Recently, multiple U.S. law firms have filed applications with U.S. courts for Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs)and even Preliminary Injunctions (PIs) to freeze international e-commerce merchants’ Amazon and other online platform accounts, or to abuse platform rules to remove merchants’ listings. These actions have resulted in severe losses such as business suspension and frozen funds.

International e-commerce merchants are caught in a dilemma: fighting back in litigation is time-consuming and costly, as hiring U.S. counsel may cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the litigation itself may disrupt business operations. Yet, succumbing to the American lawyers is equally frustrating—information gathered from various consultations shows that the merchants have not committed any infringement. The opposing side takes advantage of  your language barriers, legal unfamiliarity, and the uncertainty of high U.S. litigation costs, forcing you to endure humiliation in in silence.

The legal team of Royal Law Firm China, whose members are dual-qualified as barristers and solicitors, based on its extensive experience in helping Chinese e-commerce merchants, have achieved deep mastery of U.S. intellectual property law through precise legal database research and comprehensive understanding of case law. We employ a combined response strategy of issuing strong counter-demand letters and instructing U.S. barristers in litigation responses, thereby helping international merchants swiftly resolve TRO or PI injunctions and resume normal online business operations.

For example, in a demand letter addressed to a rogue U.S. law firm that froze our client’s account on grounds of alleged trademark infringement, we clearly pointed out that our client’s trademark use constitutes fair use under 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4) of the Lanham Act (the U.S. Trademark Act). This is supported by Saxon Glass Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 393 F. Supp. 3d 270, 295 (W.D.N.Y. 2019), Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey, 717 F.3d 295, 317 (2d Cir. 2013), and the U.S. Supreme Court case United States Pat. & Trademark Off. v. Booking.com B.V., 591 U.S. 549, 562 (2020). We pointed out that these authorities confirm that our client’s use was descriptive, non-trademark, and in good faith, and that the precedents cited in the opposing counsel’s demand email are entirely irrelevant to fair use.

Our firm countermeasures against in the disputes include:

1. Issuing a formal Offer of Judgment or Settlement Offer (Without Prejudice) — proposing a symbolic settlement of several thousand U.S. dollars without prejudice to our client’s legal position. Under U.S. law, if the opposing party rejects our offer and subsequently loses, or even wins but is awarded less than our offer amount, they must reimburse our client’s attorney fees. Therefore, as long as our non-infringement defense is sound, both our firm’s and U.S. counsel’s fees will ultimately be borne by the opposing party.
2. Filing complaints with the American Bar Association or relevant State Bar — reporting unethical conduct by rogue lawyers who file meritless lawsuits. Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, U.S. attorneys must not bring actions without factual or legal basis. Furthermore, under common law traditions, attorneys are prohibited from engaging in barratry, champerty, and maintenance—that is, stirring up frivolous litigation, funding lawsuits for profit-sharing, or interfering in suits without legitimate interest. Such misconduct may result in professional disciplinary sanctions.
3. Acting as the instructing solicitor — we direct and supervise the instructed U.S. trial lawyer, whose fees are limited to actual court appearance time (generally not exceeding USD 400 per hour). Unless the U.S. lawyer makes significant amendments to our proposed litigation strategy, they may not charge additional preparation fees. The total cost for the PI stage typically does not exceed USD 10,000. If we prevail at the PI stage, the opponent must also bear these fees due to the existence of our prior offer letter.

Under this combined approach, opposing counsel often accepts our settlement offer swiftly. Rogue U.S. law firms typically rely on TROs, TRO extensions, and PI hearings to exert psychological pressure on international merchants, coercing them into settlement through fear and unfamiliarity with U.S. legal proceedings. Our letters—demonstrating deep understanding of U.S. IP law and bar disciplinary rules—serve as powerful deterrents to such abusive tactics.

Service Process and Fees:
Upon execution of the engagement agreement, the client pays an initial retainer of US$ 5,000. Within 1–2 days, we will provide a case law analysis and strategic report. We then issue a demand letter to the U.S. law firm, followed by a formal settlement offer depending on the response. Based on U.S. case law analysis, we determine the negotiation range for settlement. Once the client’s online account is unfrozen or listings are restored, a subsequent U.S. dollar–based success fee will be payable.

Contact Information:

Dong Wang

Founding Partner

Barrister & Solicitor New Zealand

Royal Law Firm China and New Zealand

Email: wangdong@royalaw.com