Yinnv Liu v. Monthly

Liu v. Monthly · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · March 31, 2026 · No. 25-2074

Summary

The Seventh Circuit held that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over China-based online vendors sued for trademark infringement in a Schedule A action. The record showed only that the vendors' online stores were accessible in Illinois and offered shipping there, not that completed sales occurred in Illinois. The court vacated the default judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Judge Kirsch; Judge Rovner; Judge Maldonado
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decision date
March 31, 2026
Docket number
25-2074
Procedural posture
Defendants appealed the district court's denial of their Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to vacate a default judgment, asserting that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction and that service of process was improper.
Standard of review
Denial of Rule 60(b) relief is ordinarily reviewed for abuse of discretion, but review is less deferential when the judgment is challenged as void for lack of jurisdiction. The existence of personal jurisdiction is reviewed de novo, and related factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Seventh Circuit opinion.
Parties
Monthly, 268 Joybuy 12573, 269 Joybuy 10253, 272 Joybuy 7323, 273 Joybuy 8504, 279 Joybuy 12574, 288 Joybuy 12907, 289 Joybuy 12516, 293 Joybuy 12634, 295 Joybuy 7326, 296 Joybuy 12523, 298 Joybuy 12449, 301 Joybuy 12893, 338 Joybuy 12907, 339 Joybuy 12907, 340 Joybuy 12907 v. Yinnv Liu
Disposition
vacated

Topics

personal jurisdictiontrademark infringementdefault judgmentappellate proceduresubject matter jurisdiction

Practice areas

trademarkcivil procedurepersonal jurisdictionappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that the defendants had completed sales to Illinois residents.
  2. Whether the defendants' operation of online stores accessible in the United States and offering shipping to Illinois established specific personal jurisdiction in Illinois.
  3. Whether the default judgment should be vacated and the action dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Holdings

  1. The district court clearly erred in finding that the defendants sold products to Illinois customers because the evidence showed only that Illinois residents could place orders, not that any purchase was completed.
  2. Operating an online store accessible in Illinois and capable of accepting orders for shipment to Illinois, without evidence of completed forum-state sales or other purposeful forum-directed conduct, is insufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction.
  3. The default judgment must be vacated, and the case must be dismissed against the defendants for want of personal jurisdiction.

Key quotations

merely “operat[ing] a website, even a highly interactive website, that is accessible from, but does not target, the forum state” is not enough to sustain jurisdiction. (5)
A defendant may not be “haled into court simply because the defendant owns or operates a website that is accessible in the forum state.” (6)

Factual background

Liu sued foreign vendors operating e-commerce stores through platforms including Walmart.com and eBay.com, alleging trademark infringement and related Lanham Act violations. The defendants, based in China, operated Walmart.com stores offering shipping to the United States, but the record contained only screenshots showing that products could be ordered and shipped to an Illinois address, not evidence of completed Illinois sales. The defendants defaulted, later appeared, and challenged the judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service.

Procedural history

Liu sued hundreds of foreign online vendors for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act. The defendants did not appear, and the Northern District of Illinois entered default judgment against them based in part on its finding that they had sold allegedly infringing products to Illinois residents. After appearing, the defendants moved under Rule 60(b) to vacate the judgment. The district court denied the motion, and the Seventh Circuit vacated the default judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Remand instructions

Vacate the default judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the case against the defendants for want of jurisdiction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…