A federal judge on Friday authorized law enforcement to seize bootleg merchandise at the upcoming tour dates of musician Jelly Roll, two weeks after multiple counterfeit merchandisers appeared at his concert at Fiddler’s Green Amphitheater.

The underlying lawsuit was unusual in that it did not name any specific defendant who is engaged in bootlegging. However, the tactic has become common among entities seeking to block unauthorized sales of products as musical acts tour from city to city.

Manhead, a New York-based merchandising company for the entertainment industry, filed suit in Colorado’s federal court shortly before Jelly Roll’s appearance at the Greenwood Village concert venue. An agreement with Jelly Roll provided Manhead with the exclusive right to his trademarks and likenesses – an arrangement threatened by bootleg merchandise, Manhead claimed.

Unauthorized goods “are likely to cause the purchasing public to believe that the sale of such Infringing Merchandise is authorized, sponsored or approved by the Artist and/or Plaintiff and that such Infringing Merchandise is subject to the same quality control and regulation required by the Artist and/or Plaintiff,” the lawsuit alleged, “despite the fact that this is not true.”

On Aug. 31, U.S. District Court Judge Gordon P. Gallagher issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants, identified only as “John Doe” bootleggers. The order authorized law enforcement to seize merchandise near Fiddler’s Green.

Records submitted by Manhead afterward showed upwards of 125 clothing items impounded. With Jelly Roll’s tour lasting through October, Manhead also sought a preliminary injunction applying nationwide, without the shorter time limitation of the restraining order.

“I have personally witnessed this at numerous concerts; I have identified myself as an attorney, asked for their names, and have been given no response, as well as responses that I cannot write without offending the court,” Manhead’s lawyer, Cara R. Burns, wrote to Gallagher. “Often they say ‘yeah, show me your order’ because they know about these orders and that what they do is unlawful.”

After a brief hearing on Sept. 15, in which none of the targeted bootleggers appeared, Gallagher issued the preliminary injunction. Although the order continues to allow for the confiscation of unauthorized merchandise and the identification of bootleggers, it does not permit law enforcement to seize vehicles transporting the goods.

“They do not make arrests, as it is a civil seizure order,” wrote Manhead’s chief strategy officer, Patrick Mahoney, in support of the preliminary injunction.

There is a long history in the music industry of turning to the courts to shut down counterfeit merchandising. Manhead cited the 1980 decision of a federal judge in Wisconsin, who reviewed a request from Billy Joel to combat bootlegging.

Noting that Joel has “spawned a curious underground industry which capitalizes upon his popularity,” the judge approved the then-novel strategy of providing the unnamed bootleggers with a copy of the lawsuit and restraining order at the time their unauthorized merchandise was seized.

Dozens of other judges have since issued similar orders covering a variety of musical artists. Among the current members of Colorado’s U.S. District Court, Senior Judge Christine M. Arguello granted a preliminary injunction for U2’s tour; Senior Judge Raymond P. Moore granted an injunction related to New Kids on the Block; and Judge Regina M. Rodriguez addressed bootlegging for the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Tool.

Last month, Merch Traffic, LLC, also represented by Manhead’s attorney Burns, asked Rodriguez to continue her injunction through September for the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ tour, which is ongoing. If none of the bootleggers appears in court, Merch Traffic indicated it would move for destruction of the seized merchandise.

Not all requests to combat bootlegging have been successful. In 2016, Coachella Music Festival, LLC and another concert production company asked for a seizure order before a music festival in Southern California. A judge noted that the plaintiffs were aware of the potential for bootlegging for months, yet waited until a week before the festival to seek intervention. Therefore, they were not “without fault in creating the crisis.” He denied the request.

The case is Manhead, LLC v. Does et al.