Bang & Olufsen Schedule A Lawsuit Targets Online Sellers of Allegedly Counterfeit Audio Products

Are you an audiophile who sells speakers, headphones, soundbars, or other audio equipment online? Perhaps you sell replacement parts or accessories for premium audio brands. If your business operates on marketplaces such as eBay, AliExpress, DHGate, or Made-in-China, a newly filed lawsuit involving luxury audio company Bang & Olufsen may be worth your attention.

On August 27, 2026, Bang & Olufsen A/S and B&O Play A/S filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a group of online sellers identified on a confidential or separately filed “Schedule A.” The case, Bang & Olufsen A/S et al. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1:26-cv-10381, alleges trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and false designation of origin involving unauthorized products bearing Bang & Olufsen trademarks.

For e-commerce sellers, the case is another reminder that selling products associated with a well-known brand can create significant intellectual property risks, particularly when questions arise concerning authenticity, sourcing, or authorization.

Read the full complaint: Bang & Olufsen A/S et al. v. The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A (PDF)

Who Is Bang & Olufsen?

Bang & Olufsen, commonly known as B&O, is a Danish consumer electronics company founded in 1925 by engineers Peter Bang and Svend Olufsen. The company began as a radio manufacturer and has since become known for premium speakers, headphones, televisions, soundbars, and home entertainment products.

According to the complaint, B&O has developed a portfolio of recognizable product lines and trademarks, including BANG & OLUFSEN, B&O, BEO, BEOLAB, BEOMASTER, BEOVISION, BEOSOUND, BEOPLAY, BEOCONNECT, BEOCREATE, BEOSONIC, BEOREMOTE, ROOMSENSE, MOZART PLATFORM, BEOCOM, and EARSENSE. The complaint identifies numerous federal trademark registrations covering products and technologies throughout the company's audio and consumer-electronics ecosystem.

That trademark portfolio is at the center of the newly filed Schedule A lawsuit.

What Does the Bang & Olufsen Schedule A Lawsuit Allege?

B&O alleges that the defendants operate e-commerce stores under various seller aliases and use counterfeit versions of its trademarks to advertise, offer, and sell unauthorized products.

According to the complaint, the sellers allegedly target U.S. consumers, including consumers in Illinois, by operating online stores that accept U.S. dollars and ship products into the United States. B&O further alleges that the sellers use aliases and other techniques to conceal their identities, locations, and connections to other storefronts.

Importantly, these are allegations made by B&O in its complaint. The filing of a lawsuit does not by itself establish that an individual seller committed trademark infringement or sold counterfeit products.

What Products Are at Issue?

The complaint broadly describes B&O's product portfolio as including loudspeakers, portable speakers, soundbars, multiroom and architectural speakers, wireless headphones, televisions, remote controls, and accessories such as covers, batteries, earbud tips, and replacement parts.

The lawsuit therefore matters not only to sellers offering complete audio systems. Sellers operating in adjacent categories, including audio accessories and replacement components, should pay attention to how branded products are described and sourced.

B&O alleges that the defendants' unauthorized products bear counterfeit reproductions of its trademarks and that consumers could mistakenly believe those products originated from, were approved by, or were otherwise connected to Bang & Olufsen.

B&O Is Also Raising Product Safety Concerns

One notable part of the complaint goes beyond traditional allegations of consumer confusion.

B&O states that it engaged the Danish Technological Institute to test a product bearing allegedly counterfeit B&O trademarks. According to the complaint, the tested device appeared externally similar to B&O products but allegedly lacked proprietary technology and certain charging safeguards and thermal protection mechanisms found in genuine B&O products.

B&O further alleges that testing showed abnormal thermal behavior, with over-temperature readings approximately three times the normal value. The company cites the testing as an example of why it believes unauthorized products can damage its reputation while potentially creating risks for consumers.

For sellers, this allegation highlights an important distinction. Trademark enforcement is not always limited to whether a logo appears on a listing. A brand may also scrutinize the underlying product, its source, its construction, and whether it actually originated through authorized manufacturing or distribution channels.

Which Online Marketplaces Are Mentioned?

The complaint specifically states that B&O identified allegedly unauthorized products being offered through online marketplaces including AliExpress, DHGate, eBay, and Made-in-China.

B&O alleges that some sellers create storefronts that appear to consumers to be authorized retailers, outlets, or wholesalers. The company also claims that sellers may use B&O trademarks within listing content, text, or metadata to attract consumers searching for genuine B&O products.

The complaint even alleges that some sellers avoid putting B&O trademarks directly in product titles while using descriptions designed to cause the listings to appear when consumers search for B&O products.

That is an important point for marketplace sellers: avoiding a trademark in the title does not necessarily eliminate potential trademark issues if the overall listing still allegedly uses the brand to market an unauthorized or counterfeit product.

What Is a Schedule A Lawsuit?

A Schedule A lawsuit is a type of federal intellectual property case commonly used by brands to pursue numerous online sellers in a single action.

Rather than filing a separate lawsuit against every storefront, the plaintiff identifies multiple defendants on a document known as “Schedule A.” Those defendants may operate under marketplace seller names rather than readily identifiable corporate names.

These cases can move quickly and may involve requests for temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, marketplace restraints, or restrictions involving seller assets.

If you are unfamiliar with this litigation model, our guide on What Is a Schedule A Lawsuit and How to Fight It explains how these cases generally work and why sellers should take them seriously.

What Is Bang & Olufsen Asking the Court to Do?

B&O is seeking significant relief against the defendants.

Among other things, the company asks the court to prohibit defendants from using B&O trademarks in connection with unauthorized products and to prevent further manufacture, shipping, distribution, storage, or sale of allegedly infringing inventory.

B&O also asks for an order that could require online marketplaces, upon B&O's request and with notice of an injunction, to disable advertisements associated with the sale of counterfeit or infringing goods.

The complaint seeks the defendants' profits and damages, potentially increased under the Lanham Act. Alternatively, B&O requests statutory damages for willful trademark counterfeiting of up to $2 million for each use of the B&O trademarks, along with attorneys' fees and costs.

Those requested remedies illustrate why sellers should not treat a Schedule A lawsuit like an ordinary marketplace complaint or takedown notice.

What Should You Do If Your Store Is Named in the Bang & Olufsen Schedule A Lawsuit?

If your seller account or storefront has been identified in this lawsuit, ignoring the case can create additional problems.

First, preserve your records. Keep invoices, purchase orders, supplier communications, shipping records, photographs, product listings, payment records, and any documents showing where the products originated.

Next, determine exactly which products and listings are implicated. A seller should understand whether the dispute concerns an allegedly counterfeit product, use of a B&O trademark in a listing, a replacement component, or another issue.

You should also review your supply chain carefully. Documentation showing where inventory came from can become particularly important when authenticity is disputed.

Finally, consider speaking with an attorney familiar with Schedule A litigation and e-commerce intellectual property disputes. Depending on the circumstances, potential responses can involve challenging the claims, negotiating a resolution, addressing marketplace restraints, or developing evidence concerning the authenticity and source of the products.

Selling Genuine Products Does Not Make Documentation Unimportant

An online seller may believe that there is nothing to worry about because the products they purchased are genuine. But when litigation begins, being able to demonstrate where products came from can become just as important as the seller's belief that the inventory is authentic.

Invoices, supplier information, purchase records, and other evidence can help establish the history of the inventory.

This is particularly important for businesses dealing in branded electronics, where products, components, packaging, accessories, and replacement parts may move through complicated distribution channels.

The earlier a seller organizes this information, the easier it may be to evaluate the allegations and determine an appropriate response.

Schedule A Lawsuits Continue to Be an Important Risk for E-Commerce Sellers

The Bang & Olufsen Schedule A lawsuit illustrates how aggressively established brands can use federal trademark litigation to pursue allegedly counterfeit products across multiple online marketplaces.

For sellers in the audio and electronics space, the lesson extends beyond B&O. If your business sells branded speakers, headphones, electronics, replacement parts, accessories, or similar products, understanding your supply chain and maintaining documentation should be part of your normal e-commerce operations.

We have covered similar filings, including the Victoria's Secret Schedule A lawsuit, the GM lawsuit against online sellers, and the Kia Schedule A lawsuit. If your storefront appears on a Schedule A or your marketplace account is suddenly restrained in connection with a federal lawsuit, the situation deserves prompt attention.

And if you are unsure whether your listings could draw a temporary restraining order, understanding how TROs work in Schedule A cases can help you respond quickly.

Received Notice of a Schedule A Lawsuit?

Stockman & Poropat, PLLC represents entrepreneurs and e-commerce businesses facing intellectual property and marketplace disputes. If your seller account or online store has been named in a Schedule A lawsuit, contact our firm to discuss your situation and potential next steps.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different, and you should consult an attorney regarding your specific circumstances.