Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v. The P’ships & Uninc. Assocs. Identified on Schedule “A”, No. 26-cv-1387, (N.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2026) (Rowland, J.).

In this Schedule A case, Judge Rowland granted plaintiff Stanley Black & Decker’s (“SBD”) motion for a preliminary injunction against two Temu sellers, Super Hardware Factory and Tire Inflation S, that allegedly sold power tools bearing SBD’s XR trademarks. The Court, however, narrowed the injunction and asset restraint to the accused products.

Five of the seven likelihood of confusion factors favored SBD, and none favored defendants. Notably, Super Hardware’s use of its own HANWISE house mark did not avoid confusion. The prominent, placement of “XR” where consumers expect a brand name could still lead consumers to believe that SBD sponsored or licensed the products. Defendants’ fair use defense was defendant’s burden to prove. Fair use failed because defendants used XR in its registered, stylized form, which suggests trademark use rather than descriptive use.

SBD was entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm as a trademark holder. A three-month delay between discovering the infringement and filing suit was not unreasonable and did not rebut the presumption, nor did defendants’ claim that they had stopped selling the accused products. A defendant that is not enjoined may resume infringing.

The Court agreed with defendants, however, that the injunction must be strictly limited to the accused products. Temu had removed all of defendants’ listings, including non-infringing products. And because SBD sought an asset restraint based on disgorgement of profits, SBD was entitled only to restrain profits from the accused products. Absent an existing asset freeze, it was SBD’s burden to identify those proceeds with sufficient specificity. SBD met that burden. The restrained amounts of $15,409.07 and $8,514.23 were well below the revenues of $24,752.84 and $102,616.64 implied by defendants’ unit sales.

The Court also observed that the TRO had expired months earlier, yet restraints apparently remained in place at Temu. The Court generally viewed notifying third parties of a TRO’s expiration as the plaintiff’s obligation, though it did not fault SBD here because the Court had not instructed SBD to do so.

Finally, the Court rejected defendants’ argument that they had not been properly served under the Hague Convention. Rule 65(a) requires only notice, not service, and defendants had appeared and opposed the motion. The Court also kept the $54,000 bond because defendants proposed no alternative amount.