SAD Scheme Cases Are a Cesspool of IP Owner Overreaches–Nike v. Quanzhou Yiyi Shoe Industry

As part of their overall proclivity towards rights accretion, IP owners routinely stretch legal doctrines and request overreaching remedies. When IP owners proceed in court without opposition, they sometimes get away with those overreaches. But when a judge calls out their overreaching, it exposes how terrible those requests were.

* * *

This is a SAD Scheme case. The IP owner, Nike, sought a default judgment against a merchant. The defendant’s no-show meant that Nike’s request wasn’t opposed, but Judge Daniel still carves back Nike’s request.

The opinion says the defendant “operates a website that sells counterfeit versions of the plaintiff’s sneakers.” Predicated on that fact, Nike requested:

an injunction covering seventy or so trademarks, many of which have nothing to do with the evidence in this case. For example, the plaintiff seeks to enforce the “LEBRON” word mark in a case where the defendant’s advertised and sold a pair of retro Jordans, which have nothing to do with the LEBRON mark.

Wait, what? Nike is trying to leverage an alleged existing violation of one mark to preemptively enjoin the future violation of other unrelated marks that haven’t been infringed yet (if ever). In other words, Nike wants the enhanced presumptions and remedies available from an injunction without making the requisite factual showing of infringement. This request is an overreach.

Note that without the injunction, Nike can always bring another lawsuit if the defendant does violate the bonus marks. Instead, Nike wants a judicial fast lane without making the predicate showing because…why not?

When the judge challenged Nike’s overclaim, Nike argued that the law permitted it. The court says: “That is not true…Equity precludes granting relief beyond that warranted by the evidence.”

Nike’s lawyers retorted that “the Court previously granted similar relief in other cases.” Oops:

That was a mistake that the Court will not repeat again. Moreover, this case must stand on its own merits. The Court will not let prior mistakes influence it. There is no basis in law or equity to grant the plaintiff relief beyond that supported by the record.

To recap: Nike got undeserved remedies in Judge Daniel’s courtroom before, so Nike expects Judge Daniel to keep those undeserved remedies coming. But Judge Daniel makes the candid admission that he screwed up before and will correct his mistake now.

Notice how Nike’s argument is a metaphor for the normalization of the SAD Scheme’s abuses. The IP owners got improper outcomes in previous cases and then point to those past mistakes as proof of the scheme’s legitimacy. No–the problem is that the courts never should have made the mistake in the first place. It’s gross to try to estop a judge from correcting the error.

Also…how many times have these lawyers (and other lawyers) achieved this bogus remedy? Will anyone go back through their cases to identify and correct the undeserved outcomes? It seems extremely likely the lawyers escape accountability for their past overreaches. Also, will SAD Scheme plaintiffs stop asking to enjoin unrelated marks across-the-board, or just in Judge Daniel’s chambers?

Nike also argued that “it is reasonable to include marks not proven infringed by the plaintiff in the injunction because it is difficult to determine the full scope of the defendant’s infringement.” Isn’t this more proof of the SAD Scheme’s depravity? The IP owner is essentially claiming that they don’t have supporting facts, but they are in court and the defendant isn’t, so the IP owner should get more than the law provides. Judge Daniel wasn’t moved by Nike’s faux woe-is-me tale:

The plaintiff does not get a pass because something is difficult. The Court will not set aside Due Process for the plaintiff’s convenience.

This exchange is a microcosm of why due process is on the wane across the country. Due process IS difficult, and those with power and privilege prefer corner-cutting due process by claiming the ends justify the means. So gross.

Nike argued that it had provided the evidence to support the overreaching injunction. Judge Daniel responds: “That is not the case. If it were, the plaintiff would have provided evidence that this particular defendant infringed each of the seventy or so trademarks the plaintiff has asserted….while facing Rule 11 sanctions, the plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence indicating that the defendants in this case infringed the LEBRON mark.” As usual, Rule 11 isn’t motivating these lawyers very much.

Judge Daniel doesn’t sanction Nike’s lawyers for the unsupported request:

The only thing that saves the plaintiff in this instance is the Court’s prior approval of such orders. The Court will take this opportunity to remind plaintiff’s counsel of its obligations under Rule 11 and to put plaintiff’s counsel on notice that, from this point forward, the Court’s prior approval of such orders will not excuse such conduct in the future.

Another Rule 11 dodge…perhaps understandable due to Judge Daniel’s past errors. Unfortunately, Rule 11 casts a significant but insufficient shadow over the SAD Scheme.

Spotlight on Nike’s Lawyers: Nike was represented by Greer Burns & Crain, the law firm that has been a longtime SAD Scheme advocate. The specific team included Amy Crout Ziegler, Berel Yonathan Lakovitsky, Marcella Deshonda Slay, and Justin R. Gaudio. This left me wondering: how many lawyers does it take to make arguments that set aside due process? In this case, the answer is 4.

In addition to their work as SAD Scheme lawyers, Amy Ziegler and Justin Gaudio are officers (president and secretary, respectively) of the so-called “SAFE” “bar association.” The SAFE group seeks to normalize the SAD Scheme–what has turned into a rear-guard action because the SAD Scheme’s tenability is fading across the country. In this case, two of the three officers of the SAFE organization advanced arguments that this judge firmly rejected (e.g., “The Court will not set aside Due Process for the plaintiff’s convenience”), which makes me question the organization’s principles. What does the organization stand for?

Case Citation: Nike, Inc. v. Quanzhou Yiyi Shoe Industry Co., 1:25-cv-03777 (N.D. Ill. October 10, 2025)

* * *

As flagged by Prof. Fackrell, Judge Daniel recently had more to say about the SAD Scheme:

• He observed that Grumpy Cat failed to provide competent evidence that the defendants would destroy evidence or hide or transfer assets, despite making these assertions. He warned: “past experience in this district, including before this Court, may have created a false sense that such allegations are acceptable. They are not.”
• Madonna was once the Material Girl, but she’s now the SAD Scheme Girl (see lyrics below). Judge Daniel granted Madonna a TRO but without an asset freeze, any expedited discovery, or any restraint of third-party publishers accepting the defendant’s ads. It’s good to see judicial pushback on TRO requests, especially when none of the defendants are around to make their arguments. However, I think judges need to carve back the TRO requests even further (or better yet, not accept SAD Scheme requests at all).

* * *

Lyrics courtesy of ChatGPT–sing along! (I know the first verse isn’t great, but it’s still better than I could do):

🎵 Sad Scheme Girl
(Parody of “Material Girl” by Madonna)

[Verse 1]
Some lawyers kiss up, some sue with flair,
I think they’re all okay.
If they name me in that complaint,
I’ll just DMCA!

They say that fair use loves to fight,
But that’s not what I plead,
I’ll trademark “VOGUE” and “HOLIDAY,”
Then bill the world in fees!

[Chorus]
’Cause we are living in a litigious world,
And I am a sad scheme girl,
You know that we are living in a litigious world,
And I am a sad scheme girl!

[Verse 2]
Some memes are shared, some gifs are free,
But don’t you dare repost me!
My lawyers send those letters out,
Like copyright artillery!

I’ll sue a fan for making shirts,
Or humming my old track,
I’ll register “Like a Prayer” —
And then I’ll take it back!

[Chorus]
’Cause we are living in a litigious world,
And I am a sad scheme girl,
You know that we are living in a litigious world,
And I am a sad scheme girl!

[Bridge]
Files are copied, songs are streamed,
But every claim’s a dream to me!
Oh, cease and desist, my favorite phrase,
Let’s monetize the outrage!

[Breakdown / Spoken]
“Objection, Your Honor — my likeness is art!
Even if it’s parody, I own every part!”

[Final Chorus]
We are living in a litigious world,
And I am a sad scheme girl,
You know that we are living in a litigious world,
And I am a sad scheme girl!

[Outro]
A sad scheme girl (send the takedown notice),
A sad scheme girl (another claim, don’t quote this),
A sad scheme girl (every file infringes),
A sad scheme girl (my lawyers get the binges)!

* * *

Prior Blog Posts on the SAD Scheme

• 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