A “But They’re ‘Counterfeiters’!” Argument Doesn’t Clinch a SAD Scheme TRO–Emojico v. Schedule A Defendants
I blog SAD Scheme cases when they catch my attention, not necessarily because they are the most consequential ones. I’m blogging this one mostly out of schadenfreude. Emojico–the company that has been menacing legtimate users of the word “emoji” for years and inspired my efforts to review the SAD Scheme in the first place–lost an unopposed ex parte TRO request. Whoops.
I’m a little confused by this lawsuit, because I thought Emojico had retrenched its usage of the SAD Scheme after it suffered a bad loss. I guess they are back? This time, they have a different law firm representing them (Marijan Stephan Hucke of Hucke & Sanker PLLC instead of Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym).
Plaintiff makes no effort through argument or evidence to show that the products to which it affixes its trademark as a source of origin or sponsorship are substantially identical to or competitive with Defendants’ products, the sale of which Plaintiff seeks to restrain. Aside from a few conclusory lines in its memorandum in support of the temporary restraining order, it does not address the Polaroid factors at all. Plaintiff thus has not shown that it is entitled to a temporary restraining order against any of the Defendants
I’m always fascinated when rightsowners blow a shot on an open net in the form of losing a TRO request EX PARTE. It’s a bit like losing an election while running unopposed.
Case Citation: Emoji Co. GmbH v. Schedule A Defendants, 2026 WL 594186 (S.D.N.Y. March 3, 2026)
Prior Blog Posts on the SAD Scheme
- New Article Alert: “SAD Scheme Standing Orders”
- Greer Burns Law Firm Sanctioned for “Willfully Abusive” and “Egregious” SAD Scheme Judge-Shopping
- Schedule A: Ten Notable Developments in 2025 (Guest Blog Post)
- Second Circuit Rejects Email Service on Chinese Defendants in Baby Shark SAD Scheme Case
- 11th Circuit Sidesteps the SAD Scheme’s Problems–Ain Jeem v. Schedule A
- 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
