Case Highlight | Recovering Funds Already Levied After a Default Judgment in a Trademark Action

In early 2026, LawMay represented a client in a trademark infringement action in which a default judgment had already been entered and the client's funds had already been transferred to the plaintiff. By pursuing post-judgment motion practice and negotiation in parallel, the firm recovered the levied funds — over one hundred thousand U.S. dollars. The timing mattered: the year-end settlement cycle was approaching and the client was acutely sensitive to when the funds would return. The full amount was returned to the client's account before that year-end liquidity point.

The plaintiff, a well-known multinational, had filed a trademark infringement action in mid-2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a number of cross-border e-commerce sellers. Because the client did not appear in time, the court entered a default judgment, and funds in the client's seller account were subsequently levied and transferred.

By the time the client engaged the firm on an emergency basis, the default judgment had been in place for nearly a month. The procedural posture was pressing and the available avenues of relief were correspondingly limited.

Upon engagement, LawMay assessed the viable procedural options against the facts of the case, the court's Local Rules, the presiding judge's Standing Order, and the relevant authority in that district on post-default relief. Within the window permitted under Rules 55 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the firm filed motions directed at the default judgment and the enforcement measures. In parallel, LawMay engaged the plaintiff on the likely course of the proceedings and the foreseeable cost of continued disputes at the enforcement stage.

While those motions were pending, LawMay conducted several rounds of negotiation with plaintiff's counsel, addressing the procedural risk of pressing enforcement further, compliance questions in the enforcement path, and the potential cost of continued litigation. Ultimately — before the court ruled on the motion to set aside the default judgment — the parties reached a settlement under which the entire sum that had been levied was returned to the client's account, on terms materially better than the client's initial risk expectations.

In Schedule A matters, a defendant who fails to appear in time often faces a sequence of consequences: account freezes, default judgment, and levy on funds. A default judgment does not mean the matter is beyond remedy. But once judgment has been entered and enforcement has begun, the room to maneuver narrows considerably, and the demands on procedural judgment, familiarity with the court's rules, and the ability to negotiate with opposing counsel rise accordingly.

This case summary is provided for informational purposes only. Outcomes depend on the specific facts, evidence, applicable law, and the court's discretion in each matter. Past results do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes in future matters.