Bakhtiyari v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Face & Lip Exercise Device Design Patent
Individual inventor Maryam Bakhtiyari sued a slate of anonymous e-commerce sellers for infringing design patent D929,510 covering a face and lip exercise device. After no defendant appeared, Judge Alonso granted default judgment in 147 days — delivering permanent injunctions and statutory damages against every defaulting seller.
Individual inventor wins default judgment against counterfeit e-commerce network
Filed on 16 April 2025 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Jorge L. Alonso, this action was brought by individual inventor Maryam Bakhtiyari against an anonymous group of online sellers collectively identified as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule A.’ The asserted patents are design patent USD929510 and USD916211, both covering the ornamental design of a face and lip exercise device. Defendants allegedly operated e-commerce storefronts on platforms including Amazon, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish.com, and DHgate, shipping counterfeit goods to US consumers including Illinois residents.
On 10 September 2025 — just 147 days after filing — the court entered a default judgment against all defaulting defendants who had not been previously dismissed. Service was effected via electronic publication and email, satisfying constitutional notice requirements. Because no defendant answered or appeared, all allegations were deemed admitted. The court ordered permanent injunctions, domain name transfers or disablement, account freezes across major payment processors, and the release of frozen funds to plaintiff as partial satisfaction of the $250-per-defendant statutory damages award.
The swift resolution is consistent with the accelerated tempo typical of Schedule A counterfeit enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois, which has become a preferred venue for this litigation strategy. The $250 per-defendant statutory damages figure — drawn from 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) — is relatively modest per defendant but scales with the number of stores named on Schedule A. The public record does not disclose the precise number of defendants or the aggregate damages collected, nor whether any frozen platform funds fully satisfied the judgment.
Filing to Default Judgment in 147 days
147 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the N.D. Illinois median for Schedule A cases
Default judgment granted: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: no contest, all allegations admitted
A default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond. The court deems all well-pleaded allegations admitted. Here, none of the Schedule A defendants answered, so the court accepted Bakhtiyari’s infringement claims as uncontroverted and entered judgment — including a permanent injunction — without a merits trial. This is a plaintiff-favourable but procedurally limited ruling: it binds only named defaulting defendants.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 defaultPermanent injunction and asset seizure secured without trial
Bakhtiyari obtained a permanent injunction barring defendants from using patent D929,510, domain name transfers or disablements, and frozen funds released from PayPal, Alibaba, Amazon Pay, and other processors. The $62,000 surety bond posted during the preliminary injunction phase is also returned. Future infringers can be pursued via supplemental proceedings under FRCP 69, giving plaintiff ongoing enforcement authority beyond this judgment.
Permanent injunction grantedDeemed in default; accounts frozen and domains seized
Defaulting defendants face a permanent injunction, loss of their e-commerce accounts on major platforms, domain name transfer or disablement, and release of all frozen funds to plaintiff up to the statutory damages amount. By failing to appear, defendants surrendered any opportunity to contest validity or non-infringement. The judgment is final as to each named defendant, though the Schedule A enforcement model means additional defendants could still be identified and pursued.
No defence enteredSchedule A model reinforces e-commerce design patent enforcement
This case is consistent with a well-established N.D. Illinois enforcement template targeting counterfeit sellers across Asian-sourced e-commerce platforms. The combination of preliminary asset freezes, electronic service, and rapid default judgment creates significant deterrent effect at scale. For legitimate competitors in the facial exercise device market, the reinforced enforceability of D929,510 raises the bar for any product overlapping with its ornamental scope — even absent a merits ruling on claim scope.
E-commerce enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Maryam Bakhtiyari | Individual | Individual inventor and design patent holder — holder of USD929510 (face and lip exercise device)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers operating via Amazon, AliExpress, DHgate, Wish.com and similar platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Michael Dewitty | Attorney | Counsel for Maryam BakhtiyariSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dewitty And Associates, Chtd. | Law Firm | Representing Maryam BakhtiyariSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jorge L. Alonso | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order functions as a full merits substitute: because no defendant appeared, the court accepted Bakhtiyari’s well-pleaded allegations of design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 171 as admitted. The judgment’s scope is notably broad — extending to domain registrars, payment processors, and marketplace platforms — reflecting the N.D. Illinois court’s established template for Schedule A counterfeit enforcement. The $250 per-defendant statutory damages figure is the minimum available under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) but multiplies across every Schedule A entry, and the release of frozen platform funds ensures immediate partial recovery for plaintiff.
USD929510 — Ornamental design for a face and lip exercise device
USD929510 is a US design patent granted on the ornamental appearance of a face and lip exercise device — a product in the growing facial fitness and anti-ageing wellness category. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of a manufactured article rather than its functional elements. A second design patent, USD916211, is also asserted in this action, suggesting Bakhtiyari holds a design patent family around this product line. Design patent protection is typically narrower in claim scope than utility patents but is highly effective against visually similar copycat products.
Facial exercise devices occupy an expanding consumer wellness segment driven by demand for non-invasive anti-ageing tools. The Schedule A enforcement approach — targeting dozens of anonymous overseas e-commerce sellers simultaneously — suggests Bakhtiyari identified widespread design copying across platforms like Amazon and AliExpress. For competing brands, the reinforced enforceability of this design patent family signals that ornamental similarity to D929,510 or D916,211 creates actionable infringement risk, particularly for products shipped into the US market through the same major marketplace channels.
Should you run an FTO against USD929510 and USD916211?
Any business sourcing, manufacturing, or reselling facial exercise devices — particularly through Amazon, AliExpress, DHgate, or Wish.com — should treat this case as a direct signal to conduct an FTO assessment. The default judgment confirms that D929,510 is actively enforced and that courts will act quickly against sellers who do not respond. Products with visual similarity to the patented ornamental design are at immediate risk of platform account suspension and asset freezes, even before any merits ruling.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full design patent family around USD929510 and USD916211, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and surface competing design registrations in adjacent wellness device categories. For R&D teams designing facial fitness products, Eureka’s claim landscape tools help steer product development away from ornamental overlap — reducing the risk of being named on a future Schedule A complaint before you have the chance to respond.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0929510S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A enforcement cases — facial & wellness devices
Other N.D. Illinois Schedule A design patent cases involving consumer wellness and facial fitness devices — same enforcement model, comparable platform targets.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Face and lip exercise device-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedMaryam Bakhtiyari’s broader IP enforcement history
Maryam Bakhtiyari’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the facial exercise device IP landscape
Schedule A default judgments move fast and hit hard — here is what IP teams and product sellers should take away.
Design patents are potent weapons against e-commerce counterfeiting
Bakhtiyari’s use of a design patent — rather than a utility patent — to pursue online counterfeiters is increasingly common. Design patents are faster to obtain, simpler to assert in default proceedings, and directly enforceable against lookalike products. Any company sourcing or reselling facial fitness or exercise accessories should audit for design patent exposure before listing on major platforms.
Asset freezes begin before judgment — sellers bear immediate financial risk
The court entered a preliminary injunction and asset freeze before default judgment was even granted. Payment processors including PayPal, Amazon Pay, and Alipay were ordered to hold defendant funds. This pre-judgment freeze is a defining feature of Schedule A practice and means counterfeit sellers can lose platform access and liquidity within weeks of a complaint being filed.
Platform liability extends to third-party providers — monitor your supply chain
The judgment compels eBay, Amazon, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish.com, and DHgate to disable accounts and freeze funds. Brands sourcing from these platforms face secondary exposure if their supply partners are named. A proactive FTO review against D929,510 and D916,211 is warranted for any facial exercise device entering the US market through these channels.
N.D. Illinois Schedule A docket: a litigation venue to monitor closely
The Northern District of Illinois handles a disproportionate share of Schedule A counterfeit enforcement actions. Judges in this district have routinised electronic service, rapid TRO issuance, and default judgment timelines under 180 days. IP teams advising clients who sell consumer wellness or fitness devices online should maintain a standing watch on this docket for design patent filings that could affect their product lines.
Bakhtiyari v Partnerships — key questions answered
The court entered a default judgment in favour of plaintiff Maryam Bakhtiyari on 10 September 2025. All Schedule A defendants who failed to appear were deemed in default. The court granted a permanent injunction, ordered domain name transfers and account disablements, and released frozen platform funds to plaintiff as statutory damages of $250 per defaulting defendant.
Two US design patents are asserted: USD929510 (application number US29/778271) and USD916211 (application number US29/708777). Both cover the ornamental design of a face and lip exercise device. The court’s default judgment specifically references the ‘510 Patent as the basis for the 35 U.S.C. § 171 infringement finding.
The court found personal jurisdiction based on evidence that defendants operated e-commerce stores accessible to Illinois residents, offered US shipping including to Illinois, and had sold products bearing infringing versions of the plaintiff’s design patent. Screenshot evidence filed at Docket No. 8 confirmed each store was ready, willing, and able to ship counterfeit goods to Illinois customers.
The court awarded $250 per defaulting defendant under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) for willful use of counterfeit versions of the ‘510 Patent. This award applied once per distinct defendant even if listed under multiple aliases. The $62,000 surety bond posted by plaintiff for the preliminary injunction was also released back to plaintiff or her counsel.
The judgment compels major platforms and payment processors — including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish.com, DHgate, PayPal, Alipay, and Amazon Pay — to freeze and release defendant funds, disable marketplace accounts, and cease hosting infringing storefronts within seven calendar days of receiving the order. Domain registrars including GoDaddy, Namecheap, and others were ordered to transfer or disable defendant domain names.
Monitor design patent enforcement risk across e-commerce platforms
This case shows how quickly a design patent holder can obtain platform-wide injunctions and asset freezes. Run an FTO on USD929510 and track new Schedule A filings in N.D. Illinois that could affect your facial device or consumer wellness product line.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.