Woodpeckers sues Schedule A online sellers over its woodworking tool marks

What was filed

The complaint is Document 1, filed October 23, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. The case is Woodpeckers, LLC v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", No. 1:26-cv-02987. It runs 21 pages. The complaint says Schedule A lists each defendant's merchant name, merchant ID, and product ID, and that Woodpeckers will move separately to file it under seal. It is signed by James E. Judge of Flener IP Law, LLC in Chicago, Illinois, and also lists Ying Chen.

The plaintiff and its rights

The complaint describes Woodpeckers as an Ohio limited liability company based in Strongsville, Ohio, that makes and sells WOODPECKERS precision woodworking tools, including Posi-Lock T-Square tools, through its website, an Amazon storefront, and dealers. It lists four registrations it calls the WOODPECKERS Trademarks: POSI-LOCK (No. 7,084,416), RACK-IT (No. 5,821,932), ONETIME TOOL (No. 4,708,733), and WOODPECKERS (No. 3,176,964). USPTO TSDR lists all four on the Principal Register with Woodpeckers, LLC as owner. The complaint also says Woodpeckers is the assignee of U.S. Design Patent No. D957,964, issued July 19, 2022, and owns U.S. Copyright Registration No. PAu004269922 for a video it calls the WOODPECKERS Work. Copyright Office records list that registration, titled WCG-Video-1, as an unpublished motion picture registered July 22, 2025, with Woodpeckers, LLC as claimant.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint alleges that the defendants operate online storefronts on marketplaces including Alibaba, AliExpress, Amazon, Banggood, eBay, Fruugo, Shein, Shopify, Temu, and Walmart, plus four independent websites, and that each is known to Woodpeckers only by its marketplace name and ID number. It alleges that the stores are designed to look like authorized retailers while selling infringing and counterfeit versions of WOODPECKERS products, and that they share common design elements, product descriptions, payment and checkout methods, and pricing. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants have sold the products into the United States, including Texas, work in concert, and have had full knowledge of Woodpeckers' trademarks, patent, and video.

Claims and relief requested

Woodpeckers brings three counts against the defendants: design patent infringement of the D957,964 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Count I); trademark infringement and counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 against the defendants it says are using one or more of the WOODPECKERS Trademarks (Count II); and copyright infringement of the WOODPECKERS Work under 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) against the defendants it says copied the video (Count III). The prayer asks for preliminary and permanent injunctions; an accounting of profits and damages under the trademark, copyright, and patent statutes; trebled trademark damages and enhanced profits under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 or, alternatively, statutory damages of $1,000 to $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of good; trebled patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and an accounting under 35 U.S.C. § 289; statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) of $150,000 per work per infringement; a sworn compliance report within 30 days of any injunction; and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees.