Published November 2, 2026 · Last reviewed November 2, 2026 · Robert H. Thornburg
Three times in two years, cycling-accessories brand Supacaz and its founder, Anthony Sinyard, have used the Southern District of Florida’s “Schedule A” docket against online sellers of knock-off SUPACAZ handlebar tape, pedals and related gear, each time before a different Miami federal judge. All three cases ended in a final default judgment, a permanent injunction, and the transfer of frozen marketplace funds to the plaintiffs.
Every judgment awarded the same $200,000 per defaulting seller. Together the three run against 155 seller accounts with a combined face value of $31 million. The cases have grown leaner over time: the 2024 case before Judge Beth Bloom sued 128 accounts, drew the only defense appearances of the series, and saw roughly two-thirds of defendants dismissed before judgment, while the 2025 and 2026 cases drew no appearances at all. This post walks through all three from the court record, compares how three judges handled the same playbook, and flags what brand owners and named sellers should take from them.
| Case 1 (2024) | Case 2 (2025) | Case 3 (2026) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case number | 1:24-cv-24122-BB | 1:25-cv-20919-RS | 1:26-cv-23153-JB |
| Judge | Beth Bloom (Mag. Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein) | Rodney Smith (Mag. Patrick M. Hunt) | Jacqueline Becerra (Mag. Edwin G. Torres) |
| Filed | Oct. 24, 2024 | Feb. 26, 2025 | May 4, 2026 |
| Final default judgment | Jan. 30, 2025 | Signed July 18, 2025; entered July 21, 2025 | Signed Aug. 17, 2026; entered Aug. 18, 2026 |
| Seller accounts sued | 128 | 89 | 38 |
| Defendants who appeared | 3 (Uxcell, NS Central_Japan, JAPITEM) | 0 | 0 |
| Dismissed before judgment | 84 | 11 (one more simply dropped) | 4 |
| Judgment defendants | 44 | 77 | 34 |
| Damages per defendant | $200,000 | $200,000 | $200,000 |
| Face value of judgment | $8.8 million | $15.4 million | $6.8 million |
| Injunction bond | $5,000 (returned) | $10,000 (returned) | $5,000 (returned) |
| Satisfactions of judgment filed | 4 | 1 | 2 |
| Plaintiffs’ counsel | Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (Nicole Fundora, Leigh B. Salomon) | Same | Same |
The plaintiffs and the SUPACAZ marks
The marks are registered to Anthony Sinyard personally, and Supacaz (Taiwan) Ltd., which he wholly owns, sues alongside him. The company’s 2025 disclosure statement says Supacaz (Taiwan) Ltd. is wholly owned by Sinyard, with no parent or 10% public shareholder.
According to the company’s Head of Brand Protection, Irene Yeung, Supacaz is a Taipei-based cycling brand known for accessories, tools and shoes, and its handlebar tape has been rated the best bar tape by publications including Cycling News and BikeRadar. The complaints use the “Super Sticky Kush” bar tape ($45) and “Krypto” pedals ($150) as examples of genuine product.
All three suits assert the same three U.S. registrations:
| Reg. No. | Mark | Registered | Class and goods |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4,865,578 | Six-pointed star made of 12 diamonds (design mark) | Dec. 8, 2015 | Class 12: bicycle grip tape, handlebar grips, bar ends, saddles, bottle cages |
| 6,381,931 | SUPACAZ (stylized) | June 8, 2021 | Class 12: same bicycle-parts goods |
| 6,381,932 | SUPACAZ (stylized) | June 8, 2021 | Class 25: cycling gloves, jerseys, hats, jackets, shorts, socks, sweatshirts, T-shirts |
The star design may be the more important asset in the later cases. The exemplar listings in the 2025 and 2026 complaints are bar tapes with a star-pattern print sold under other brand names (the 2025 exemplar lists its brand as “VWHLV”), so the design registration likely does much of the work. The 2024 exemplar is different: an Amazon listing titled “SUPACAZ Krypto Pedal – CNC Alloy – Oil Slick,” brand field “Supacaz,” offered by a Japan-oriented seller. Notably, pedals do not appear in the goods identified in any of the three registrations.
Each complaint pleads three counts: trademark counterfeiting and infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114), false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), and Florida common-law unfair competition. In the 2025 and 2026 cases, the plaintiffs elected statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) on Count I and asked that Counts II and III be limited to that award. The brand-protection declarant was Steve Pham in 2024 and Irene Yeung in 2025 and 2026.
Case 1: Supacaz (Taiwan) Ltd. v. Schedule A, No. 1:24-cv-24122-BB (Judge Beth Bloom)
The first case was the broadest and the only one contested: 128 accounts sued, one seller fought the asset freeze, 84 defendants were let out before judgment, and the remaining 44 took an $8.8 million default judgment 98 days after filing.
Who was sued. The evidence exhibit labels every seller by platform. Amazon and eBay sellers made up most of the 128 accounts, and every AliExpress and Walmart account was gone before judgment. A cluster of Japan-oriented storefronts (GORIX-JAPAN, HIRO STORE TOKYO, JapaproStore, Noguchi Cosmo store, NS Central_Japan, Precieux jp, Raymond.Japan, JAPITEM and want.jp) and one Polish-sounding eBay seller (www_bikestacjapl) set this roster apart from the China-based accounts targeted in 2025 and 2026. None of them ended up in the judgment.
| Platform | Doe Nos. | Accounts sued | In the judgment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon | 25–68 | 44 | 11 |
| eBay | 72–106 | 35 | 17 |
| AliExpress | 2–24 | 23 | 0 |
| Temu | 107–125 | 19 | 11 |
| DHgate | 69–71 | 3 | 3 |
| Wish | 127–128 | 2 | 1 |
| Alibaba | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Walmart | 126 | 1 | 0 |
| Total | 128 | 44 |
The ex parte package. Judge Bloom sealed Schedule A the day after filing. On Nov. 1, 2024, she authorized service by e-mail and by posting on a plaintiffs’ notice website (supacaz-cases.com). The supporting brief analyzed the Hague Service Convention only as to China, even though the roster included the Japan-oriented storefronts and at least one seller (ACE-US) whose contact e-mail was a yahoo.co.jp address. On November 4, she granted a sealed TRO that:
- froze funds held for defendants, directing Amazon, DHgate, eBay, Temu, Wish and Walmart to act within five days (Alibaba and AliExpress were not named);
- barred defendants from transferring their stores, but did not grant plaintiffs’ request to have the stores themselves handed over to plaintiffs;
- set a $5,000 bond, the amount plaintiffs proposed;
- set a hybrid in-person and Zoom hearing for November 13 and warned that business-entity defendants could appear only through counsel.
On November 7, the court extended the TRO until it ruled on the injunction, finding good cause because the platforms had been slow to confirm the freezes, and moved the hearing to November 26. Plaintiffs posted bond November 12 and served all defendants on November 22, making answers due December 13.
The evidence. The TRO rested on a declaration from Steve Pham, Supacaz’s Head of Brand Protection, signed in Taipei on October 9, 2024, and a 1,552-page exhibit of marketplace screenshots dated late September and early October 2024. The captures show U.S. storefronts set to deliver to South Florida addresses in Miami, Boca Raton and Palm Beach. The courts’ orders describe these as orders “initiated,” not completed. One Temu checkout I examined stops at the “Submit order” button.
The contest. On November 22, Doe 55, Uxcell, appeared through Brian J. Stack of Stack Fernandez & Harris (Coral Gables) and Louis Constantinou of Benesch Friedlander (Chicago, pro hac vice). Two days later, it opposed the preliminary injunction and moved to dissolve the asset restraint, supported by a declaration from Ka Loc Ng. Plaintiffs’ own exhibit for Uxcell is a single Amazon listing for “X AUTOHAUX” handlebar tape at $13.72, printed with scattered white triangle outlines. The SUPACAZ name does not appear on the captured listing. At the 15-minute hearing on November 26, plaintiffs and Uxcell stipulated to a separate agreed order, entered November 27, and plaintiffs dismissed Uxcell on December 20. Two more sellers, NS Central_Japan and JAPITEM, appeared on December 13 through Leslie Rafalli Gillis of Rosenbaum Famularo. Both were dismissed December 27. The terms of the agreed order and of any settlements are not in the materials reviewed.
The preliminary injunction. Judge Bloom signed the injunction on November 26 against everyone except Uxcell and Does 2–24. It recites that plaintiffs’ counsel was present and makes no mention of the defense appearance. It requires each defendant to serve a sworn report within 14 days listing its true name and address, every storefront and every payment account, directs domain registries, Western Union and some 15 named payment processors to act, unsealed Schedule A and the screenshot exhibit, and kept the $5,000 bond in place.
Rolling dismissals. On November 25, the day before the hearing, plaintiffs dropped all 23 AliExpress-style accounts (Does 2–24). The notice gives no reason. Some 20 more notices of voluntary dismissal followed through January 30. On December 26, the court ordered plaintiffs to file a list of who remained, which they did on January 2 as a revised Schedule A. One notice, on January 6, 2025, was styled “with prejudice”—the only such designation on this docket.
Default and judgment. Plaintiffs requested a clerk’s default against 47 sellers on January 22, 2025, entered the next day, and moved for default judgment January 24. The same day Judge Bloom issued an order on default-judgment procedure (the docket notes a February 24 response date), yet she granted the motion on January 30, after dismissing three more defaulted sellers (JapaproStore, www_bikestacjapl and ldliao321_shop) the same day. The default final judgment and permanent injunction awards $200,000 against each of the 44 remaining defendants, “on all Counts,” finding each infringed at least one trademark on one type of good, for a face value of $8.8 million. It also orders listing takedowns, transfer of restrained funds in partial satisfaction, and release of the $5,000 bond (released by order of February 3). Plaintiffs filed satisfactions of judgment as to Sunny-Biz (Doe 54) on Feb. 4, ACE-US (Doe 25) on February 13, SQUALO Official Store (Doe 52) on June 26, and yu.sa.store (Doe 63) on Oct. 7, 2025. A further notice of voluntary dismissal was filed Mar. 25, 2025, after judgment, with no order following.
A note on the docket text. The judgment’s own Schedule A lists exactly the 44 defaulted sellers who were never dismissed, which squares with the clerk’s default. The docket entry for the judgment does not: it names seven sellers dismissed by a January 23 order (constfreeshop, ZergStore, Dru-us, Jichenzh, Linfote, Sancoyr and Yanmis) plus Uxcell, which was dismissed December 26, and it omits two sellers actually bound, Suzhou Ample Trading Co. (Doe 1) and Milli computer franchise (Doe 115). Anyone checking whether a seller is bound should read the Schedule A attached to the judgment, not the docket text.
What the 44 judgment defendants were actually selling. The unsealed exhibit is the most revealing document in the three cases, because it shows each listing behind each $200,000 award. A review of the opening screenshots for all 44 judgment defendants sorts them roughly as follows:
| What the screenshots show | Examples (Doe No.) | Typical price |
|---|---|---|
| Knock-off packaging printed “SUPACAZ” or “Super Sticky Kush” | eBay silkfashion (97); Temu HenSenTravel Gear (112), Phantom Bike (117); Wish ttffwwss (128), titled “Supacaz Grips Cover” | $7–$21 |
| The same photo of star-pattern bar-end plugs, reused by nine different eBay sellers | 72, 73, 78, 83, 90, 95, 101, 102, 105 | about US$5–$7 |
| Star-pattern bar tape, grips, saddles and a saddle cover under other names | DHgate homepro7 (“TRIFOX,” sold by “a merchant specializing in well-known brands”), homemarket11 (titled “U.S. Supacaz chrysanthemum handle set”); eBay Kocevlobike (86); Amazon BoRongDianZi (29) | $5–$30 |
| Third-party offers on Amazon pages titled with Supacaz product names and linked to the “Supacaz Store” | ACE-US (25), Kush Galaxy tape, $58.72; Sunny-Biz (54), Orbitron pedals, $212.77; yu.sa.store (63), Kush tape, $62.30; GrBeR (68), ePedal pedals, $92.65 | $59–$213 |
| Harder cases | Temu KXizhu (114): plain silicone grip rings, $2.26, found by searching “supacac”; Temu Rey e (118): a star-print grip wrap for fishing rods | $2–$5 |
Several sellers call the star design a “chrysanthemum” pattern. Two observations stand out. First, three of the four sellers who later obtained satisfactions of judgment (ACE-US, Sunny-Biz and yu.sa.store) are the Amazon sellers offering product on Supacaz’s own catalog pages. The fourth, SQUALO Official Store (52), sells SQUALO-branded tape. The screenshots cannot show whether those Supacaz-page goods were genuine. If they were, the first-sale doctrine (which generally allows resale of genuine, branded goods) would have been a defense, but no one appeared to raise it. Second, a $2.26 pair of plain grip rings and a fishing-rod wrap carry the same $200,000 award as packaged counterfeits, because the judgment sets one figure for every defaulting seller.
| Date | Docket event |
|---|---|
| Oct. 7, 2025 | Satisfaction of judgment as to Doe 63 (yu.sa.store) |
| June 26, 2025 | Satisfaction as to Doe 52 (SQUALO Official Store) |
| Feb. 4–13, 2025 | Satisfactions as to Doe 54 (Sunny-Biz) and Doe 25 (ACE-US) |
| Feb. 3, 2025 | Bond release ordered |
| Jan. 30, 2025 | Three more sellers dismissed; default final judgment and permanent injunction against 44; case closed |
| Jan. 24, 2025 | Motion for default judgment; order on default-judgment procedure |
| Jan. 22–23, 2025 | Clerk’s default against 47 sellers; seven sellers dismissed |
| Jan. 2, 2025 | Revised Schedule A of remaining defendants |
| Dec. 27, 2024 | NS Central_Japan and JAPITEM dismissed |
| Dec. 20–26, 2024 | Uxcell voluntarily dismissed |
| Dec. 13, 2024 | NS Central_Japan and JAPITEM appear through counsel |
| Nov. 26–27, 2024 | PI hearing (15 min); PI granted; agreed order with Uxcell; case unsealed |
| Nov. 25, 2024 | All 23 AliExpress sellers (Does 2–24) dismissed |
| Nov. 22–24, 2024 | Service on all defendants; Uxcell appears and opposes |
| Nov. 12, 2024 | $5,000 bond posted |
| Nov. 7, 2024 | TRO extended; hearing moved to Nov. 26 |
| Nov. 4, 2024 | Sealed TRO and asset freeze |
| Nov. 1, 2024 | Alternate service by e-mail and website granted; TRO motion filed |
| Oct. 25, 2024 | Schedule A sealed |
| Oct. 24, 2024 | Complaint filed |
| Oct. 9, 2024 | Pham declaration signed in Taipei |
Case 2: Supacaz (Taiwan) Ltd. v. Schedule A, No. 1:25-cv-20919-RS (Judge Rodney Smith)
The 2025 case went from complaint to judgment in about five months and produced a $15.4 million default judgment against 77 sellers, despite a stumble over service that briefly derailed the preliminary injunction.
Who was sued. The sealed Schedule A named 89 seller accounts, all identified as operating from China, across nine platforms:
| Platform | Doe Nos. | Accounts |
|---|---|---|
| Walmart | 62–87 | 26 |
| Alibaba | 3–19 | 17 |
| AliExpress | 20–34 | 15 |
| DHgate | 43–56 | 14 |
| Amazon | 35–42 | 8 |
| eBay | 57–60 | 4 |
| Shein | 1–2 | 2 |
| Wish | 88–89 | 2 |
| Temu | 61 | 1 |
The ex parte package. On March 3, 2025, plaintiffs moved ex parte for a TRO (including an asset restraint, expedited discovery and a requested “temporary transfer” of the defendant stores) and for leave to serve by e-mail and website posting under Rule 4(f)(3). Judge Smith granted both on March 24. The TRO froze funds held by the marketplaces and payment processors, set a preliminary-injunction hearing for April 8, and directed a single summons for all defendants. Plaintiffs had asked for a bond of no more than $5,000, but the court set it at $10,000.
The summons problem. After the TRO was extended and the hearing moved to April 22, plaintiffs filed a return of service on April 16. On April 22, Judge Smith struck both the issued summons and the return because the summons did not attach Schedule A. At the five-minute hearing that morning the court declined to enter the preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs re-issued the summons with Schedule A attached and re-served the same day, which reset the answer deadline to May 13. The case was also unsealed on April 22.
Preliminary injunction and dismissals. After a second telephonic hearing on May 13 (five minutes and only plaintiffs’ counsel appeared), the court entered the preliminary injunction. Between May 2 and June 3, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed 11 sellers without prejudice: Mwww stor, Luckystar888 store, Spindesys, TuseyRxln, Laklulu, Lxiugva, JM Digital Co., onerttuo, rningo bicycle store, YJSMH and MAYtobe. A twelfth, MS Co. Ltd (Walmart, Doe 72), was left out of the default papers but no dismissal appears on the docket.
Default and judgment. Clerk’s default entered June 17, 2025, and plaintiffs moved for default judgment the same day. On July 18, Judge Smith granted the motion, awarding $200,000 per defendant against the 77 remaining sellers, a permanent injunction, removal of listings, and transfer of restrained funds in partial satisfaction. The judgment was entered July 21. The $10,000 bond went back to plaintiffs’ counsel on August 5, and on August 14 plaintiffs filed a satisfaction of judgment as to Alibaba seller Xiamen Keet Sports Technology Co. (Doe 17).
| Date | Docket event |
|---|---|
| Aug. 14, 2025 | Satisfaction of judgment as to Doe 17 (Xiamen Keet) |
| Aug. 5, 2025 | $10,000 bond disbursed to plaintiffs’ counsel |
| July 21, 2025 | Final default judgment entered; case closed |
| July 18, 2025 | Default judgment order signed |
| June 17, 2025 | Clerk’s default; motion for default judgment |
| May 13, 2025 | Preliminary injunction entered |
| May 2 – June 3, 2025 | 11 sellers voluntarily dismissed |
| Apr. 22, 2025 | Summons and return struck; PI not entered; re-served; case unsealed |
| Apr. 4, 2025 | $10,000 bond posted |
| Mar. 24, 2025 | TRO and alternate service granted |
| Mar. 3, 2025 | Ex parte TRO and alternate-service motions |
| Feb. 26, 2025 | Complaint filed |
Case 3: Supacaz (Taiwan) Ltd. v. Schedule A, No. 1:26-cv-23153-JB (Judge Jacqueline Becerra)
The 2026 case was smaller and faster: 105 days from complaint to signed judgment, ending in a $6.8 million default judgment against 34 sellers.
Who was sued. The Schedule A named 38 accounts on six platforms. Shein, Temu and Wish, all targeted in 2025, do not appear.
| Platform | Doe Nos. | Accounts |
|---|---|---|
| AliExpress | 9–17 | 9 |
| Alibaba | 1–8 | 8 |
| DHgate | 22–29 | 8 |
| Walmart | 34–38 | 5 |
| Amazon | 18–21 | 4 |
| eBay | 30–33 | 4 |
Judge Becerra’s Schedule A procedures order. The day after filing, the court issued a standing paperless order for Schedule A cases. Among other things, it requires:
- a verified certification, within five days, of a nationwide search for prior suits by the plaintiff against any defendant;
- a verified certification from counsel on the steps taken to confirm personal jurisdiction over each defendant before any TRO or preliminary injunction;
- for alternate service under Rule 4(f)(3), each defendant’s domicile, the efforts made to find it, and whether the method is allowed under the Hague Convention for that country;
- notice that motions to seal or proceed anonymously are disfavored;
- a motion for clerk’s default within 7 days of a missed answer deadline, and a default-judgment motion within 7 days of the clerk’s default.
Plaintiffs’ counsel filed the prior-suit certification on May 6, 2026, reporting that a Bloomberg Law search of every federal district found no earlier suit by plaintiffs against any defendant. Despite the order’s stated disfavor of sealing, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to seal Schedule A on May 6.
TRO, injunction and dismissals. Plaintiffs moved ex parte for a TRO, alternate service and expedited discovery on May 7. All three were granted May 15, with a 14-day TRO and a $5,000 bond. The TRO was extended once. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed DHgate seller jiahui_store1 (Doe 25) on June 4, served all defendants that day, and had the case unsealed June 5. After a 10-minute Zoom hearing on June 11, at which only plaintiffs’ counsel appeared, the court entered a preliminary injunction June 12. Amazon seller BBiKENSPORTS (Doe 18) was dismissed June 30, and eBay sellers GOBT (Doe 30) and Matzwa_Store (Doe 31) were dismissed in early August, after the default-judgment motion was filed.
Default and judgment. Clerk’s default entered July 6, 2026 and the default-judgment motion followed July 13, within the court’s 7-day window. Judge Becerra granted it August 17, awarding $200,000 against each of the 34 remaining defendants, a permanent injunction, listing takedowns, and transfer of restrained funds. The judgment was entered August 18. The bond was released August 24, and plaintiffs filed satisfactions of judgment as to Alibaba sellers Guangxi Bernee Trading Co. (Doe 1) on August 24 and Pranash (Tianjin) Technology Development Co. (Doe 4) on August 27. No further activity appears on the docket as of October 25, 2026.
| Date | Docket event |
|---|---|
| Aug. 27, 2026 | Satisfaction of judgment as to Doe 4 (Pranash) |
| Aug. 24, 2026 | Satisfaction as to Doe 1 (Guangxi Bernee); $5,000 bond disbursed |
| Aug. 18, 2026 | Final default judgment entered; case closed |
| Aug. 17, 2026 | Default judgment order signed |
| Aug. 3–6, 2026 | GOBT and Matzwa_Store dismissed |
| July 13, 2026 | Motion for default judgment |
| July 6, 2026 | Clerk’s default |
| June 30, 2026 | BBiKENSPORTS dismissed |
| June 12, 2026 | Preliminary injunction entered |
| June 4–5, 2026 | jiahui_store1 dismissed; service on all defendants; case unsealed |
| May 19, 2026 | $5,000 bond posted |
| May 15, 2026 | TRO, alternate service and expedited discovery granted |
| May 7, 2026 | Ex parte motions filed |
| May 6, 2026 | Prior-suit certification; Schedule A sealed |
| May 5, 2026 | Schedule A procedures order |
| May 4, 2026 | Complaint filed |
How Three Judges Handled the Same Playbook
The plaintiffs, counsel, marks and pleadings were nearly identical across all three cases, and every judge landed on $200,000 per seller, so the differences come mostly from process. Judge Becerra front-loads scrutiny through a standing order, Judge Smith policed details as they came up, Judge Bloom’s case is the only one where a defendant forced a contested hearing.
| Judge Bloom (2024) | Judge Smith (2025) | Judge Becerra (2026) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Days, complaint to judgment | 98 | 142 (signed) | 105 (signed) |
| Days, complaint to TRO | 11 | 26 | 11 |
| Schedule A–specific standing order | None in the materials reviewed | None on the docket | Yes, entered day 1 |
| Prior-suit certification | Not required | Not required | Verified, within 5 days |
| TRO length | Until the PI hearing (then extended) | Until the PI hearing (then extended) | 14 days (then extended) |
| Bond | $5,000 | $10,000 (plaintiffs asked for ≤ $5,000) | $5,000 |
| Service hiccup | None | Summons and return struck for missing Schedule A | None |
| PI hearings | One (15 min, contested by Uxcell) | Two (5 min each) | One (10 min, Zoom) |
| Defense appearances | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Share of sued accounts in judgment | 34% (44 of 128) | 87% (77 of 89) | 89% (34 of 38) |
| Damages | $200,000 per defendant | $200,000 per defendant | $200,000 per defendant |
What the Record Shows on a Closer Read
Read side by side, the three dockets point to likely repeat sellers across every case, a fair amount of template carry-over, and judgments whose $31 million face value far exceeds what is ever likely to be collected.
The Same Sellers May Be Back Under New Names
The 2026 prior-suit certification was accurate as to the account names searched: none had been sued before. But DHgate store numbers tell a different story. In each new case, several accounts sit a digit or two away from accounts sued the year before, under near-identical names:
| 2024 (DHgate store no.) | 2025 (DHgate store no.) | 2026 (DHgate store no.) |
|---|---|---|
| homepro7 (21979036) | homepro6 (21979035), homepro19 (21989318) | homepro11 (21989307), homepro12 (21989308) |
| kang07 (21836807) | ning07 (21836754), ping07 (21836718) | — |
| homemarket11 (21997589) | ddmymar (21997317) | ddmylucky (21989825) |
| — | men05 (21859905) | men06 (21859906) |
| — | zhao09 (21755304) | xuan09 (21755397), zhi09 (21756527) |
The homepro7 account was bound by the January 2025 judgment; homepro6, one store number away, was sued a month later. That matters because each permanent injunction also bars defendants from forming new entities or using any other device to get around it.
Other links run inside a single case. Seller e-mail addresses in the default papers show shared operators:
- 2024: Temu stores Passion Bike and Phantom Bike used one QQ address; Temu stores Daily fast consumption and XiaoYang Youxuan used another. Kocevlobike on eBay was bound by the judgment while Kocevlo Bicycle Accessories on Temu was dismissed. Nine eBay sellers posted the identical photo of star-pattern bar-end plugs.
- 2025: bian05, men05 and ren06 used one address; homepro19 and homepro6 used another; seven AliExpress stores used addresses on the same epean.com.cn domain; and eBay stores Goddoode and Outdoor*Factory*Store each used an address matching the other’s name.
None of this proves common ownership, but it is the kind of pattern that suggests one operator running several storefronts, and returning after a judgment under new names.
What a $200,000-per-seller Judgment Really Means
Statutory damages for counterfeiting run from $1,000 to $200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods, and up to $2,000,000 if willful (15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)). All three judges awarded a flat $200,000 per defendant, each judgment reciting that the defendants infringed at least one trademark on one type of good. The 2026 order describes the award as “per trademark counterfeited per type of good,” but every judgment sets one flat figure per defendant.
Plaintiffs framed $200,000 as restraint. The 2024 default-judgment motion pointed to Schedule A cases in the same court awarding $1,000,000 against each defendant (Michael Kors, Adidas, Chanel and Gucci, all before Judge Roy K. Altman) and called its own request “well within the permissible range.” Judge Bloom adopted the figure in a sentence, noting that “Plaintiffs suggest” it.
In practice, recovery usually comes from the marketplace and payment-processor balances frozen at the TRO stage, which each judgment orders turned over “in partial satisfaction.” The record shows seven satisfactions of judgment across 155 judgment defendants, and it does not disclose any amounts paid. Voluntary dismissals mid-case are commonly the product of settlements, but the dismissal notices here do not say. The 2024 case alone saw 84 of 128 accounts dismissed, more than five times the 15 dismissed in the 2025 and 2026 cases combined.
All three judgments also award interest “from the date this action was filed” under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, though that statute governs post-judgment interest, which ordinarily runs from entry of judgment.
Docket Loose Ends
- 2024: The docket text for the judgment lists eight sellers who had been dismissed and omits two who are bound; the judgment’s attached Schedule A is correct. Uxcell is carried on the docket under two entries, only one of them terminated.
- 2025: MS Co. Ltd (Doe 72) was excluded from the default request and judgment but was never dismissed, and the docket text of the clerk’s-default request lists Lxiugva, who had already been dismissed.
- 2026: The docket text of the clerk’s default does not list fighter Store (Doe 13) or Let’s Starting Store (Doe 17), yet both appear in the judgment’s Schedule A. The judgment’s docket text names Matzwa_Store, which had been dismissed. The judgment’s own Schedule A correctly marks it dismissed.
A Registration-Maintenance Note
Registration No. 4,865,578 (the star design) reached its 10-year renewal on December 8, 2025, with the six-month grace period running to June 8, 2026. The 2026 complaint was filed during that grace window. The two SUPACAZ word registrations entered their first Section 8 window on June 8, 2026. Anyone evaluating these marks should confirm their current status on the USPTO’s TSDR system.
Takeaways
The Supacaz cases show how quickly an uncontested Schedule A case moves in Miami, and why the first two weeks after a freeze notice matter most to a named seller.
For brand owners:
- Expect real judge-to-judge variation. Judge Becerra’s standing order demands verified certifications on prior suits and personal jurisdiction up front. Plan for that before filing.
- Attach Schedule A to the summons. In the 2025 case, its absence cost a hearing and a re-service.
- Analyze service country by country. The 2024 alternate-service brief addressed only China despite a roster with Japanese storefronts. Judge Becerra now requires each defendant’s domicile and Hague status.
- Scrub the roster before filing. Third-party offers on your own catalog pages, plain accessories with no visible mark, and non-bicycle goods all reached the 2024 judgment. Each invites a first-sale, likelihood-of-confusion or goods-coverage challenge from any seller who appears.
- Match the exemplar to the registrations. The 2024 complaint’s lead exemplar was a pedal, a product none of the three registrations covers, offered by a seller later dismissed.
- Clean up the forms. Patent and copyright language in the proposed orders goes unchallenged on default but invites trouble in a contested case or on appeal.
- Check registration maintenance deadlines before suing. A mark inside its grace period invites a validity question.
- Budget for repeat offenders. Near-identical store names, shared e-mail addresses and adjacent store numbers across all three cases suggest sellers come back under new accounts. The injunction’s anti-circumvention clause is the tool for that.
For sellers named on a Schedule A:
- Silence is costly. every seller who neither appeared nor reached a dismissal took a $200,000 judgment and lost its frozen balance, whether it sold packaged counterfeits or a $2.26 pair of grip rings.
- Read the evidence against you. Once unsealed, the screenshot exhibit shows exactly which listing was captured for each seller, and that is the starting point for any defense.
- Appearing can change the outcome. In 2024, Uxcell appeared through counsel, opposed the freeze, obtained an agreed order within days, and was dismissed before judgment; the two other sellers who appeared were dismissed two weeks later.
- Resellers of genuine goods have arguments. A seller offering authentic Supacaz product on Supacaz’s own Amazon pages can raise the first-sale doctrine, but only by appearing.
- Deadlines are short. In the 2026 case, answers were due 21 days after e-mail service, and the court required a default motion within 7 days of a missed deadline. Business entities can appear only through a lawyer.
- The orders let any defendant move to dissolve or modify the injunction on two days’ notice and to seek release of frozen funds. They also require a sworn report of names, storefronts and accounts within 14 days.
- Most sellers named across the three cases were dismissed before judgment. Prompt contact with plaintiffs’ counsel, through a lawyer, is often how that happens.
- Personal jurisdiction, joinder of unrelated sellers, coverage of the goods by the registrations, and the proportionality of a flat $200,000 award are all arguments that go unmade when no one appears.
Have you recently been made aware that you are a defendant in a Schedule A lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida? Been served with process via e-mail and don’t know what to do? Contact our team of Florida Trademark Lawyers at [email protected] or call 305-374-8303 to address how to best defend your e-commerce company in Florida Federal Court.
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.