Temu Sellers Put ‘XR’ on Power Tools, and Adding Their Own Brand Did Not Stop an Injunction

What happened

In a Schedule A case, two Temu stores sold power tools bearing ‘XR,’ and one also printed its own brand, HANWISE. Judge Rowland of the Northern District of Illinois still granted Stanley Black & Decker’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion was issued on August 21, 2026, and drew attention after the Chicago IP Litigation blog reported on it on November 9.

The judge did accept part of the sellers’ argument: the injunction and asset restraint must be limited to the accused products, not the rest of the stores.

The case

According to the opinion:

• Plaintiffs: Stanley Black & Decker and two affiliates, owners of the registered XR marks.
• Defendants: Temu stores Super Hardware Factory and Tire Inflation S, which appeared, opposed the preliminary injunction, and moved to dissolve the TRO.
• Accused products: power tools selling for under $50, with ‘XR’ displayed prominently where consumers would expect a brand name.

What the court held

First, adding a house mark did not avoid confusion. The court noted that although Super Hardware’s products bore HANWISE, the placement and stylized form of ‘XR’ could still lead consumers to think SBD sponsored or licensed them. Quoting precedent, the court said using another’s trademark is infringement with or without the infringer’s house mark.

Second, fair use is the seller’s burden, and the sellers did not carry it. The court treated fair use as an affirmative defense that the defendants must prove. The sellers used ‘XR’ in its registered stylized form rather than as plain descriptive text, which suggests trademark use, not descriptive use.

Third, stopping sales did not defeat the injunction. A defendant that is not enjoined could resume infringing. SBD’s roughly three-month gap between discovery and filing was not unreasonable.

Fourth, the injunction had to be narrowed. The sellers said the TRO led Temu to remove all their listings, including non-infringing ones. The court agreed the injunction must be strictly limited to the accused products.

Fifth, the restrained amount needed support. Because SBD sought disgorgement of profits from the accused products, it could restrain only those profits. With no existing asset freeze, SBD had to identify the proceeds with specificity. Using unit sales of 511 and 3,416, SBD estimated revenues, and the court found restraints of $15,409.07 and $8,514.23 reasonable.

Other issues:

• The TRO had expired on March 12, 2026, yet Temu apparently kept the restraints in place. The judge said the plaintiff is generally expected to notify third parties when a TRO expires.
• The sellers argued they were not served under the Hague Convention. The court said a preliminary injunction requires only notice, which was satisfied because the sellers appeared and opposed; service could be raised in a motion to dismiss.
• The sellers called the $54,000 bond inadequate but proposed no alternative, so it stayed.

What this means for sellers

Our assessment:

• Using someone else’s mark is not cured by adding your own brand. Consumers may assume a partnership or license.
• Fair use is hard to win. Copying a mark’s stylized form is unlikely to count as descriptive use.
• Appearing in the case still helps. These sellers did not stop the injunction, but they confined it and the asset restraint to the accused products, giving non-infringing listings and funds a path back.
• Platform restrictions may not lift automatically when a TRO expires. Sellers can push, through counsel, to have them released.

Our suggestions

• Before listing, check products, packaging, and listing pages for others’ brand names or logos, including model or series names
• For accessories, state compatibility in plain text, such as ‘compatible with model xx,’ without copying the other brand’s stylized mark
• If sued, even where infringement risk is high, have counsel seek to narrow the injunction and asset restraint
• Track when a TRO expires and ask the platform to lift restrictions promptly afterward

Sources

• Opinion: Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 1:26-cv-01387, ECF No. 92 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2026)
• CourtListener docket: No. 1:26-cv-01387 (N.D. Ill.)
• Chicago IP Litigation: Defendant Bears the Burden of Establishing Fair Use in a Preliminary Injunction Proceeding (Nov. 9, 2026)