IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—7th Cir.: Appellate court finds screenshots of online listings insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, (Mar 11, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The district court in Illinois lacked personal jurisdiction over a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement and counterfeiting because it relied on screenshots of online listings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s default judgment against a group of online vendors accused of selling counterfeit products using infringing and counterfeit versions of the plaintiff’s federally registered trademark to residents of Illinois. The appellate court held that the district court erred in relying on checkout-page screenshots rather than evidence of actual Illinois sales to assert jurisdiction in the case (Liu v. Monthly, No. 25-2074 (7th Cir. Mar. 9, 2026)).

Background. Liu sued all vendors operating e-commerce stores through platforms such as Walmart.com and eBay.com (defendants) for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and false designation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act. Liu contended that the defendants targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more seller aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, and have sold products using infringing and counterfeit versions of Liu’s federally registered trademark (Liu Trademark) to residents of Illinois. However, the defendants never appeared before the district court. In August 2024, the district court entered default judgment for Liu on the basis that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants because they targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more seller aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, and have sold products to residents of Illinois. The district court’s conclusion that Illinois sales took place was based on evidence, provided by Liu, which included screenshots confirming that each defendant e-commerce store stood ready, willing, and able to ship its counterfeit goods to customers in Illinois bearing infringing and/or counterfeit versions of the Liu Trademark.

In January 2025, the defendants moved to vacate the default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). They argued that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over them and that they had not been properly served with process. Liu never responded to the motion to vacate, and the district court indicated that if Liu failed to do so, it would grant the motion and vacate the judgment as to the moving defendants. However, after Liu did not respond, the district court denied the defendants’ motion. The defendants appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to vacate.

Personal jurisdiction. The appellate court found that in its docket entry denying the defendants’ motion to vacate, the district court affirmed that it had personal jurisdiction because the defendants operate e-commerce stores which are accessible in and offer shipping to the United States, through which Illinois residents have purchased products. However, there was no evidence in the record of Illinois purchases. The evidence upon which the district court relied only showed that it was possible to order the defendants’ products and have them shipped to Illinois, not that such sales took place. Further, those records consist of screenshots of Walmart’s website showing the checkout page with the infringing product, a Chicago shipping address, and the estimated total, but not a completed purchase. The appellate court noted that even Liu’s motion for a temporary restraining order, to which these screenshots were attached, asserted only that the screenshots demonstrate that infringing products “were offered for sale to residents of the United States, including Illinois residents,” not that they prove actual sales in Illinois.

The appellate court noted that in the context of Schedule A litigation, the defendant’s operation of an online store accessible in the forum state, combined with sales in the forum state, has been found sufficient to subject that defendant to personal jurisdiction. However, it also cited Curry v. Revolution Lab’ys, LLC, 949 F.3d 385, 400 (7th Cir. 2020), emphasizing that merely owning or operating a website that is accessible in the forum state is not enough.

The appellate court determined that without those sales, the district court’s basis for personal jurisdiction is merely that the defendants operated a website accessible in the United States, and as explained in Curry, a defendant may not be “hauled into court simply because the defendant owns or operates a website that is accessible in the forum state.” Therefore, the district court erred in finding that the defendants sold products to Illinois customers.

The appellate court concluded that, as the district court erred in finding that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants, it need not address the defendants’ arguments regarding service of process. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the district court’s default judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the case against the defendants for want of jurisdiction.

The Case is No. 25-2074.

Judge: Rovner, I.

Attorneys: Yinnv Liu, pro se. Adam Edward Urbanczyk (AU LLC) for Monthly.

MainStory: TopStory Trademark TechnologyInternet IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews GCNNews