11th Circuit Sidesteps the SAD Scheme’s Problems–Ain Jeem v. Schedule A

The plaintiff enforces Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s IP rights. It is indeed “sad” to see a living legend like Kareem degrade his legacy by participating in a bottom-feeding operation like the SAD Scheme.

The plaintiff filed a SAD Scheme case in 2021 against 75+ defendants. One of the defendants was Carl Puckett, a Tennessee disabled veteran, who operated an Etsy storefront titled “Devildogstreasure.” (The store is offline, as is Carl’s Etsy profile page). The court summarizes Puckett’s purported trasngression:

One of the items Puckett offered for sale on Etsy was a painted commemorative plate that featured images of Abdul-Jabbar. Puckett originally purchased the plate, which bore a licensed NBA trademark, from a Goodwill store. In April 2021, he sold it through Etsy for approximately $30.

Plaintiffs often claim that SAD Scheme targets Chinese counterfeiters. Here, the SAD Scheme ensnared a US resident selling a single apparently-legitimate used item. WTF? The plaintiff might say this was just a “mistake,” but that undersells the problem. The SAD Scheme intentionally bypasses procedural mechanisms designed to prevent such errors, whch ensures that “mistakes” are endemic in the scheme. And because the courts don’t impose any negative consequences on plaintiffs for making avoidable errors, plaintiffs keep making them.

The case against Puckett initially proceeded like every other SAD Scheme case:

• The court granted an ex parte TRO under seal.
• The order instructed third party services to restrain the defendants’ assets. Etsy and PayPal restrained Puckett’s assets, and Etsy froze his account–taking offline Puckett’s non-infringing inventory allegedly worth $86k.
• The order authorized the plaintiff to take expedited third-party discovery of Etsy and PayPal, which helped the plaintiff identify Puckett. [Note: no one appears to be concerned that the plaintiff should have known at this point that Puckett was a US citizen and thus the typical purported justifications for the ex parte TRO were negated.]
• The order required the plaintiff to post a $10k bond, which I believe went untouched despite the problems with this case.
• The TRO initially lasted for 2 weeks, but the court extended it “several times” at the plaintiff’s request.
• The plaintiff eventually served the complaint on Puckett. Notice how much litigation activity had taken place before service. By this point, the plaintiff definitely knew that Puckett was in the US.
• Somewhere along the way, the plaintiff allegedly offered to settle with Puckett for $7,500.

I’ve seen countless stories like this, yet I’m still not numb to the banality of the SAD Scheme’s litigation abuse.

Hereafter, the case diverges from the standard SAD Scheme pattern. Unlike most SAD Scheme defendants, Puckett didn’t take the settlement deal. He instead fought back in court, including filing counterclaims. However, he proceeded pro se, and that goes as well as you’d expect.

The plaintiff said it assumed “Puckett’s plate was counterfeit because he sold it for a suspiciously low price.” That’s the kind of pre-filing diligence that Rule 11 requires. 🙄 Further, “even if the plate was authentic, Ain Jeem argued that Puckett was still liable because he resold the plate in a way that gave the impression that he was an authorized dealer when he was not.” (The docket has about 500 entries, so I didn’t go back to see what screenshot justified this inference). The plaintiff also argued that Puckett hadn’t been too harmed because the Etsy and PayPal freezes only affected $355 total.

Having wrecked Puckett’s business and perhaps realizing he was too small a fish to fry, the plaintiff dropped its preliminary injunction demand against Puckett. Meanwhile, Puckett made a barrage of filings, including a countersuit, all of which failed. Perhaps regretting its decision to tangle with Puckett, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed him from the case. (Voluntary dismissals are typical in SAD Scheme cases to get rid of squeaky wheel defendants while continuing to milk the other defendants).

Despite the resolution of his situation, Puckett couldn’t properly appeal any rulings involving him until the court issued a final judgment in the entire case, i.e., after the court resolved the proceedings against the other 75 defendants. Years later, Puckett’s appeal wasn’t worth the wait. In a sparse non-precedential opinion, the 11th Circuit says (1) Puckett wasn’t disadvantaged by the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal, and (2) it doesn’t matter if the TRO was improperly issued because TROs aren’t appealable, plus it’s moot given that the TRO expired and the court never granted a follow-on injunction.

In this way, the 11th Circuit panel avoids any substantive engagement with or critique of any of the SAD Scheme tactics. Furthermore, the case ends without Puckett getting any judicial recognition, financially or otherwise, of his victimization. The judicial system failed at every step along the way. (Puckett’s pro se advocacy probably didn’t help). As Paul McCartney implores, judges need to take a SAD Scheme and make it better.

If you’re a SAD Scheme defendant appealing your case, please reach out. I can’t represent you, but I may be able to coordinate amicus support.

Case Citation: Ain Jeem, Inc. v. Schedule A Defendants, No. 23-13380 (11th Cir. Dec. 4, 2025)

Prior Blog Posts on the SAD Scheme

• Another Shill Article Tries to Normalize the SAD Scheme
• Court Sanctions Plaintiff’s Lawyer for Unverified Claims That the Defendant Was Hiding–Guangzhou Youlan Technology Co. Ltd. v. Onbrill World
• SAD Scheme Cases Are a Cesspool of IP Owner Overreaches–Nike v. Quanzhou Yiyi Shoe Industry
• District of New Jersey Adopts SAD Scheme Standing Order
• Court “Sanctions” SAD Scheme Judge Shopping—Crimpit v. Schedule A Defendants
• Chicago-Kent SAD Scheme Symposium TOMORROW
• Amicus Brief Urges Seventh Circuit to Award Attorneys’ Fees in SAD Scheme Case–Louis Poulsen v. Lightzey
• Court Rejects Schedule A Claims Against Sellers of Compatible Parts/Accessories (Cross-Post)
• Judge Kness: the SAD Scheme “Should No Longer Be Perpetuated in Its Present Form”–Eicher Motors v. Schedule A Defendants
• SAD Scheme Lawyers Sanctioned for Judge-Shopping–Dongguan Deego v. Schedule A
• Judge Ranjan Cracks Down on SAD Scheme Cases
• Because the SAD Scheme Disregards Due Process, Errors Inevitably Ensue–Modlily v. Funlingo
• SAD Scheme-Style Case Falls Apart When the Defendant Appears in Court—King Spider v. Pandabuy
• Serial Copyright Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Enforce Third-Party Copyrights–Viral DRM v 7News
• Another N.D. Ill. Judge Balks at SAD Scheme Joinder–Zaful v. Schedule A Defendants
• Judge Rejects SAD Scheme Joinder–Toyota v. Schedule A Defendants
• Another Judge Balks at SAD Scheme Joinder–Xie v. Annex A
• Will Judges Become More Skeptical of Joinder in SAD Scheme Cases?–Dongguan Juyuan v. Schedule A
• SAD Scheme Leads to Another Massively Disproportionate Asset Freeze–Powell v. Schedule A
• Misjoinder Dooms SAD Scheme Patent Case–Wang v. Schedule A Defendants
• Judge Hammers SEC for Lying to Get an Ex Parte TRO–SEC v. Digital Licensing
• Judge Reconsiders SAD Scheme Ruling Against Online Marketplaces–Squishmallows v. Alibaba
• N.D. Cal. Judge Pushes Back on Copyright SAD Scheme Cases–Viral DRM v. YouTube Schedule A Defendants
• A Judge Enumerates a SAD Scheme Plaintiff’s Multiple Abuses, But Still Won’t Award Sanctions–Jiangsu Huari Webbing Leather v. Schedule A Defendants
• Why Online Marketplaces Don’t Do More to Combat the SAD Scheme–Squishmallows v. Alibaba
• SAD Scheme Cases Are Always Troubling–Betty’s Best v. Schedule A Defendants 
• Judge Pushes Back on SAD Scheme Sealing Requests
• Roblox Sanctioned for SAD Scheme Abuse–Roblox v. Schedule A Defendants
• Now Available: the Published Version of My SAD Scheme Article
• In a SAD Scheme Case, Court Rejects Injunction Over “Emoji” Trademark
• Schedule A (SAD Scheme) Plaintiff Sanctioned for “Fraud on the Court”–Xped v. Respect the Look
• My Comments to the USPTO About the SAD Scheme and Anticounterfeiting/Antipiracy Efforts
• My New Article on Abusive “Schedule A” IP Lawsuits Will Likely Leave You Angry
• If the Word “Emoji” is a Protectable Trademark, What Happens Next?–Emoji GmbH v. Schedule A Defendants
• My Declaration Identifying Emoji Co. GmbH as a Possible Trademark Troll