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.
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.
Filing to settlement in 192 days
192 days from filing to default judgment — faster than median district court IP resolution
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
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 contestBelieve 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 granted149+ 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 issuedFitness 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 elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Believe Pursue LLC | Company | Fitness accessories brand — holder of U.S. Design Patent D983,897 (BELLABOOTY hip thrust belt)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A to the Complaint | Individual | 149+ anonymous e-commerce sellers operating across Amazon, AliExpress, eBay, Wish, and DhgateSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alisha Moriceau | Attorney | Counsel for Believe Pursue LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Blake C. Goebel | Attorney | Counsel for Believe Pursue LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Edward Hutchinson | Attorney | Counsel for Believe Pursue LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rossana Baeza | Attorney | Counsel for Believe Pursue LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shannon Joyce Prince | Attorney | Counsel for Believe Pursue LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Believe Pursue LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman | Chief Judge | Illinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
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.
USD983897S — BELLABOOTY Hip Thrust Belt Ornamental Design
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.
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.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0983897S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →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.
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.
Believe v Individuals — key questions answered
U.S. Design Patent No. D983,897, covering the ornamental design of the BELLABOOTY hip thrust belt, issued 18 April 2023. The case also asserted U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,350,556 for the BELLABOOTY mark (Class 28, fitness products).
The court found personal jurisdiction because defendants operated interactive e-commerce stores that targeted U.S. consumers, offered shipping to Illinois, and made sales to Illinois residents. This interactive-store standard is well-established in N.D. Illinois Schedule A cases and does not require a physical presence in the state.
The court awarded statutory trademark damages of up to $2,000,000 per trademark use under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), plus trebled design patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Actual recovery is limited to restrained account balances; the order directed payment processors and platforms to release frozen funds to plaintiff within 14 days.
Yes, in principle. A defendant may move to vacate a default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) by demonstrating excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and lack of prejudice to plaintiff. In Schedule A cases this is uncommon, as most foreign marketplace sellers lack U.S. counsel and do not appear post-judgment.
The order named PayPal, Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Ant Financial, Payoneer, PingPong, Coinbase, LianLian Global, AllPay, Union Mobile Financial Technology, World First, Paxful, Shopify, Stripe, and Amazon Pay — covering mainstream, cross-border fintech, and cryptocurrency platforms.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.