Manchester United Files New Schedule A Lawsuit Against Online Sellers in October 2026

Manchester United Football Club Limited has filed another federal trademark infringement lawsuit against online sellers accused of offering counterfeit merchandise bearing the club's trademarks. The lawsuit, filed on October 27, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, targets e-commerce businesses identified in a Schedule A attachment to the complaint.

The case, Manchester United Football Club Limited v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1:26-cv-13221 (read the complaint), alleges that online sellers used Manchester United's federally registered trademarks without authorization to advertise and sell merchandise to consumers throughout the United States.

This is not the first time Manchester United has pursued online sellers through federal trademark litigation. In July 2024, Stockman & Poropat, PLLC reported on a Manchester United trademark infringement lawsuit involving online sellers, which similarly involved allegations of counterfeit merchandise and unauthorized trademark use.

The latest Manchester United Schedule A lawsuit reflects the club's continued efforts to enforce its intellectual property rights against e-commerce sellers. For businesses named in the action, the allegations and potential legal consequences warrant careful attention.

Why Has Manchester United Filed Another Schedule A Lawsuit?

According to the October 27 complaint, Manchester United alleges that multiple online storefronts have advertised, offered for sale, and sold unauthorized merchandise bearing counterfeit or infringing versions of its trademarks.

The complaint identifies apparel and other merchandise as products involved in the alleged infringement. Manchester United claims that the defendants operated e-commerce storefronts targeting consumers in the United States, including Illinois, by accepting payments in U.S. dollars and offering domestic shipping.

Manchester United further alleges that the storefronts used advertising materials, product images, and descriptions that could lead consumers to believe the merchandise originated from the club or an authorized retailer.

Some defendants allegedly incorporated Manchester United trademarks into their website content and metadata to attract consumers searching for official merchandise. Others allegedly used strategic product descriptions that allowed their listings to appear in relevant searches without directly identifying the protected marks in product titles.

Manchester United contends that these activities create consumer confusion and harm the reputation and goodwill associated with its brand.

Although the complaint describes these practices as part of a broader counterfeiting operation, the allegations have not been established as findings of fact by the court.

Which Manchester United Trademarks Are Involved?

Manchester United identifies numerous federally registered trademarks in its complaint, including the following:

• MANCHESTER UNITED

• MUFC

• MAN UNITED

• MAN UTD

• I LOVE UNITED

The complaint also identifies registrations covering Manchester United's crest, logos, and other distinctive design marks.

Manchester United asserts that these trademarks help consumers identify genuine merchandise and distinguish officially licensed products from counterfeit goods.

The club argues that unauthorized use of its trademarks on apparel, accessories, and other merchandise can mislead consumers regarding the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the products.

For online sellers, trademark infringement allegations can extend beyond the physical merchandise being offered. Depending on the circumstances, the use of protected marks in listing images, product descriptions, advertisements, and storefront branding may also become relevant.

However, selling genuine trademarked merchandise without being an authorized retailer does not automatically constitute trademark infringement, a principle explained in our guide to the first sale doctrine. The legality of resale activity depends on factors such as product authenticity, material differences, and the manner in which the seller represents the goods.

How Does the October 2026 Lawsuit Compare to Manchester United's Previous Litigation?

Manchester United's latest filing bears similarities to the trademark infringement lawsuit our firm covered in July 2024.

In that earlier action, Manchester United pursued online sellers accused of offering counterfeit merchandise and using the club's trademarks without authorization. The allegations included the use of seller aliases, misleading product descriptions, and online storefronts designed to attract consumers searching for Manchester United merchandise.

The October 2026 complaint contains similar allegations. Manchester United again claims that defendants operated under seller aliases, used unauthorized trademarks to promote merchandise, and attempted to conceal their identities or the scope of their operations.

Both actions demonstrate how trademark owners may pursue multiple online sellers through a single federal lawsuit rather than filing separate actions against each storefront.

Our earlier article, Man United Sues Online Sellers: MUFC Trademark Infringement, discusses the potential impact of this type of litigation on seller accounts, available funds, and settlement considerations.

While the allegations share similarities, the October 2026 lawsuit is a separate proceeding. Any court orders, deadlines, or remedies issued in the earlier case do not automatically apply to defendants in the new action.

What Is a Schedule A Lawsuit?

A Schedule A lawsuit is a federal civil action in which a plaintiff names multiple defendants, often online sellers, in an accompanying schedule.

These lawsuits are frequently brought by trademark owners seeking to address alleged infringement across multiple e-commerce storefronts.

Rather than filing an individual lawsuit against every seller, the plaintiff seeks to pursue several defendants together, generally alleging that their conduct is connected through similar products, methods, or business activities.

In the Manchester United lawsuit, the club alleges that the defendants engaged in substantially similar conduct within the same online retail environment. It further claims that some defendants operated multiple storefronts or seller aliases to avoid detection.

However, the inclusion of multiple defendants in one lawsuit does not automatically establish that they acted together or that joining them in a single action is procedurally proper.

Schedule A litigation can also involve requests for temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and other relief intended to prevent alleged infringement while the case proceeds.

Our comprehensive guide, What Is a Schedule A Lawsuit? A Guide for Amazon Sellers, explains how these actions operate and why they can present significant challenges for online businesses.

What Legal Claims Is Manchester United Bringing?

Manchester United asserts two claims under the federal Lanham Act.

The first concerns trademark infringement and counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1114. Manchester United alleges that the defendants used counterfeit reproductions of its federally registered trademarks in connection with the advertisement, distribution, and sale of unauthorized merchandise.

The second concerns false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Manchester United claims that the defendants' use of its trademarks could cause consumers to believe that the products were manufactured, sponsored, or approved by the football club.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants acted knowingly and willfully, which may become relevant to the remedies available if infringement is established.

Manchester United seeks injunctive relief to prevent further alleged infringement and monetary remedies for the claimed violations.

These claims remain allegations. The filing of a complaint does not establish that every named defendant engaged in counterfeiting or violated federal trademark law.

Could Online Sellers Have Their Accounts or Funds Frozen?

One of the most significant concerns for defendants in Schedule A litigation is the possibility of court-ordered restrictions affecting their online businesses.

Trademark owners sometimes request temporary restraining orders that can restrict the sale of allegedly infringing products, require online marketplaces to disable certain listings, or result in restrictions on seller funds.

Such measures can create immediate operational and financial difficulties for e-commerce businesses, particularly those that depend on marketplace revenue to purchase inventory, fulfill orders, and maintain daily operations.

In its October 2026 complaint, Manchester United requests temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief. The club also asks the court to direct online marketplace platforms receiving notice of an injunction to disable advertisements associated with allegedly infringing merchandise.

However, the complaint itself does not establish that the court has granted a temporary restraining order or frozen any defendant's assets.

Whether these restrictions apply depends on subsequent court orders and the particular circumstances of each defendant.

Sellers who receive notice of the lawsuit should review the applicable filings and determine whether any restrictions, deadlines, or other obligations affect their accounts.

How Much Is Manchester United Seeking in Damages?

Manchester United requests several forms of monetary relief in its complaint.

The club seeks an accounting of profits attributable to the alleged infringement and damages available under federal trademark law.

Alternatively, Manchester United requests statutory damages for willful trademark counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2), identifying an amount of up to $2 million for each qualifying use of its trademarks in its prayer for relief.

The club also seeks attorneys' fees, costs, and any additional relief the court considers appropriate.

These figures represent the relief requested by Manchester United, not damages awarded by the court.

The amount, if any, that a defendant may ultimately be required to pay would depend on the evidence, applicable statutory requirements, available defenses, and the court's determinations.

What Should Sellers Do If They Are Named in the Manchester United Lawsuit?

Online sellers who receive notice of the Manchester United Schedule A lawsuit should first determine whether their storefront or business is actually identified in the action.

Because these lawsuits can involve multiple defendants operating under different seller aliases, identifying the correct storefront and reviewing the allegations are important initial steps.

Sellers should also determine whether the court has issued a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or other order affecting their marketplace accounts, inventory, or funds.

Depending on the circumstances, a defendant may have grounds to challenge the allegations, contest personal jurisdiction, dispute the authenticity or identification of the allegedly infringing products, or raise other defenses under trademark law.

Sellers should preserve relevant records, including supplier invoices, product listings, communications, and documentation concerning the origin and authenticity of their merchandise.

They should also pay close attention to applicable response deadlines. Failing to respond appropriately to a federal lawsuit may expose a defendant to a default judgment.

Our article, What Is a Schedule A Lawsuit and How to Fight It, provides additional information about the legal issues sellers may encounter and potential approaches to defending these claims.

Manchester United's Lawsuit Highlights Continued Trademark Enforcement Against Online Sellers

Manchester United's October 2026 lawsuit is another example of federal trademark enforcement directed at online storefronts accused of selling counterfeit merchandise.

The club's latest filing follows its previous litigation against online sellers and reflects the broader use of Schedule A actions by recognizable brands seeking to protect their intellectual property rights.

For sellers, these lawsuits illustrate the importance of understanding how trademark law applies to product sourcing, merchandise authenticity, advertising, and online marketplace operations.

They also demonstrate why a seller should not assume that receiving a trademark infringement complaint necessarily means liability has been established.

Each case must be evaluated based on its specific allegations, supporting evidence, procedural history, and available legal defenses.

Facing the Manchester United Schedule A Lawsuit? Contact Stockman & Poropat, PLLC

If your online business has been named in the Manchester United Schedule A lawsuit, understanding the allegations and any applicable court orders is essential.

The October 27, 2026 action was filed in the Northern District of Illinois under Case No. 1:26-cv-13221.

Stockman & Poropat, PLLC represents e-commerce sellers in trademark infringement disputes, Schedule A litigation, and matters involving marketplace restrictions and frozen funds.

Whether your business is facing allegations of counterfeit sales, has received notice of a federal lawsuit, or is dealing with restrictions affecting its online accounts, our attorneys can review your circumstances and discuss available legal options.

Contact Stockman & Poropat, PLLC or call 917-781-4186 to schedule a consultation.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The allegations discussed are drawn from the complaint filed on October 27, 2026, and should not be interpreted as findings of liability. The outcome of any legal matter depends on its individual facts and circumstances. Reading this article does not establish an attorney-client relationship.