Hi there! My name is Seth, and I am a licensed attorney. Please know that my responses are for general information only and do not constitute legal advice. Also, you may experience a wait time between responses because I work with multiple customers at the same time. Please know that I will respond as soon as I can. I appreciate your patience. I’m reviewing your question now.

I’m sorry to hear about your situation. Can you please tell me what state this is happening in? Also, can you provide more context about your situation? This will best allow me to assist you.

Since you were never personally served in Massachusetts, Nike must comply with Federal Rule 4—personal delivery, certified mail with a waiver, or service allowed by Massachusetts law—before you’re obliged to answer. Email service is permissible only if a court order authorizes it, and such orders usually target the foreign defendants in these SDNY counterfeiting cases, not a U.S. resident like you.

An amended complaint can be served by email under Rule 5 only after valid Rule 4 service or your appearance, so lack of initial service lets you move to dismiss for improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the ex parte TRO that froze your accounts merely requires Nike to “promptly” serve you. Once you receive (or download from PACER) that order and the complaint, you have fourteen days to seek dissolution or narrowing of the freeze and twenty-one days after valid service to answer or move to dismiss.

Gather bank statements showing legitimate income, any proof your goods are genuine, and the vague settlement emails; then retain SDNY counsel quickly to contest jurisdiction, challenge service, and request that the freeze be lifted or pared back while you negotiate a targeted resolution.

Please let me know if this answers your question. I’m happy to clarify anything you need.

First, stop posting and don’t delete anything on the Instagram account—altering or removing content can be seen as spoliation of evidence. Screenshot and download the entire account (posts, captions, stories, reels, comments, DMs, analytics) so you and your lawyer have a complete record of what Nike may cite.

Next, retain New York IP litigation counsel immediately. Ask them to (1) demand that Nike specify exactly which posts supposedly prove counterfeiting, and (2) move to dissolve or narrow the asset freeze if the account shows only legitimate activity or if the freeze is overbroad. Have counsel raise—alongside your service and jurisdiction defenses—the point that online “evidence” must still be tied to specific infringing sales into the U.S. or New York, not mere marketing images.

Meanwhile, gather supporting proof (purchase invoices, supplier emails, shipping logs) showing your goods are authentic or shipped offshore. Finally, be prepared to give the court sworn declarations explaining what the Instagram posts actually depict and how they relate to genuine inventory. Then use that testimony to rebut Nike’s injunction and negotiate a targeted settlement that unfreezes at least some funds for operating expenses.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Nike can’t simply “undo” the freeze on its own; any unfreezing or narrowing of the $200,000 restraint must be embodied in a court order. The two ways that can happen are:
(1) you and Nike reach a written settlement or stipulation that releases some or all funds, submit it to the judge, and the judge “so orders” it; or
(2) you file a motion—typically a motion to modify or dissolve the temporary restraining order—showing that the freeze is overbroad, unsupported by evidence of counterfeiting, or creates undue hardship, and the judge grants relief.

Courts often require a substitute bond or escrow in place of the frozen accounts, so be ready to propose a smaller bond tied to your alleged sales, provide bank statements proving legitimate income, and explain which funds you need for living or business expenses. Until such an order is entered, the freeze remains in place, regardless of Nike’s settlement posture. So your next step is either to negotiate a stipulated release with Nike’s counsel or move the SDNY judge for partial or full dissolution of the restraint.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Ask your lawyer to file an urgent motion in the Southern District of New York seeking a “hardship carve-out” from the asset-freeze order. Explain that you are legally blind, now unable to work because every account is frozen, and you need funds for rent, food, medical care, and legal fees. Courts routinely modify TROs when the restraint threatens a defendant’s basic living expenses, especially where a disability limits other income.

Provide sworn statements and supporting documents (bank records, disability certification, monthly bills) so the judge can authorize a partial release or substitute a smaller bond while the case proceeds. Emphasizing your blindness is not a legal defense to the counterfeiting claim, but it is powerful evidence that the freeze is overbroad and causes undue hardship, which can persuade the court to unfreeze enough money for you to survive and hire counsel.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sure! A plaintiff’s injunction bond—paid by Nike under Rule 65—backs the asset-freeze order and can fund any damages you prove if the freeze was wrongful, so you never pay that bond. You would post a bond only if you want the court to lift or narrow the restraint.

The judge sets an amount (often 100–150% of the disputed funds), and you can satisfy it with a cash deposit, a surety bond purchased for a small premium (using collateral), or, rarely, a property pledge. Posting such security is voluntary; if you can’t afford it, ask the court instead for a hardship carve-out that releases enough money for living expenses, medical care, and legal fees, supported by your bank records and disability documentation.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

No—the judge is not obligated to accept whatever bond you propose. You must file a motion asking to substitute a bond for the frozen funds, and the court will decide whether the amount, form (cash or corporate surety), and your collateral are adequate to protect Nike’s potential judgment.

The judge weighs factors such as the size of Nike’s claims, your ability to pay a future judgment, and any evidence that the assets might disappear. If the court finds the bond too small or the surety unreliable, it can deny or set a higher amount. So even if you can cover the 10–15 percent premium for a surety bond, approval is discretionary—you and your lawyer should be ready to justify the bond’s sufficiency and, if necessary, offer additional security or a larger amount.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

The $10,000 bond Nike posted is required by Rule 65(c); it protects you in case the court later decides the temporary restraining order (TRO) and asset freeze were wrongfully issued. If that happens, you can seek to recover your proven damages—bank fees, lost income, attorney’s fees—up to the bond amount.

If you post your own bond (cash deposit or surety) to substitute for the freeze, that money or surety obligation is returned or released at the end of the case, provided you either win or satisfy any final judgment. Only if you lose and fail to pay the judgment can Nike collect against your bond.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

My pleasure! I wish you all the best. Take care and be well.