Book a demo
Believe Pursue LLC v. Schedule A Defendants — BELLABOOTY Patent Default Judgment | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:23-cv-04474
FiledJul 2023
ClosedJan 2024
Patent Litigation

Believe Pursue LLC v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment for BELLABOOTY Hip Thrust Belt Patent

Believe Pursue LLC pursued over 149 online marketplace sellers for infringing U.S. Design Patent D983,897 and counterfeiting the BELLABOOTY trademark. The Illinois Northern District Court entered a default judgment on 19 January 2024 — just 192 days after filing — awarding statutory damages, a permanent injunction, and asset freezes across major payment platforms.

Resolution time
192days
192 days from filing to default judgment — faster than median district court IP resolution
Patents asserted
1
USD0983897S — BELLABOOTY hip thrust belt, ornamental design patent
Outcome
Default Judgment
Plaintiff won; 149+ defendants failed to appear; allegations deemed admitted
Cost ruling
Asset Freeze
Funds restrained across PayPal, Alibaba, Amazon Pay, and 12 further platforms
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Mass-defendant e-commerce enforcement yields rapid default judgment

On 11 July 2023, Believe Pursue LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against more than 149 online marketplace sellers — operating under aliases across Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Wish, and Dhgate — for infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D983,897 (the BELLABOOTY Patent) and counterfeiting of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,350,556 (the BELLABOOTY mark), both covering the company’s hip thrust exercise belt product.

None of the named defendants answered or appeared, and on 19 January 2024, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman entered a default judgment. The court found all defendants liable for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, trademark infringement and counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Defendants were permanently enjoined and their financial accounts — held by PayPal, Shopify, Stripe, Alibaba, Amazon Pay, and twelve further processors — were ordered frozen and released to Believe Pursue as partial payment of statutory damages.

The 192-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated timelines typical of Schedule A enforcement actions, where service by electronic publication and default judgment motions substitute for contested litigation. The public record does not disclose the precise monetary amounts ultimately collected per defendant, as statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) were set at up to $2,000,000 per trademark use, with patent damages trebled under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but actual recovery depends on restrained account balances at the time of the order.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:23-cv-04474
CourtIllinois Northern
JudgeSharon Johnson Coleman
FiledJuly 11, 2023
ClosedJanuary 19, 2024
Duration192 days
OutcomeDefault Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDefault Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Illinois Northern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to settlement in 192 days

192 days from filing to default judgment — faster than median district court IP resolution

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUL 11 2023, OCT–NOV — 192 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Believe Pursue LLC v The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A to the Complaint from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. JUL 11 2023 Complaint filed OCT–NOV 2023 Pre-trial proceedings JAN 19 2024 Resolved consent judgment 192 DAYS TOTAL
Court ruling

Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Default judgment: allegations deemed admitted without trial

Because no defendant answered or appeared, the court entered default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. This means every factual allegation in the complaint — including that defendants sold counterfeit BELLABOOTY products infringing U.S. Design Patent D983,897 — is deemed admitted. The court still conducted a legal sufficiency review before granting relief, confirming jurisdiction and the adequacy of electronic service.

No merits contest
Plaintiff outcome

Believe Pursue secures permanent injunction and asset recovery

Believe Pursue obtained a permanent injunction blocking all defendants from selling, advertising, or operating stores using the BELLABOOTY patent or trademark. Critically, the order directed third-party payment processors and platforms to freeze and release restrained funds within 14 days. Plaintiff also retains ongoing authority to pursue supplemental proceedings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 to collect remaining balances.

Full relief granted
Defendant outcome

149+ sellers face permanent bans and frozen accounts

Defaulting defendants — many operating under Chinese-origin marketplace aliases — are permanently enjoined from any BELLABOOTY-related activity. Their domain names can be transferred or disabled at plaintiff’s election. Financial accounts across PayPal, Alipay, Shopify, Stripe, Coinbase, and others are frozen up to the statutory damages ceiling. The default posture forecloses most appellate options absent a motion to set aside under Rule 60(b).

Permanent injunction issued
Commercial implications

Fitness accessory design IP enforcement playbook validated

This outcome confirms that a single design patent — secured as recently as April 2023 — can anchor a mass-defendant enforcement campaign yielding trebled damages and cross-platform asset freezes within six months of filing. For the fitness accessories sector, it signals that ornamental design protection for exercise products is being enforced aggressively against grey-market e-commerce channels, raising the risk profile for any platform seller offering similar hip thrust or resistance belt products.

Design patent enforcement risk elevated
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:23-cv-04474 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffBelieve Pursue LLCCompanyFitness accessories brand — holder of U.S. Design Patent D983,897 (BELLABOOTY hip thrust belt)Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A to the ComplaintIndividual149+ anonymous e-commerce sellers operating across Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Wish, and DhgateSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAlisha MoriceauAttorneyCounsel for Believe Pursue LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBlake C. GoebelAttorneyCounsel for Believe Pursue LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDavid Edward HutchinsonAttorneyCounsel for Believe Pursue LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRossana BaezaAttorneyCounsel for Believe Pursue LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselShannon Joyce PrinceAttorneyCounsel for Believe Pursue LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmBoies Schiller & Flexner, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Believe Pursue LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Sharon Johnson ColemanChief JudgeIllinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“This action having been commenced by Plaintiff BELIEVE PURSUE LLC (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants identified on Schedule A, and using the Defendant Domain Names and Online Marketplace Accounts identified on Schedule A (collectively, the “Defendant Internet Stores”), and Plaintiff having moved for entry of Default and Default Judgment against Defendants identified on the First Amended Schedule A attached hereto which have not yet been dismissed from this case (collectively, “Defaulting Defendants”); This Court having entered a preliminary injunction; Plaintiff having properly completed service of process on Defaulting Defendants, the combination of providing notice via electronic publication and e-mail, along with any notice that Defaulting Defendants received from domain name registrars and payment processors, being notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise Defaulting Defendants of the pendency of the action and affording them the opportunity to answer and present their objections; and Case: 1:23-cv-04474 Document #: 74 Filed: 01/19/24 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2277 2 None of the Defaulting Defendants having answered or appeared in any way, and the time for answering having expired, so that the allegations of the Complaint are uncontroverted and are deemed admitted; This Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over Defaulting Defendants because Defaulting Defendants directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Plaintiff has provided a basis to conclude that Defaulting Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more seller aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, and have sold products using infringing and counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s federally registered patent, which is covered by U.S. Patent No. D983,897 (the BELLABOOTY Patent”), and the BELLABOOTY trademark, which is covered by at least U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,350,556 (the “BELLABOOTY Trademark”) to residents of Illinois. In this case, Plaintiff has presented screenshot evidence that each Defendant e-commerce store is reaching out to do business with Illinois residents by operating one or more commercial, interactive internet stores through which Illinois residents can and do purchase products infringing on Plaintiff’s rights under the BELLABOOTY Patent and the BELLABOOTY Trademark. See Dkt No. 12, which includes screenshot evidence confirming that each Defendant e-commerce store does stand ready, willing, and able to ship its counterfeit goods to customers in Illinois bearing infringing and/or counterfeit versions of Plaintiff’s BELLABOOTY Patent and BELLABOOTY Trademark. A list of Plaintiff’s intellectual property is included below: U.S. TM Reg. No. Trademark Registration Date 4,350,556 BELLABOOTY (Class 28) June 11, 2013 Case: 1:23-cv-04474 Document #: 74 Filed: 01/19/24 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:2278 3 This Court further finds that Defaulting Defendants are liable for Design Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271), Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting (15 U.S.C. § 1114), false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), and violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS § 510 et seq.). Accordingly, this Court orders that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED as follows, that Defaulting Defendants are deemed in default, and that this Default Judgment is entered against Defaulting Defendants. U.S. Patent Number Claim Issue Date D983,897 S April 18, 2023 Case: 1:23-cv-04474 Document #: 74 Filed: 01/19/24 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:2279 4 This Court further orders that: 1. Defaulting Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them be permanently enjoined and restrained from: a. using the BELLABOOTY Trademark Registrations or any reproductions, counterfeit copies, or colorable imitations in any manner in connection with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product that is not a genuine BELLABOOTY product or not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the BELLABOOTY Patent and BELLABOOTY Trademark; b. passing off, inducing, or enabling others to sell or pass off any product as a genuine BELLABOOTY product that is not Plaintiff’s or not produced under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff and approved by Plaintiff for sale in connection with the BELLABOOTY Patent and BELLABOOTY Trademark; c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that Defaulting Defendants’ products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff; and d. marketing, advertising, or otherwise offering to sell or selling products by infringing on Plaintiff’s intellectual property, including the BELLABOOTY Patent and BELLABOOTY Trademark, or any reproductions, counterfeit copies, or colorable imitations; e. using, linking to, transferring, selling, exercising control over, or otherwise owning the Online Marketplaces, the Defendant Domain Names, or any other domain name or Case: 1:23-cv-04474 Document #: 74 Filed: 01/19/24 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:2280 5 online marketplace account that is being used to sell or is the means by which Defendants could continue to sell Counterfeit BELLABOOTY Products; and f. operating and/or hosting websites at the Online Marketplaces, the Defendant Domain Names, or any other domain name or online marketplace account or other online presence registered or operated by Defendants that are involved with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product or product listing incorporating the BELLABOOTY Patent and BELLABOOTY Trademark. 2. The domain name registries for the Defendant Domain Names, including, but not limited to, VeriSign, Inc., Neustar, Inc., Afilias Limited, CentralNic, Nominet, and the Public Interest Registry, and the domain name registrars, including, but not limited to, GoDaddy Operating Company LLC, Name.com, PDR LTD. d/b/a/ PublicDomainRegistry.com, and Namecheap Inc., within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order, shall, at Plaintiff’s choosing: a. transfer the Defendant Domain Names to Plaintiff’s control, including unlocking and changing the registrar of record for the Defendant Domain Names to a registrar of Plaintiff’s selection, and the domain name registrars shall take any steps necessary to transfer the Defendant Domain Names to a registrar of Plaintiff’s selection; or b. disable the Defendant Domain Names and make them inactive and untransferable. 3. Defaulting Defendants and any third party with actual notice of this Order who is providing services for any of the Defaulting Defendants, or in connection with any of the Defaulting Defendants’ Online Marketplaces, including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as eBay, Inc., AliExpress, Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. (“Alibaba”), Amazon.com, Walmart.com, Etsy.com, ContextLogic, Inc. d/b/a Wish.com (“Wish.com”), Case: 1:23-cv-04474 Document #: 74 Filed: 01/19/24 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:2281 6 and Dhgate (collectively, the “Third Party Providers”), shall within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order cease: a. using, linking to, transferring, selling, exercising control over, or otherwise owning the Online Marketplace Accounts, or any other online marketplace account that is being used to sell or is the means by which Defaulting Defendants could continue to sell counterfeit and infringing goods using the BELLABOOTY Patent and BELLABOOTY Trademark; and b. operating and/or hosting websites that are involved with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product bearing the BELLABOOTY Patent and BELLABOOTY Trademark or any reproductions, counterfeit copies or colorable imitations thereof that is not a genuine BELLABOOTY product or not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the BELLABOOTY Patent and BELLABOOTY Trademark. 4. Upon Plaintiff’s request, those with notice of this Order, including the Third-Party Providers as defined in Paragraph 3, shall within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of such notice, disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with Defaulting Defendants in connection with the sale of counterfeit and infringing goods using BELLABOOTY Patent and BELLABOOTY Trademark. 5. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages pursuant from each of the Defaulting Defendants of not less than $1,000 and not more than $2,000,000 for each and every use of the BELLABOOTY Trademark; 6. Plaintiff is awarded such damages that are adequate to compensate Plaintiff for Defendants’ infringement of the BELLABOOTY Patent, but in no event less than a Case: 1:23-cv-04474 Document #: 74 Filed: 01/19/24 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:2282 7 reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the Defendants, and that this amount of damage awarded to Plaintiff be increased by three time the amount thereof, as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284. This award shall apply to each distinct Defaulting Defendant only once, even if they are listed under multiple different aliases in the Complaint and Schedule A. 7. Any Third Party Providers holding funds for Defaulting Defendants, including PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”), Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Ant Financial Services Group (“Ant Financial”), Payoneer, Inc. (“Payoneer”), PingPong Global Solutions, Inc. (“PingPong”), Coinbase Global, Inc. (“Coinbase”), LianLian Global t/as LL Pay U.S., LLC (“LianLian”), AllPay Limited (“AllPay”), Union Mobile Financial Technology Co., Ltd (“Union Mobile”), World First UK Ltd. (“World First”), Paxful, Inc. (“Paxful”), Shopify, Inc. (“Shopify”), Stripe, Inc. (“Stripe”), and Amazon Pay (collectively, “Financial Institutions”), shall, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order, permanently restrain and enjoin any accounts connected to Defaulting Defendants or the Defendant Internet Stores from transferring or disposing of any funds (up to the statutory damages awarded in Paragraph 5 above) or other of Defaulting Defendants’ assets. 8. All monies (up to the amount of the statutory damages awarded in Paragraphs 5 and 6 above) currently restrained in Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts, including monies held by Third Party Providers and Financial Institutions, are hereby released to Plaintiff as partial payment of the above-identified damages, and Third Party Providers and Financial Institutions, are ordered to release to Plaintiff the amounts from Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of this Order. Case: 1:23-cv-04474 Document #: 74 Filed: 01/19/24 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:2283 8 9. Until Plaintiff has recovered full payment of monies owed to it by any Defaulting Defendant, Plaintiff shall have the ongoing authority to commence supplemental proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69. 10. In the event that Plaintiff identifies any additional online marketplace accounts or financial accounts owned by Defaulting Defendants, Plaintiff may send notice of any supplemental proceeding, including a citation to discover assets, to Defaulting Defendants by e-mail at the e-mail addresses identified in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Alisha Moriceau (ECF No. 70) and any e-mail addresses provided for Defaulting Defendants by third parties. 11. To obtain release of the bond previously posted in this action, Plaintiff’s counsel must file a motion for the return of the bond once the preliminary injunction no longer applies to any Defendant. This is a Default Judgment.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:23-cv-04474, Illinois Northern District Court · Filed January 19, 2024

The default judgment is comprehensive in scope: it covers design patent infringement, trademark counterfeiting, false designation of origin, and state deceptive trade practices — four independent heads of liability. The court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over foreign e-commerce defendants rests on the interactive-store-targeting-Illinois-residents standard, consistent with prevailing N.D. Illinois precedent in Schedule A cases. The trebling of patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and the statutory trademark ceiling of $2,000,000 per use create theoretical aggregate exposure far exceeding most defendants’ account balances, making the asset freeze the primary practical remedy.

PACER case 1:23-cv-04474 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USD983897S — BELLABOOTY Hip Thrust Belt Ornamental Design

Publication No.USD0983897S
Application No.US29/839670
Patent details
AssigneeBelieve Pursue LLC
ProductBELLABOOTY hip thrust exercise belt — ornamental design
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJuly 11, 2023

U.S. Design Patent No. D983,897 protects the ornamental appearance of the BELLABOOTY hip thrust belt — a resistance-based exercise accessory designed to facilitate weighted hip thrust and glute bridge movements. Filed under application number US29/839670, the patent issued on 18 April 2023, placing it firmly in the current generation of fitness accessory design IP. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect only the non-functional ornamental features as shown in the patent drawings, meaning infringement turns on whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product substantially similar in overall appearance.

The BELLABOOTY patent’s rapid issuance-to-litigation timeline — roughly three months — indicates that Believe Pursue treated IP registration as a precursor to enforcement rather than a passive portfolio asset. For competitors in the fitness belt and resistance accessory space, the design patent’s scope is particularly significant because the hip thrust belt product category has seen substantial growth via social-media-driven e-commerce, attracting a high volume of copycat listings. Any product with a substantially similar overall ornamental appearance to the D983,897 drawings faces material infringement risk regardless of brand name.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against USD983897S before launching a hip thrust belt?

Any brand, ODM, or e-commerce seller considering launching a hip thrust belt, glute resistance belt, or visually similar fitness accessory in the U.S. market should treat U.S. Design Patent D983,897 as a priority FTO target. This case demonstrates that Believe Pursue actively enforces the patent — and that the Northern District of Illinois will enter rapid default judgments with asset freezes covering all major payment platforms. The risk is not theoretical: 149+ sellers were caught in a single enforcement action within months of the patent issuing.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental claim scope of D983,897 against your product drawings, identify design-around opportunities, and surface prior art that could support an inter partes review or ex parte reexamination challenge. Eureka can also monitor Believe Pursue LLC’s patent portfolio and litigation filings so your team receives early warning of new Schedule A enforcement actions before account freezes are ordered.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0983897S to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar design patent Schedule A enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois

Cases involving fitness accessory design patents and mass-defendant Schedule A enforcement in the Northern District of Illinois, with comparable default judgment and asset freeze outcomes.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Believe Pursue LLC patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern case history, Believe Pursue LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Hip thrust belt design casesN.D. Illinois Schedule A defaultsFitness IP enforcement trendsDesign patent vs. trade dress overlap
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the fitness accessories IP landscape

A six-month default judgment against 149+ sellers demonstrates the commercial potency of design patent enforcement in the fitness e-commerce space.

Schedule A enforcement is the dominant threat vector for fitness product IP

Believe Pursue’s mass-defendant strategy — naming 149+ sellers in a single Schedule A complaint — is now a standard enforcement template in the Northern District of Illinois. Brands holding design patents for fitness accessories should monitor this docket pattern; it can convert a recently issued design patent into a platform-wide account freeze within 192 days.

Ornamental design patents issued post-2022 are being enforced at pace

U.S. Patent D983,897 issued in April 2023 and was already in litigation by July 2023 — just three months later. This compressed enforcement window suggests that fitness accessory brands are filing design patents with immediate litigation intent, not as defensive portfolio moves. R&D teams launching similar products should conduct FTO analysis at product design stage, not post-launch.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated insights on design patent enforcement strategy in the fitness accessories sector and N.D. Illinois Schedule A litigation trends.
Crypto account freeze tacticsDamages stacking analysisSchedule A filing trends
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Believe v Individuals — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Protect your fitness product IP before the next enforcement wave

This case shows design patent holders can freeze assets across 16 payment platforms within six months of filing. Run a PatSnap Eureka FTO search against D983,897 now, and set up portfolio monitoring to track new enforcement actions before they target your marketplace accounts.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.