A Refined Approach to Image Copyright Infringement in U.S. Schedule A Cases: Injunctions and Narrower Asset Freezes

In recent years, Schedule A litigation in the Northern District of Illinois has expanded beyond trademark disputes to increasingly include copyright claims based on e-commerce product images. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo’s opinion in Innovation Indus., LLC v. The Schedule A P’ships, No. 25 C 3157 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2025), offers a particularly clear illustration of how courts are approaching these image copyright infringements.

The court reaffirmed the preliminary injunction while narrowing the asset freeze to specific gross revenue amounts tied to listings that used the allegedly infringing image. This dual outcome reflects a broader judicial tendency: strong protection of copyrighted imagery, coupled with greater discipline in limiting financial restraints.

I. Copyright Protection Centers on Rendition, Not Isolated Elements

A central issue in the case was whether the plaintiff’s photograph possessed sufficient originality. The defendants attempted to undermine this by focusing on individual elements within the image, such as a digital weather monitor, arguing that these components were publicly available.

The court rejected that framing. It emphasized that copyright does not attach to isolated objects, but to the photograph as a whole. In the context of photography, originality often lies in how a scene is constructed and presented: composition, lighting, angle, timing, and the deliberate placement of elements within the frame.

Here, the image was not a casual snapshot but a staged winter scene designed to demonstrate the functionality of a hummingbird feeder heater in freezing conditions. That level of creative arrangement was sufficient to satisfy the low threshold for originality.

This reasoning underscores a recurring point in image copyright litigation: attempts to disassemble a photograph into unprotectable components rarely succeed when the claim is based on the integrated visual expression.

II. Actual Copying: Specific, Non-Coincidental Details Matter

The court followed the Seventh Circuit framework, distinguishing between actual copying and wrongful copying. To establish actual copying, the plaintiff relied on evidence of access and probative similarity.

Access was relatively straightforward. The plaintiff had published the image online years earlier, making it available to the defendants. The more decisive factor was similarity.

Although the two images were not identical in every respect, the court found that they conveyed the same overall visual impression. What made the comparison particularly compelling was the presence of identical digital readings on the weather monitor. Such precise alignment was unlikely to result from independent creation, and the court concluded that copying was the more plausible explanation.

This aspect of the decision highlights an important evidentiary principle. Courts are often less persuaded by general resemblance than by highly specific similarities that are difficult to attribute to coincidence. Details that appear incidental at first glance can become central to proving copying.

III. Wrongful Copying: The Ordinary Observer Still Governs

Having found actual copying, the court turned to whether that copying was wrongful. Applying the ordinary observer test, the court asked whether a reasonable viewer would regard the defendant’s image as having appropriated the plaintiff’s protected expression.

The answer was yes. Even though certain elements differed, the overall composition—the winter setting, the positioning of the feeder, the presence and placement of the temperature display—remained substantially similar. The court focused on the visual narrative created by these elements rather than on isolated differences.

This reinforces a familiar but often misunderstood principle. Copyright does not protect ideas, such as “a feeder in winter,” but it does protect the specific way in which that idea is expressed. When that expression is replicated in a way that produces the same overall impression, minor variations are unlikely to avoid liability.

IV. Irreparable Harm: Loss of Exclusivity and Market Confusion

The court had little difficulty finding irreparable harm. It emphasized that the use of identical imagery in competing e-commerce listings can erode both exclusivity and goodwill.

When consumers encounter the same image associated with different sellers, the distinction between products becomes blurred. Even in the absence of clear evidence of inferior quality, the risk of confusion and reputational dilution is sufficient to support injunctive relief.

The court also noted the ongoing nature of the harm. Without an injunction, the defendants would remain free to continue using the image, allowing the harm to compound over time.

This reasoning reflects a broader judicial recognition that in online marketplaces, images are not merely decorative; they are integral to product identity and consumer perception.

V. Asset Freeze: A Shift Toward Quantified Restraints

The most significant practical aspect of the decision lies in the court’s treatment of the asset freeze.

Rather than maintaining a broad restraint over entire accounts, the court limited the freeze to specific gross revenue amounts reported by Amazon for listings that used the infringing image. In doing so, the court emphasized the equitable nature of asset freezes. Such measures are intended to preserve funds for potential profit-based recovery, not to secure generalized monetary damages.

Where the scope of alleged infringing revenue can be identified, the freeze should be tailored accordingly. Gross revenue, although not equivalent to profit, was treated as a reasonable upper bound in the absence of more precise financial evidence.

This approach reflects a growing tendency in the Northern District of Illinois to align asset restraints with measurable proceeds rather than imposing blanket freezes.

VI. Implications for Rights Holders

For plaintiffs, the case underscores the importance of preparation on multiple fronts. Copyright registration continues to provide a powerful evidentiary advantage at the preliminary stage. Equally important is the ability to establish when and how an image was first published, thereby supporting an inference of access.

Perhaps most critically, plaintiffs should be prepared to quantify the economic impact of the alleged infringement. Platform-generated sales data is no longer merely helpful; it is increasingly central to securing and maintaining financial restraints.

VII. Implications for Defendants

For defendants, the decision illustrates the limits of common defensive strategies. Arguments that focus on the public availability of individual elements are unlikely to succeed where the plaintiff’s claim rests on overall composition.

More effective defenses require affirmative evidence. If an image was independently created, that claim must be supported with documentation, such as original files, timestamps, and production records. Without such evidence, courts may infer copying from circumstantial similarities.

On the financial side, defendants bear a meaningful burden if they seek to reduce asset restraints. It is not enough to assert that funds are unrelated to the alleged infringement. Courts increasingly expect documentation that distinguishes infringing from non-infringing revenue and, where possible, clarifies actual profit margins.

VIII. Subsequent Proceedings Confirm the Court’s Approach

The court’s later rulings in 2026 reinforce the consistency of its reasoning. In subsequent proceedings, the court found infringement and awarded statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.

Importantly, the damages awarded remained below the total gross revenue figures previously identified. This confirms that the earlier use of revenue as a benchmark for asset restraint was not incidental, but aligned with the court’s ultimate view of the case.

IX. Conclusion: Key Takeaways for Image Copyright Infringement in U.S. Schedule A Cases

The Innovation Indus. case is not merely a dispute over a single product image. It reflects a broader evolution in Schedule A litigation.

Courts continue to recognize and enforce the value of photographic works in the e-commerce environment. At the same time, they are imposing greater discipline on remedies, particularly where financial restraints are concerned.

For rights holders, success increasingly depends on the ability to pair strong infringement claims with concrete economic evidence. For defendants, effective defense requires both legal argument and factual substantiation.

In that sense, this case offers a clear indication of how image copyright litigation is likely to develop in the coming years.

(Disclaimer: The information published herein is for reference only and should not be regarded as legal authority or advice on any subject. All rights reserved. Reproduction requires permission from Allbelief Law Firm.)

Bill Deng

bdeng@allbelief.com

Managing Partner, U.S. Attorney and Registered Patent Attorney with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Mr. Deng focuses his practice on U.S. intellectual property dispute resolution, with particular emphasis on patent, trademark, and copyright matters, as well as Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission and intellectual property litigation and defense involving cross-border e-commerce. His professional admissions cover multiple key institutions and procedures involved in U.S. intellectual property disputes, including the District of Columbia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the U.S. Court of International Trade, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

As a USPTO-registered patent attorney and a practitioner admitted before the U.S. International Trade Commission and multiple federal courts, Mr. Deng is well positioned to provide clients with comprehensive, strategically coordinated legal support across patent validity proceedings, Section 337 investigations, and federal litigation.

For brand owners, rights holders, and Chinese sellers alike, whether in enforcement litigation, infringement defense, or settlement negotiations, Mr. Deng communicates directly with both sides in Mandarin and English. In the complex, high-pressure, and fast-moving environment of cross-border e-commerce intellectual property disputes, he assists clients in identifying risks more efficiently, formulating effective strategies, and advancing implementation.

Allbelief Law Firm

Based in Washington, D.C., Serving at the Frontline of Cross-Border Intellectual Property Disputes

Allbelief Law Firm focuses on U.S. intellectual property and cross-border dispute resolution, with particular emphasis on patents, trademarks, copyrights, Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission, cross-border e-commerce infringement litigation, anti-counterfeiting enforcement, and related dispute matters. The firm is located in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States, in close proximity to the U.S. Congress, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and USPTO. This geographic advantage enables the firm to engage more efficiently with federal judicial and administrative institutions.