Bounce Curl Secures Default Judgment in Haircare Design Patent Case

Updated on Dec. 12, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team

Introduction

In a swift enforcement action emblematic of modern brand protection, haircare brand Bounce Curl, LLC secured a decisive default judgment against a network of anonymous online sellers for design patent infringement. The case, filed in the Northern District of Illinois and presided over by Judge Sara L. Ellis, was resolved in under five months, highlighting an aggressive and efficient strategy for combating counterfeit goods on e-commerce platforms. Centered on U.S. Design Patent No. USD1028527S for hair styling tools, this “Schedule A” case offers a masterclass in rapid online enforcement. This analysis reveals the procedural blueprint used and offers key strategic takeaways for patent holders targeting infringing sellers operating through online marketplaces.

💡 Key Insight: This case is a classic “Schedule A” action, a specialized procedural mechanism where defendants are listed anonymously in a sealed court schedule to prevent them from evading a pre-judgment asset freeze.

Case Summary

Case Overview

The Parties:
The plaintiff, Bounce Curl, LLC, is a direct-to-consumer brand specializing in premium haircare products for curly hair. Its business model relies heavily on distinctive product design and brand identity sold through its official website. The defendants were listed as “The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A,” a common legal formulation used to sue multiple, often unidentified, online retailers—typically operating on platforms like Amazon, eBay, or Shopify—as a single group.

The Patent at Issue:
The asserted intellectual property was U.S. Design Patent No. USD1028527S (based on application 29/880,941). As a design patent, it protects the ornamental, non-functional visual appearance of an article of manufacture. Enforcement hinges on proving that an accused product is substantially similar in its overall visual design to the patented design to an ordinary observer. For professionals, analyzing patent landscapes on Patsnap Eureka IP is crucial to understand such design rights in context.

The Accused Products:
The accused products encompassed a wide range of haircare items, including hair accessories, brushes, combs, shampoos, conditioners, styling products, and vitamins. The suit alleged that the anonymous defendants were selling counterfeit or design-infringing versions of Bounce Curl’s products.

Legal Representation:
Bounce Curl was represented by Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., a Chicago-based law firm with a nationally recognized focus on intellectual property law and extensive experience in Illinois Northern District Court patent cases.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

• Date Filed: November 5, 2024.
• Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO): Shortly after filing, the plaintiff likely obtained a sealed, ex parte TRO. This is the cornerstone of a “Schedule A” strategy, allowing the plaintiff to secure a court order without the defendants’ knowledge. The TRO typically freezes the defendants’ marketplace accounts and funds.
• Turning Point – Hearing for Default: The docket indicates a hearing was scheduled for January 22, 2025, for Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment. The fact that the case proceeded to this hearing confirms none of the Schedule A defendants appeared or responded to the complaint.
• Date Closed: April 2, 2025.
• Duration Analysis: The total lifespan of 148 days is notably short for patent litigation, which often lasts years. This speed is characteristic of default judgments in these enforcement-focused cases.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome:
The court granted a Default Judgment in favor of Bounce Curl, LLC. By defaulting, the defendants admitted to the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint, including infringement. The judgment almost certainly includes a permanent injunction and monetary relief, though the specific award amount is not disclosed in the available docket.

Verdict Cause Analysis:
The basis for termination was Default Judgment, not a merits-based trial verdict. This procedural outcome is legally and strategically significant:

• “Schedule A” Procedure: This case exemplifies the highly effective “Schedule A” playbook. The plaintiff utilizes ex parte proceedings to obtain a TRO and asset freeze before defendants are even aware of the lawsuit.
• Admission of Allegations: Upon default, the defendant is deemed to have admitted all factual allegations. The court therefore accepted that the accused products infringed the claimed design.
• Strategic Avoidance: This path allowed Bounce Curl to bypass costly litigation phases like claim construction and discovery. The strategy is purely enforcement-driven. For law firms, tracking litigation trends with Patsnap Eureka IP is key to mastering these fast-moving strategies.

Legal Significance & Strategic Takeaways:
⚖️ For Patent Holders (Brands):

• The “Schedule A” model is a potent, fast-track tool for e-commerce enforcement against anonymous sellers. Success hinges on meticulous investigation to link seller accounts.
• Design patents are rapid litigation weapons. They can provide a faster, lower-cost enforcement option than utility patents in counterfeit scenarios.

🔬 For Accused Infringers & R&D Teams:

• Ignoring a complaint is the highest-risk strategy. A default judgment leads to permanent loss of storefronts, seized financial assets, and an enforceable judgment.
• Proactive Freedom to Operate (FTO) and prior art searches are non-negotiable before listing products online. Documenting the design process can also help establish independent creation.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The Bounce Curl case reflects a broader trend in the beauty and personal care industry, where product design is intimately tied to brand loyalty. For direct-to-consumer brands, this litigation demonstrates that proactive, aggressive design patent enforcement is a critical component of a comprehensive brand protection program.

The outcome reinforces the Illinois Northern District Court’s reputation as a preferred venue for these actions, known for its procedural templates and experience. It signals to online marketplaces that rights holders are increasingly adept at using federal courts to obtain orders that platforms must enforce. Understanding these industry implications requires deep market intelligence, which can be enhanced by tools that help research patent families on Patsnap Eureka IP.

Key Takeaways

• For Patent Attorneys: The “Schedule A” model is a specialized, fast-track tool. Success depends on meticulous pre-filing investigation and mastery of local rules for ex parte motions.
• For IP Professionals: Design patents can provide a faster, lower-cost litigation option than utility patents in certain counterfeit scenarios. Integrate design patent filings into your product launch checklist.
• For R&D & Product Teams: The visual design of a successful product is a key business asset. Involve IP counsel early to evaluate patentability and develop a defensive enforcement strategy.
• Future Outlook: Expect continued growth in these filings. Start your patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP to stay ahead of these trends.

FAQ Section

Q1: What was the key procedural mechanism used in this case?
A1: It was a “Schedule A” case, a procedural strategy where anonymous online sellers are sued as a group. This allows plaintiffs to obtain a ex parte Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to freeze defendants’ assets before they are formally notified.

Q2: What can online sellers do if accused in a similar lawsuit?
A2: Do not ignore the complaint. Defaulting leads to an automatic loss. Sellers must engage U.S. counsel immediately to challenge the suit, potentially contesting jurisdiction, the validity of the patent, or the infringement allegations.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis is based on publicly available docket information and does not represent a complete record of the case. Legal matters are complex and fact-specific; readers should consult with qualified legal counsel for advice on any particular situation. The outcome of this case does not predict the result in any other matter.