Can One Test Purchase by the Plaintiff Get You Sued in Chicago? The Court Says Yes

What happened

In March, streetwear brand Stussy sued 41 Schedule A defendants in the Northern District of Illinois. One Amazon seller, NIOKIT, was accused of selling rugs bearing Stussy’s stylized billiard ‘8’ ball mark. The evidence came from a test purchase: Stussy’s investigator ordered on Amazon, and NIOKIT accepted the order, took payment, and shipped the rug to Stussy’s counsel in Chicago.

The court entered an ex parte TRO that froze the seller’s account. NIOKIT appeared through counsel but did not oppose the preliminary injunction. Instead, it moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On June 1, 2026, Chief Judge Virginia M. Kendall denied the motion. The opinion drew attention after the Chicago IP Litigation Blog covered it on October 19.

The seller’s main arguments

According to the opinion, NIOKIT argued that:

• Its only Illinois contact was a single test purchase arranged by the plaintiff for litigation, so jurisdiction was ‘manufactured’
• One transaction cannot show it purposefully targeted Illinois
• Third and Eighth Circuit cases, and Supreme Court decisions such as Walden and J. McIntyre, supported dismissal

What the court held

The court found NIOKIT’s arguments virtually identical to those the Seventh Circuit rejected in NBA Properties v. HANWJH (2022), which binds the district court:

• The seller’s conduct matters, not the buyer’s motive: opening an Amazon store, offering to ship to Illinois, accepting the order, and shipping it is purposeful direction. Why the plaintiff bought is irrelevant.
• No ‘more than one sale’ rule: the court refused to adopt a minimum-sales threshold; a single sale related to the claim is enough.
• Not a stream-of-commerce case: selling directly to a consumer on Amazon differs from a manufacturer selling to a distributor who resells.
• Out-of-circuit cases don’t control: Third and Eighth Circuit decisions are not binding and not persuasive given on-point Seventh Circuit precedent.
• Complaints about the frozen account came too late: NIOKIT could have opposed the preliminary injunction and did not; those harms do not bear on jurisdiction.

The court also noted that a plaintiff must show actual sales, citing the same court’s May decision in a Hublot case.

What came next

The docket shows that after the ruling NIOKIT filed an amended answer and counterclaims, moved to vacate the preliminary injunction, and sought reconsideration of an expedited-discovery order. Stussy moved for attorneys’ fees and to dismiss the counterclaims. The status hearing is now set for November 12, 2026.

What this means for cross-border sellers

Our assessment:

• In the Northern District of Illinois, ‘it was only the plaintiff’s test buy’ is not a winning jurisdiction defense. If a store accepted and shipped an order to Illinois, the court will usually find jurisdiction.
• The key question is whether there was an actual sale into Illinois. The court stressed that the plaintiff must show actual sales. If the plaintiff has only listing screenshots and no completed, shipped order, the analysis may differ; the evidence needs case-by-case review.
• Timing matters. This seller chose not to oppose the preliminary injunction, and the court later said its complaints about the freeze came too late. Decide early whether and how to respond to the TRO and preliminary injunction.

Our suggestions

• After a freeze, have counsel obtain the plaintiff’s test-purchase evidence and check whether the order was completed and where it shipped
• Don’t rely on ‘the plaintiff set me up’ as a main defense; the Seventh Circuit has squarely rejected it
• Evaluate your response before the preliminary injunction hearing so you don’t miss the chance to oppose the freeze
• See: Store Frozen by a TRO: The First 72 Hours

Sources

• Opinion: Stussy, Inc. v. Schedule A, No. 1:26-cv-02870, ECF No. 69 (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2026)
• CourtListener public docket: Stussy, Inc. v. Schedule A, 1:26-cv-02870
• Chicago IP Litigation Blog: Single Amazon Sale to Illinois Sufficient for Personal Jurisdiction in Schedule A Trademark Case (Oct. 19, 2026)