This SAD Scheme case ended up before Judge Buchwald<\/a>, who shreds it. Judge Buchwald recaps the scheme\u2019s fundamental corruptness:<\/p>\n if all of plaintiff\u2019s requested ex parte relief were to be granted, plaintiff would at the outset be entitled to broad discovery with serious consequences to defendants. Plaintiff would first be authorized to serve expedited discovery on the Financial Institutions, who would be obligated to provide all known e-mail addresses and mailing addresses for defendants, as well as information relating to defendants\u2019 assets and accounts \u201cregardless of the hosting platform or institution.\u201d Having received that information, and still without notice to any defendant, plaintiff could then freeze the assets maintained in any of the accounts identified through expedited discovery of 100 different international defendants. Acknowledging that plaintiff\u2019s request for an asset restraint is in no way cabined only to accounts through which defendants sell the allegedly infringing products, this restraint would presumably apply to all of defendants\u2019 accounts and assets regardless of their relation to this case. Only after discovery has been provided and the assets frozen would plaintiff notify any of the defendants of the existence of this action, through a proposed procedure inconsistent with the requirements of international service under the Hague Convention.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Judge Buchwald wraps up this overview of the SAD Scheme with a conclusion that seems obvious to me but shockingly isn\u2019t yet obvious to all judges: \u201cIt may not be an exaggeration to say that once plaintiff\u2019s requested relief has been authorized, the case is effectively over<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n Given the tenor of this overview, unsurprisingly the judge rejects the case\u2019s \u201cmerits.\u201d<\/p>\n On the design patent claim, Judge Buchwald says the \u201cplaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits for the simple reason that plaintiff has chosen not to submit its own product nor a physical example of any of defendants\u2019 products for comparison.\u201d The plaintiff tried a standard SAD Scheme trick of placing orders, taking screenshots, and then canceling the orders. The screenshots aren\u2019t enough for the judge to \u201cmake a meaningful comparison sufficient to support the \u2018extraordinary and drastic\u2019 relief that plaintiff seeks.\u201d She explains why test buys are needed to satisfy the Egyptian Goddess standard:<\/p>\n any existing differences between the products sold by defendants and those sold by plaintiff are of paramount importance. In this context, particularly given that plaintiff asserts design patent claims against 100 separate defendants, the Court is unable to determine from screenshots alone that plaintiff has satisfied the ordinary observer test and is likely to succeed on its design patent claim against each of the 100 defendants.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Click on image to play the GIF<\/p>\n<\/div>\n In a footnote, she adds some lemon juice to the paper cut: \u201cThe position in which plaintiff finds itself is a self-inflicted wound. Plaintiff made a conscious choice to cancel each of the orders it placed, thus depriving the Court of the ability to meaningfully compare the products.\u201d<\/p>\n #TestBuysOrBust.<\/p>\n With respect to the copyright claim, the plaintiff claims copyrights in the marketing photos. However, due to the high volume of defendants, the case preparation appears suspect: \u201cplaintiff\u2019s exhibits reflect that 22 of the 100 defendants have not violated plaintiff\u2019s copyright.\u201d These errors are enough to inhibit the judge from granting any requested copyright relief.<\/p>\n In a footnote, she adds: \u201cif the plaintiff\u2019s concern was truly in protecting their copyright, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act contemplates that copyright holders may enforce their copyright directly through service providers like Amazon.\u201d I\u2019m not sure we should fully celebrate the DMCA\u2019s remedial powers here, but the DMCA\u2019s notice-and-takedown option highlights what the plaintiff is trying to do here. Is the plaintiff trying to stop the sale of infringing items, or is it running a trolling campaign? The SAD Scheme is a widely preferred tool of choice for the latter; DMCA takedowns, not so much.<\/p>\n Judge Buchwald also questions the standard SAD Scheme argument for joinder. She points out that \u201cthe fact that plaintiff placed 99 separate orders to the same address in Manhattan undercuts the idea that defendants are related because the use of a single purchasing address would have placed defendants on notice that litigation was forthcoming.\u201d This assumes that the order details reach the defendants even if the orders are canceled\u2013I\u2019m not sure if that\u2019s true. In any case, the judge doesn\u2019t act on her joinder concerns yet, but it seems like that will be a hurdle for the plaintiff.<\/p>\n Plaintiff\u2019s TRO request denied.<\/p>\n Case Citation<\/em>: CJB Global Imports, Ltd. v. Schedule A Defendants, 2026 WL 2517616 (S.D.N.Y. August 26, 2026).<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n BONUS: The Galleon Guild, Ltd. v. Schedule A Defendants, 2026 WL 2495610 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2026). As usual, the court initially granted the SAD Scheme plaintiff\u2019s requested ex parte TRO and allowed email service, followed by preliminary injunctions. Then, the case got reassigned to a new judge (Judge K. Michael Moore<\/a>), and the plaintiff\u2019s good times stopped.<\/p>\n The new judge inquired about jurisdiction, and the plaintiff\u2019s answers sucked.\u00a0First, the court rejects the \u201con information and belief\u201d framing for the plaintiff\u2019s fact claims, saying that a judge:<\/p>\n need not accept allegations made on information and belief where there is insufficient factual support to make those allegations plausible rather than just conclusory. Given that Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint is largely full of the sort of generalized, form allegations that appear in many Schedule A complaints, the Court is not inclined to give credence to allegations made on information and belief<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Second, the judge isn\u2019t impressed with the plaintiff\u2019s standard presentation of evidence by screenshots: \u201cPlaintiff provides screenshots of order screens (which show orders that were not actually placed, let alone shipped into Florida) showing only that it seemed possible to place orders with Defendants that would ship to Florida.\u201d Instead, to satisfy the Florida long-arm statute, the plaintiff must show that the defendant \u201cactually sells trademark-infringing goods to Florida residents through his website.\u201d #TestBuysOrBust.<\/p>\n The court reinforces that evidence of sales in Florida also may be required to satisfy Constitutional due process: \u201cWhere a defendant has merely existed on a website and has not consummated a sale into Florida, or even tried making a sale into Florida, there is no personal jurisdiction\u2026.[the court] is not holding a single sale into Florida would be sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction, only that Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged such a sale has occurred.\u201d<\/p>\n While this case has reached its logical denouement, remember that the plaintiff long ago got the ex parte TRO, alternative service, and a preliminary injunction. In other words, a case that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear nevertheless caused a whole lot of judicially authorized damage anyway.<\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.ericgoldman.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/coming-to-america-eddie-murphy.gif\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.ericgoldman.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/clapping-pointing.gif\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.ericgoldman.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/lebron-dunk-300x300.gif\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.ericgoldman.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/hey-jude-meme-300x200.jpg\")
<\/a>I didn\u2019t check to see if this is Judge Buchwald\u2019s first SAD Scheme case, but either way, her strong and negative reactions to the scheme are commendable and, I hope, persuasive to her judicial colleagues.<\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blog.ericgoldman.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Stop-the-SAD-Scheme-sign.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n