Pit Viper Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

Jan 23, 2024

Pit Viper Counterfeit Lawsuit

Has your e-commerce business been slapped with a temporary restraining order (TRO)? Anyone suffering from the TRO should know that online sellers who have sold Pit Viper products to consumers in the United States are being sued. What does the lawsuit pertain to? Trademark infringement! This case is yet another instance of a Schedule A lawsuit filed in Illinois. We’ve covered a long list of these kinds of counterfeit lawsuits on our blog. The suit primarily targets e-commerce operators based in China, but also other sellers located elsewhere. It’s certainly a frustrating scenario!

The lawsuit at hand is known as a Schedule A lawsuit. Pit Viper filed this particular type of lawsuit so that they can make allegations of infringement against a bunch of sellers at once. That’s pretty much what Schedule A means? At least, so far as counterfeit lawsuits regarding intellectual property are concerned. The cost of taking legal action, the affordability, the time commitment – these are all factors the Defendants need to consider when responding. And, you should definitely respond! The majority of the Defendants will benefit from exploring their options related to legal action and the cost. Which is to say, it might pay to invest in figuring out a legal solution to the issue versus abandoning the matter.

Online Sellers Sued | Pit Viper Trademark Infringement Case

Providing a response to the court is a must. The loss that online sellers will absorb by not responding makes walking away a less than favorable choice. Due to the TRO, the money in your account is frozen. You can’t touch it. Those funds include money generated from the sale of Pit Viper and other branded products. Curious about what would happen to that money if you didn’t respond or did nothing? It would go straight to the Plaintiff. The money you’ve earned! We believe that you are entitled to maintain possession of that money – as much as you can. 

Those sellers who allegedly sold counterfeit Pit Viper goods should respond to the court. A failure to respond may lead to a Default Judgment. You’ll want to avoid letting that happen because that could mean paying damages to Pit Viper. That can be a very expensive mistake! Is there any truth to the claims made against the Defendants? That’s yet to be determined. Submitting a response provides sellers with options to reach a resolution and/or clear their business of any supposed wrongdoing. 

What Are the Allegations? Should Sellers Settle?

Some sellers will consider reaching a settlement directly with Pit Viper. Now, that can alleviate a given seller from the accusations. At the same time, most settlements land at approximately 60% of the money in a frozen account. The remaining amount of money stuck in your account due to the TRO will be awarded to the Plaintiff. This is one of the biggest reasons brands like Pit Viper file Schedule A lawsuits. They cast a wide net of allegations at a number of sellers, accuse them of working in concert to collectively counterfeit, and then settle at 60% with many Defendants. It’s not a bad strategy – for the brands. For sellers, it can have very damaging consequences. Stockman & Poropat, PLLC can develop a resolution that is more favorable than walking away or reaching a disadvantageous settlement. 

If you’ve read any of our other posts on federal infringement cases, you may notice that the complaint is largely templated. The counterfeit allegations in this lawsuit are nearly the same as all recently filed Schedule A suits. The specific trademark infringement claims made by Pit Viper are only different because of the brand name. The lawyers who are working on behalf of the brand use a template and just swap out the Plaintiff(s) name. What are these allegations? Chinese e-commerce operators and others are part of a counterfeit network. They use various deceptive tactics to dupe consumers in the United States into buying unauthorized goods. As a result of these actions, per Pit Viper, the brand has been “irreparably damaged.” 

As the complaint reads, “Pit Viper has identified many fully interactive, e- commerce stores offering Counterfeit Pit Viper Products on online marketplace platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish.com, Walmart, Etsy, DHgate, and Temu.” 

If you want to keep the largest percentage of your frozen money as possible, contact our team at Stockman & Poropat, PLLC! We offer a free consultation. We can develop a strategy that works for you. Once we understand the specifics of your e-commerce business, we can decide on a plan of action. We want to ensure you sustain the least amount of loss and can continue your business without further disruptions. We look forward to helping you get through these trademark infringement claims! 

Download the legal complaint below: 

Up next we will be discussing another Schedule A lawsuit filed by Converse.

We're Here To Help!


Contact us today for a free consultation, let us light the way to a resolution!

Check out our full blog!

Did you enjoy this story? Leave a comment below and check out our other articles!

Inheriting Property Without a Will in New York

Inheriting Property Without a Will in New York Inheriting property without a will in New York can create legal and financial complications that many families do not anticipate until after a loved one passes away. While people often plan for the future in many areas of...

Glitch Productions Schedule A Lawsuit Targets Online Sellers

Glitch Productions Schedule A Lawsuit Targets Online Sellers The Glitch Productions Schedule A lawsuit targets online sellers accused of infringing intellectual property tied to The Amazing Digital Circus. On April 29, 2026, Glitch Productions Pty Ltd filed the action...

Trademark Opposition Proceedings Explained

Trademark Opposition Proceedings Explained A trademark application reaching publication does not automatically guarantee registration. During trademark opposition proceedings, third parties can challenge an application before the mark officially registers with the...

Lululemon Schedule A Lawsuit Targets Online Sellers

Lululemon Schedule A Lawsuit Targets Online Sellers The Lululemon Schedule A lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Illinois on April 29, 2026, under Case No. 1:26-cv-04901. In this action, Lululemon Athletica Inc. alleges trademark infringement connected to...

Real Estate Attorney vs Realtor in New York

Realtor vs Real Estate Attorney: What’s the Difference? If you are buying or selling property, understanding the difference between a realtor vs. a real estate attorney is essential. Both professionals play important roles in a transaction, but they serve very...

Taylor Swift Voice Trademark and AI Deepfakes

Taylor Swift Voice Trademark Signals a New Legal Strategy Against AI Deepfakes The Taylor Swift voice trademark filings are making headlines as one of the most forward-looking intellectual property strategies in response to artificial intelligence. In April 2026,...

Beauty Blender Trademark Lawsuit Targets Online Sellers

Beauty Blender Trademark Lawsuit Targets Online Sellers in New York The Beauty Blender trademark lawsuit targets online sellers in the Southern District of New York. On April 20, 2026, REA.DEEMING BEAUTY, INC. filed this action under Case No. 126-cv-03235, alleging...

Amazon Request Payment Button: What Sellers Need to Know About DD+7

Amazon Request Payment Button: Understanding DD+7 for Sellers The Amazon Request Payment Button is appearing for more sellers as Amazon expands access to manual payout controls under its DD+7 reserve framework. The feature itself is not entirely new. However, its...

Mattel Schedule A Lawsuit Filed Against Online Sellers

Mattel Schedule A Lawsuit Filed Against Online Sellers The Mattel Schedule A lawsuit filed on April 14, 2026, in Case No. 1:26-cv-04164, adds another major brand name to the growing list of companies pursuing aggressive trademark enforcement against online sellers....

Bronny James Trademark Denial: Why USPTO Rejected B9

Bronny James Trademark Denial: Inside the USPTO Rejection of the B9 Logo Bronny James trademark denial has become one of the most talked-about branding stories in the sports business this month, and for good reason. Nike’s attempt to register Bronny James’ stylized B9...

Let's work together

Please don’t hesitate to reach out to our team. We’re happy to answer any question you may have, whether big or small. Our team is dedicated to guiding you to a resolution to your issue.

Don’t hesitate!

Click Here