Background
The Trump Organization LLC and DTTM Operations LLC (collectively, the trademark owners and enforcers of the TRUMP brand) filed a Schedule A counterfeiting action in the Middle District of Florida against a group of anonymous online retailers alleged to have sold counterfeit merchandise bearing the registered TRUMP and MAGA trademarks. The defendants operated storefronts through major e-commerce platforms including Amazon, eBay, and Walmart, offering T-shirts, cups, baby clothing, and other items bearing unauthorized replicas of the plaintiff’s marks.
Schedule A litigation — a procedural format common in trademark counterfeiting cases — allows brand holders to name unknown defendants by their online seller identities while simultaneously seeking emergency relief including temporary restraining orders and asset freezes. The court granted a preliminary injunction in September 2025 after the defendants failed to appear at the hearing. Because the defendants continued to default, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Amanda A. Sansone for a damages recommendation.
The Court’s Holding
On July 6, 2026, Magistrate Judge Sansone issued a Report and Recommendation finding the defaulting defendants liable for federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and recommending a combined $14.6 million in statutory damages. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), a trademark owner may elect statutory damages in lieu of actual damages in counterfeiting cases, with courts having discretion to award between $1,000 and $200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods (up to $2 million for willful infringement).
Counsel for the plaintiffs appeared at a hearing in support of the damages request. The defaulting retailers provided no opposition, having failed to respond at any stage of the proceedings. The magistrate’s recommendation will be subject to review and adoption by District Judge Timothy P. Burns.
Key Takeaways
- Schedule A default judgments can result in significant statutory damages. Even where individual sellers may have limited actual sales, courts exercise discretion to award damages calibrated to deter future infringement and compensate the brand holder.
- Failure to appear is not a safe option for online counterfeiters. Default leads directly to a liability finding and a damages hearing from which the brand holder’s requested award often goes unchallenged.
- Platform-based sellers face multi-front exposure. Asset freezes and account disablements can precede any damages award, disrupting the seller’s business operations even before a final judgment enters.
Why It Matters
The Trump Organization has pursued an aggressive Schedule A litigation strategy against online counterfeiters since 2025, filing multiple actions across Florida federal courts. The $14.6 million recommendation in this case — while not yet a final judgment — illustrates the scale of potential liability that online retailers face when they sell counterfeit merchandise bearing high-profile trademarks and fail to respond to litigation. The case is a reminder that e-commerce platforms’ ease of entry does not provide a shield against Lanham Act liability, and that default judgments in counterfeiting cases can be substantial even absent proof of actual sales figures.
Surfaced via Law360 IP.