plaintiff must show the efforts it made to verify each defendant’s address. Any Rule 4(f)(3) motion for foreign defendants must address:
- the proposed method of service;
- each defendant’s domicile;
- the efforts made to find it;
- whether the method complies with the Hague Service Convention.
- TRO and preliminary-injunction motions supported for each defendant. Counsel must verify personal jurisdiction over each defendant and address all four injunction factors for each. Ex parte requests must meet Rule 65(b)(1).
- A verified prior-suits response within five days. This is the shortest deadline among the judges discussed in this post. Counsel must disclose whether the defendants were previously sued for IP violations and the status of those cases.
- No sealing or pseudonyms by default. Such motions are “disfavored” and will be denied unless exceptional circumstances are shown.
- Strict case management. Certificates of interested parties are due within 15 days, and the joint scheduling report within 20 days, after the last defendant appears. Conferral must be by phone or in person. Extension motions are due at least three business days before the deadline. A clerk’s default must be sought within seven days after an answer deadline passes, and a default judgment within seven days after the clerk’s default.
The ACDANC preliminary injunction (No. 25-cv-25807). The only ruling we have located from Judge Becerra on a preliminary injunction over the ACDANC mark granted it. On December 30, 2025, she entered a TRO and asset restraint. On January 27, 2026, she granted Bridlington’s motion for a preliminary injunction, applying the four-factor test from Schiavo and finding:
- a “strong probability” that consumers were likely to be confused;
- irreparable harm;
- that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored relief.
She relied on 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which allows an equitable accounting of profits, and on the court’s “inherent equitable powers to order preliminary relief, including an asset freeze.” She found “good reason to believe Defendants will hide or transfer their ill-gotten assets.” She also directed PayPal, Payoneer and Walmart to locate and restrain the defendants’ accounts and found Bridlington’s $5,000 bond sufficient.
Three defendants had filed an opposition but settled before the hearing, so no defendant appeared to contest the motion. We have not found a Becerra order denying a preliminary injunction to Bridlington on ACDANC. If one exists in a case we have not reviewed, we will add it. The best-documented setbacks for Palmer’s ACDANC-related plaintiffs came elsewhere:
- Judge Singhal, 2024. In Liangsword’s No. 24-cv-60618, the TRO was vacated and a preliminary injunction denied in August 2024 as to the defendants who appeared.
- Judge Dimitrouleas, 2026. In Bridlington’s No. 26-cv-22140, an ACDANC case, he denied e-mail service, and Bridlington then dismissed the case.
How she has handled alternative service. Judge Becerra does not reject e-mail service outright. In No. 25-cv-25807, defendants were notified of the injunction hearing by e-mail and by posting the complaint, TRO and motion on a Palmer Law Group cloud link. Her injunction order directed that service of her orders continue the same way.
But her standing order makes the plaintiff earn that result. A Rule 4(f)(3) motion must address each defendant’s domicile and whether e-mail service is compatible with the Hague Convention for that domicile. That question has become sharper since the Second Circuit held in Smart Study Co. v. Shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi, 164 F.4th 164 (2d Cir. 2025), that the Hague Convention bars e-mail service on defendants with known addresses in China. E-mail service remains available only where, after reasonable diligence, the address is genuinely unknown.
In Albion’s BESTSKY case, No. 26-cv-25547, Palmer filed a renewed motion for alternative service a week after Judge Becerra’s procedures order. That pattern suggests the first submission did not satisfy her requirements. The record we reviewed does not show her ruling on the renewed motion.
Procedural strictness at judgment. In No. 25-cv-23871, she denied Bridlington’s first motion for default judgment because it lacked the proposed order the local rules require. Bridlington had to refile. The renewed motion succeeded: she entered a default judgment and permanent injunction, and the case closed in December 2025 after seven defendants were voluntarily dismissed.
What this means in practice.
- For defendants. Before Judge Becerra, the main battle is fought before any injunction issues: over jurisdiction, joinder, the Hague Convention and the prior-suits disclosure due within five days. Once a TRO is entered and no defendant appears, her record shows she will convert it to a preliminary injunction with an asset freeze. Defendants who want to contest the case should appear early. Those with complete, verifiable addresses in China should raise Smart Study.
- For plaintiffs. Arrive with evidence for each defendant, not boilerplate, and expect every procedural rule, from proposed orders to conferral, to be enforced.
Outcomes and metrics
From public docket entries, at least 20 sellers appear to have settled or been released across the earlier cases we reviewed, and default judgments were entered in at least three cases. These are floor counts. Sealed filings and unreviewed dockets mean the true numbers are higher.
| Metric | Count | Source |
|---|---|---|
| PACER party-search hits for “Bridlington Bud LTD” (Florida) | 66 (50+ distinct S.D. Fla. cases on page 1) | PACER Case Locator, Oct. 25, 2026 |
| Cases filed Aug. 20 – Oct. 22, 2026 | 20+ | PACER Case Locator |
| Seller aliases named in the four October 2026 cases | 155 | Schedule A lists |
| Defendants voluntarily dismissed one by one (likely settlements) | 14+ | 7 in 25-cv-23871; 7 in 25-cv-25871 |
| Defendants who settled before a PI hearing | 3 | 25-cv-25807 |
| Cases ending in default final judgment | 3+ | 25-cv-23871, 25-cv-24042, 25-cv-24328 |
| Cases cut down after joinder challenges | 2+ | 26-cv-22140 (dismissed), 26-cv-22187 (one defendant) |
| Preliminary injunctions granted | 3+ | 25-cv-24038, 25-cv-24042, 25-cv-25807 |
| Bonds posted (where shown) | $5,000 each | 25-cv-24042, 25-cv-25807 |
| Notices of suit on the ACDANC registration | 31 | USPTO TSDR |
The accused infringers in the four October 2026 cases
These are every seller alias Bridlington has publicly named in the four cases. Being named is an allegation, not a finding: no court has found any of these sellers liable, and none has appeared. Store IDs are as listed in Bridlington’s Schedule A filings.
Gayles, TELOLY, No. 26-cv-27131 (56)
| # | Seller alias | Platform / store ID | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DINGFENG | Walmart 102898108 | |
| 2 | yunmanstore | Walmart 101669684 | |
| 3 | yuleshop | Walmart 103210621 | Same store also sued before Moore |
| 4 | fenzhengshop | Walmart 103084920 | |
| 5 | duwei | Walmart 102488758 | |
| 6 | linqi | Walmart 103213650 | |
| 7 | woxu | Walmart 101681902 | |
| 8 | junjunyou | Walmart 102876937 | |
| 9 | yaodan | Walmart 103154656 | |
| 10 | shiqia | Walmart 102488725 | |
| 11 | lantushop | Walmart 103223094 | |
| 12 | yuchenstore | Walmart 103230003 | |
| 13 | bolang | Walmart 103221594 | |
| 14 | xiwangshop | Walmart 103221602 | |
| 15 | huachengshop | Walmart 103149549 | |
| 16 | huicha | Walmart 103149386 | |
| 17 | haoshop | Walmart 103150703 | |
| 18 | weixinshop | Walmart 103209851 | |
| 19 | rongcheng | Walmart 103163751 | |
| 20 | Minchuan | Walmart 102484253 | |
| 21 | yangqian shop | Walmart 103243814 | |
| 22 | henjun | Walmart 102905498 | |
| 23 | libo | Walmart 103206028 | |
| 24 | bingyun | Walmart 103132493 | |
| 25 | fengchuishop | Walmart 103221608 | |
| 26 | chenyanyan | Walmart 102844414 | |
| 27 | yunzhongshop | Walmart 103209625 | |
| 28 | zhangshop | Walmart 103145142 | |
| 29 | qiquan | Walmart 102816765 | |
| 30 | siqieru shop | Walmart 102481828 | |
| 31 | qukunstore | Walmart 102898504 | |
| 32 | weijieshop | Walmart 102816785 | |
| 33 | zhuoYUN | Walmart 103091005 | |
| 34 | LUYUELING | Walmart 102910727 | |
| 35 | QIAMOXIA | Walmart 102925971 | |
| 36 | WANGZHUYI | Walmart 102913937 | |
| 37 | LIJINYIN | Walmart 102910784 | |
| 38 | 耀钥悦-亚马逊 | Amazon A1ONESVCTM596C | |
| 39 | yuyu stor | Amazon A149TEDCYAMRUW | |
| 40 | chengcheng stor | Amazon A212AW7PAJ5JT3 | |
| 41 | Yancheng | Amazon A28SF9RSKPN03F | |
| 42 | shangshangtang | Amazon A2QW6JY8Y53IV8 | |
| 43 | qingxunxun | Amazon A2WET1M6EY8PZC | |
| 44 | boazhixin | Amazon A1420QPI7BQ63P | |
| 45 | 龚楠池-亚马逊 | Amazon A1ZE1L8HYKWGKD | |
| 46 | geigeixi stor | Amazon A27KEQVMFH4OXT | |
| 47 | shanshanxin | Amazon A3PULJVR7FGKZQ | |
| 48 | daoqinqin | Amazon A1ZLDY2DLNMQSL | |
| 49 | rujiufei stor | Amazon A1LSO2Z3D7JF8I | |
| 50 | zhengzheng stor | Amazon AX7AAUFIGSFAQ | |
| 51 | qiqidan stor | Amazon A1PN3FZFKZ5F8O | |
| 52 | jiajiayiyi | Amazon ABXRXZKCW6SH6 | |
| 53 | 安智達-亚马逊 | Amazon A3R6G9XUJC0G2W | |
| 54 | shishi stor | Amazon A1QG5LXORDRLF1 | |
| 55 | tongxixi | Amazon AV5M1PYN1HWI7 | |
| 56 | youqi shop | Amazon A2SZ078G94F3PU |
Altman, ACDANC, No. 26-cv-27218 (15)
| # | Seller alias | Platform / store ID | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | xinde | Walmart 103217645 | Registered business name XIN ZHI DE TRADING LIMITED; Hong Kong address |
| 2 | lianquanshop | Walmart 102928541 | Previously sued by Bridlington in No. 26-cv-22140 |
| 3 | dalianxinruizhoubai | Walmart 102899574 | |
| 4 | zicheng | Walmart 103215157 | |
| 5 | zhoudestore | Walmart 103230674 | Same alias appears as a seller on the EXLEAF listing in CEDARFIRM’s evidence |
| 6 | youxingshop | Walmart 103230729 | Same store also sued before Moore |
| 7 | hezong | Walmart 103229745 | |
| 8 | shuijin | Walmart 103219965 | |
| 9 | chalu | Walmart 103206757 | Same store also sued before Moore |
| 10 | xijuan | Walmart 103219931 | |
| 11 | qinqing | Walmart 103217265 | |
| 12 | huifangshop | Walmart 103216445 | |
| 13 | meilishop | Walmart 103215724 | |
| 14 | tianshun | Walmart 103212237 | Same store also sued before Moore |
| 15 | feidun | Walmart 103222947 |
Martinez, ACDANC, No. 26-cv-27381 (9)
| # | Seller alias | Platform / store ID | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | wangyingsheng | Walmart 103079393 | |
| 2 | meizhishop | Walmart 103208861 | |
| 3 | jingyun | Walmart 103211648 | |
| 4 | yunfu | Walmart 103221525 | |
| 5 | yuhe | Walmart 103225184 | |
| 6 | qidu | Walmart 103227239 | Same store sued the same day by Blue Horizon (AOMRCOL) |
| 7 | tianqinstore | Walmart 103228177 | |
| 8 | shangwei | Walmart 103229804 | |
| 9 | ruge | Walmart 103232023 | Same store sued the same day by Blue Horizon (AOMRCOL) |
Moore, DESIGNICE, No. 26-cv-27455 (75)
| # | Seller alias | Platform / store ID | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | congfan | Walmart 103159276 | |
| 2 | zhangqinstore | Walmart 103201879 | |
| 3 | wannian ltd | Walmart 103155471 | |
| 4 | pamiao | Walmart 102816823 | |
| 5 | jiangqinstore | Walmart 103088751 | |
| 6 | yangqu | Walmart 103205880 | |
| 7 | duwei | Walmart 103151450 | Same alias, different store, in Gayles case |
| 8 | xiwangshop | Walmart 103226539 | Same alias, different store, in Gayles case |
| 9 | Jinxun shop | Walmart 103084941 | |
| 10 | canglu | Walmart 103120815 | |
| 11 | fulinmen | Walmart 103139132 | |
| 12 | caichao | Walmart 103211614 | |
| 13 | zhengxinstore | Walmart 103158270 | |
| 14 | baiyue | Walmart 103230713 | |
| 15 | muguang | Walmart 103218519 | |
| 16 | cilong | Walmart 103218561 | |
| 17 | ziyangshop | Walmart 103206883 | |
| 18 | yuexistore | Walmart 103210627 | |
| 19 | qinwan | Walmart 103230565 | |
| 20 | hanlinshop | Walmart 103151794 | |
| 21 | heyou | Walmart 103217780 | |
| 22 | qiyuanshop | Walmart 103216509 | |
| 23 | tianlishop | Walmart 103210126 | |
| 24 | nagan | Walmart 103229218 | Same store sued by Blue Horizon (AOMRCOL) |
| 25 | ziti | Walmart 103250498 | Same store sued by Blue Horizon (AOMRCOL) |
| 26 | huizhuoshop | Walmart 103220900 | |
| 27 | yintai | Walmart 103215179 | |
| 28 | gupin | Walmart 103219211 | |
| 29 | haofang | Walmart 103220807 | |
| 30 | fenghecai | Walmart 103147182 | |
| 31 | youxingshop | Walmart 103230729 | Same store also sued before Altman |
| 32 | huifangshop | Walmart 103220110 | Same alias, different store, in Altman case |
| 33 | linqi | Walmart 103220871 | Same alias, different store, in Gayles case |
| 34 | ruichuang | Walmart 103215010 | |
| 35 | Pengzhan Trading | Walmart 103118534 | |
| 36 | tianshun | Walmart 103212237 | Same store also sued before Altman |
| 37 | yuleshop | Walmart 103210621 | Same store also sued before Gayles |
| 38 | chalu | Walmart 103206757 | Same store also sued before Altman |
| 39 | hejunstore | Walmart 102880287 | |
| 40 | yunmanstore | Walmart 102863895 | Same alias, different store, in Gayles case |
| 41 | jingxuanshop | Walmart 103156777 | |
| 42 | ganmai | Walmart 103117374 | |
| 43 | 萧缤-亚马逊 | Amazon A198J7T71QFSVV | |
| 44 | 隽泛-亚马逊 | Amazon A1OS3I166TUZDC | |
| 45 | 言充-亚马逊 | Amazon A27FZT5WZERV8K | |
| 46 | 延夏-亚马逊 | Amazon A2V6CR377UQZHL | |
| 47 | 狄钥-亚马逊 | Amazon A109P1A9POFSWV | |
| 48 | zuomanyishangmaodian | Amazon A18TYORD1NUL06 | |
| 49 | 韵亦-亚马逊 | Amazon A1J96UPEMETUXA | |
| 50 | guojiansongamz | Amazon A1KSU42MLNOP36 | |
| 51 | HK QIANQIAN | Amazon A3L9NZ7NALTKOY | |
| 52 | YOUyuan | Amazon A1DN69O9M6RMN6 | |
| 53 | 珩之芳-亚马逊 | Amazon A5APBSUDZTJXC | |
| 54 | shangmiao | Amazon AD9IKPC8QRW51 | |
| 55 | pinghe shop | Amazon A84IBCLZMCY8J | |
| 56 | xingmengan | Amazon A32HRWQZ8QXBZ5 | |
| 57 | jingjie stor | Amazon A2BHOKPJRGVQ1H | |
| 58 | QIAOSAN | Amazon A1ZI6I8C1S5EQ8 | |
| 59 | NovelynCraft | Amazon A2J66UM1AQHYA8 | |
| 60 | shaoyiyouxifuwuzhongxin | Amazon AFKFSV1MU6NEW | |
| 61 | xiangyunzhuangshi | Amazon A109YQKM3E9PY1 | |
| 62 | xiaoluozigongyipingongsi | Amazon A2C4QPJR6MZ5H6 | |
| 63 | Magiangping | Amazon A3HBDCWTATAGJ | |
| 64 | maihui stor | Amazon A1QIAIPJJN2D6 | |
| 65 | xihao shop | Amazon A1KC8WURGSSR95 | |
| 66 | ZWWEIwei | Amazon AO4X5DN2RRZUD | |
| 67 | Forandiu | Amazon AB82YAHHCUL58 | |
| 68 | chengzui | Amazon A2CPZZMJB8H9XZ | |
| 69 | RURURI%EIUJ | Amazon A24ZU5IHKW1VWI | |
| 70 | AN-UHZ#3-3 | Amazon A2DZ9FGLS4MNI3 | |
| 71 | XU-huihui | Amazon A1FOVY9PA51SJR | |
| 72 | LEIkajlong | Amazon A1HRT9SO58AP50 | |
| 73 | aiHUUJ6CSW# | Amazon A2BXUNG6WO659O | |
| 74 | WEXVDA | Amazon A1E49Q916U3EEI | |
| 75 | C-W-Y-Wyc | Amazon A2WYFI3E4VJPZL |
Several Amazon aliases in the Gayles and Moore cases are Chinese personal names followed by “-亚马逊” (“-Amazon”), meaning the store name is simply a person’s name plus the platform. Others are strings of random characters.
The same stores, sued again and again
Comparing the Schedule A lists of these four cases with Palmer Law Group’s same-week filings for Blue Horizon Innovation and CEDARFIRM shows significant overlap:
| Walmart store | Alias | Named in |
|---|---|---|
| 103210621 | yuleshop | Bridlington (TELOLY, Gayles) and Bridlington (DESIGNICE, Moore) |
| 103230729 | youxingshop | Bridlington (ACDANC, Altman) and Bridlington (DESIGNICE, Moore) |
| 103206757 | chalu | Bridlington (ACDANC, Altman) and Bridlington (DESIGNICE, Moore) |
| 103212237 | tianshun | Bridlington (ACDANC, Altman) and Bridlington (DESIGNICE, Moore) |
| 103227239 | qidu | Bridlington (ACDANC, Martinez) and Blue Horizon (AOMRCOL, Moore), both filed Oct. 20 |
| 103232023 | ruge | Bridlington (ACDANC, Martinez) and Blue Horizon (AOMRCOL, Moore), both filed Oct. 20 |
| 103229218 | nagan | Bridlington (DESIGNICE, Moore) and Blue Horizon (AOMRCOL, Moore) |
| 103250498 | ziti | Bridlington (DESIGNICE, Moore) and Blue Horizon (AOMRCOL, Moore) |
| 102928541 | lianquanshop | Bridlington (ACDANC) twice: No. 26-cv-22140 (dismissed) and Altman |
Five more aliases (duwei, xiwangshop, linqi, yunmanstore, huifangshop) appear in two Bridlington cases under different store IDs. They may or may not be the same operators.
The overlaps cut against Bridlington in two ways:
- Joinder. A store accused of selling counterfeit jewelry in one case and counterfeit brushes or socks in another is not plausibly part of a single coordinated scheme to infringe any one mark. Treating the same storefronts as a pool to be sued under whatever mark is on hand is the opposite of the “same transaction or occurrence” Rule 20 requires.
- Prior-suits disclosure. Judges Moore and Altman require verified disclosure of prior suits “for any alleged violations of Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights.” Repeat suits against the same store under different marks are exactly what those orders are designed to surface.
Recommendations for Sellers Named in Bridlington’s Cases
- Find your case and your judge. Each judge is demanding something different, and deadlines are close:
- Gayles: joinder memorandum due October 27;
- Altman: verified prior-suits response due October 27;
- Moore: compliance due November 6;
- Martinez: renewed alternative-service motion, with responses due November 9.
A seller who appears can oppose alternative service and joinder before any freeze is entered.
- Challenge joinder with the overlap evidence. The same storefronts are being sued under unrelated marks (TELOLY socks, ACDANC brushes and containers, DESIGNICE jewelry, AOMRCOL bags) by different Palmer plaintiffs in the same week. That is strong evidence there is no common transaction tying any group of defendants together.
- Contest e-mail service if your address is real. If your registered address is complete (many Hong Kong addresses in these filings are), the Hague Convention and its rules for your location apply. A declaration that an address “could not be independently verified” is not proof that it is unknown.
- Look up Bridlington at Companies House. The U.K. register lists directors and persons with significant control. Use what it shows to ask who actually owns the marks, who licenses them, and who shares in settlements.
- Test the registrations. For ACDANC, request:
- the assignment chain from Zhang Yufei;
- proof that goodwill was transferred;
- evidence of use on each of the 18 listed goods.
Watch whether a truthful Section 8 declaration is filed by May 2027. For all three marks, compare the goods Bridlington claims in its complaints with the goods actually registered.
- If you were sued before, say so. If you were named in an earlier Bridlington case, as lianquanshop was, tell the court. Repeat suits over the same mark raise claim-splitting and res judicata issues, and the prior-suits orders exist for exactly this.
- Limit any freeze. If relief is granted, any asset restraint should be confined to profits plausibly tied to the accused listings. Judge Moore’s order already limits freezes to preserving equitable relief.
Recommendations for Brand Owners
- Plead joinder with evidence, or file one defendant at a time. Gayles, Altman and Moore all require it, and Gayles has severed down to a single defendant before.
- Do a real address investigation for each defendant. One example extrapolated to 56 sellers will not satisfy Judges Moore or Altman.
- Run and disclose a prior-suits search before filing. Suing the same store repeatedly under different marks is now visible to the court.
- If you acquired your registration, be ready to prove it: the chain of title, the goodwill transferred, current use on the registered goods, and quality control over licensees.
What to Watch
- Bridlington’s October 27 joinder memorandum before Judge Gayles, and whether he severs the case down to defendant no. 1 (DINGFENG), as he did in XYZ Corp.
- Bridlington’s October 27 verified response before Judge Altman, and how it describes the prior ACDANC suit against lianquanshop.
- Rulings on the alternative-service motions before Judges Gayles, Altman and Martinez.
- How Bridlington handles Judge Moore’s Omnibus Order with 75 defendants on two platforms.
- Whether a Section 8 declaration is filed for ACDANC by May 25, 2027, and with what specimens.
- The Companies House record for Bridlington Bud LTD.
If you or your business have been sued by the Palmer Law Group in a Schedule A trademark infringement case – and/or are defending a trademark lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida – contact [email protected] or call 305-374-8303 on our team of Schedule A Defense Attorneys can assist.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects the law as of the date it was last reviewed. Reading it or contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.