Introduction

In a swift and decisive ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a final default judgment in favor of Bounce Curl, LLC against a broad network of anonymous online sellers in Bounce Curl, LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Case No. 1:25-cv-14574. The case, resolved in just 70 days, resulted in a permanent injunction, disgorgement of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, and coordinated asset freezes across major e-commerce platforms including Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart.

At the center of the dispute is design patent USD1028527S, covering the ornamental appearance of a hair brush. The case exemplifies the increasingly aggressive use of “Schedule A” litigation tactics by brand owners targeting counterfeit and infringing sellers operating anonymously across online marketplaces. For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in the personal care and beauty products space, this case offers a timely blueprint for rapid enforcement and the procedural mechanics that make it work.

Aperçu du dossier

Les parties

Le brevet en cause

This case involved a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a hair brush. Design patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and protect ornamental appearance rather than functional technology.

• • US D1028527S — Ornamental design of a hair brush

Le produit incriminé

The infringing product was a hair brush sold by defendants through various online marketplace storefronts. The commercial significance lies in the high volume, low-cost nature of such sales—small margins multiplied across hundreds of anonymous sellers can represent meaningful revenue loss and brand dilution for the patent holder.

Représentation juridique

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. (Chicago, IL), represented by attorneys Amy Crout Ziegler, Jennifer Van Nacht, Justin R. Gaudio, and Justin Tyler Joseph. Greer, Burns & Crain is a recognized IP litigation boutique with extensive experience in Schedule A enforcement actions before the Northern District of Illinois. No defense counsel appeared of record.

Chronologie du litige et historique de la procédure

The case was filed on December 1, 2025, in the Northern District of Illinois—a preferred venue for Schedule A patent and trademark enforcement actions due to its familiarity with multi-defendant e-commerce cases and streamlined TRO procedures. Chief Judge Matthew F. Kennelly presided over the matter.

The 70-day resolution timeline reflects the characteristic speed of uncontested Schedule A proceedings. Following issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order that froze defendant financial accounts held by third-party platforms, defendants failed to appear or respond, triggering the default judgment process. Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment was granted in its entirety, closing the case at the district court, first-instance level with no appeal on record.

Le verdict et l'analyse juridique

Résultat

Chief Judge Kennelly granted Bounce Curl’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in its entirety. The court entered:

• 1. Permanent Injunction against all defaulting defendants, their affiliates, agents, and associates
• 2. Disgorgement of Profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, calculated per defendant based on infringing sales
• 3. Third-Party Platform Directives requiring Amazon, eBay, Temu, Walmart, and PayPal to freeze and release funds within seven calendar days
• 4. Ongoing Enforcement Authority allowing plaintiff to serve the order on platforms as new accounts are identified
• 5. Surety Bond Release of $10,000 to plaintiff’s counsel, Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.

Specific per-defendant damages figures are referenced in a chart incorporated into the order, though aggregate totals were not disclosed in the public order text reviewed for this analysis.

Analyse des causes du verdict

The cause of action was design patent infringement. Because defendants failed to appear, no validity challenge, claim construction dispute, or infringement defense was litigated. The court accepted plaintiff’s allegations as admitted by default.

The legal foundation for damages rests on 35 U.S.C. § 289, the design patent-specific damages provision that allows a patent holder to recover the total profits of an infringer from the sale of an infringing article—a notably powerful remedy compared to the reasonable royalty standard often applied in utility patent cases. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. (2016), § 289 “article of manufacture” profit calculations remain an active area of legal development, though in default judgment contexts, courts typically accept plaintiff’s profit calculations without adversarial challenge.

The injunction’s scope is notably comprehensive: it covers not only direct selling activity but also aiding, abetting, contributing, forming new entities, or otherwise circumventing the injunction—language specifically designed to prevent the common tactic of defendants re-emerging under new seller aliases.

Signification juridique

This case reinforces several established but strategically important principles:

• • Design patent § 289 damages are plaintiff-favorable in default contexts, as no adversarial apportionment argument limits the recovery.
• • Northern District of Illinois courts continue to issue broad, platform-enforceable injunctions with tight compliance windows (seven calendar days).
• • TRO-based asset freezes serve a dual function: preserving funds for eventual damages collection and creating economic pressure that, paradoxically, often goes unanswered in anonymous seller cases.

Implications pour l'industrie et la concurrence

The personal care and beauty products sector—particularly hair styling tools—has seen substantial growth in direct-to-consumer e-commerce, with a corresponding rise in design patent enforcement activity. The Schedule A litigation model has become the dominant enforcement mechanism for brands combating low-cost overseas sellers flooding platforms like Amazon and Temu with visually similar products.

This case illustrates a structural reality of modern e-commerce IP enforcement: platform cooperation is now a standard enforcement tool. Court orders compelling Amazon, PayPal, Temu, Walmart, and eBay to freeze and release funds represent a significant operational risk for any seller operating without proper IP clearance.

For brands in the beauty, personal care, and consumer goods sectors, the Bounce Curl case signals that design patent portfolios—often undervalued compared to utility patents—provide direct, monetizable enforcement leverage. Licensing conversations, particularly with larger distributors or white-label manufacturers, may be productively framed around the demonstrated willingness and capability to pursue Schedule A default judgments efficiently.