In a swift 116-day proceeding before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Beth Bender Beauty, LLC secured a default judgment against 174 unnamed defendants accused of infringing four registered design patents covering proprietary eyeliner stencil products. Filed on October 19, 2023, and closed February 12, 2024, Case No. 1:23-cv-15123 represents a classic schedule-driven enforcement sweep — a Doe defendant strategy increasingly favored by consumer product IP holders targeting counterfeit and knockoff sellers operating across e-commerce platforms.

This case carries significant strategic implications for design patent holders in the beauty and personal care space, where product aesthetics drive brand equity and counterfeit proliferation on online marketplaces is endemic. IP counsel, brand protection teams, and R&D professionals developing cosmetic applicator tools should understand how multi-defendant design patent actions conclude via default — and what that means for portfolio enforcement, FTO analysis, and design-around strategy in this niche but commercially active category.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

The four patents at issue — USD809196S, USD809197S, USD800963S, and USD811655S — are U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of eyeliner stencils and sets of peel-away eyeliner stencils. Design patents protect the visual and aesthetic features of a product, not its functional utility, meaning that any product that looks substantially similar to the patented designs may constitute infringement. These stencil products are used by consumers to achieve precise, repeatable eye makeup looks, and their distinctive visual form is the subject of Beth Bender Beauty’s intellectual property protection.

• • USD0809196S
• • USD0809197S
• • USD0800963S
• • USD0811655S

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Counsel: Keener & Associates PC (lead: Kevin John Keener)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — a first-instance district court proceeding under Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer. The Northern District of Illinois is a well-established venue for IP enforcement actions, including multi-defendant Doe cases targeting online marketplace infringers, and its procedural infrastructure supports the kind of rapid schedule management that such cases require. Filing in this district is a deliberate strategic choice for plaintiffs seeking efficient enforcement against dispersed, often foreign-based e-commerce sellers.

The case resolved in just 116 days — from October 19, 2023 to February 12, 2024 — an exceptionally compressed timeline reflecting the nature of a default judgment proceeding. No defendants appeared, retained counsel, or filed any responsive pleadings, enabling plaintiff Beth Bender Beauty to move directly for default and default judgment without the need for discovery, claim construction proceedings, or trial. The basis of termination — default judgment — is the definitive outcome here, indicating that the court found no contested issues requiring adjudication and entered judgment in the plaintiff’s favor as a matter of procedure.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The court entered default judgment in favor of Beth Bender Beauty, LLC — now referenced in the motion as Beth Bender Holdings, LLC — against all defendants identified in Exhibit 1 to the accompanying Memorandum of Law. Because the case concluded via default judgment, no damages amount or injunctive relief terms are detailed in the available case record; however, default judgments in design patent infringement actions of this type typically encompass permanent injunctions, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees. No merits determination on validity or infringement was made, as defendants failed to appear.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The verdict cause of infringement action and the default judgment outcome are driven by the following procedural and substantive grounds:

• All 174 defendants named in Exhibit 2 failed to appear, answer, or otherwise respond to the complaint within the time permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, triggering the procedural basis for entry of default.
• Plaintiff alleged direct design patent infringement of four U.S. design patents (USD809196S, USD809197S, USD800963S, USD811655S) covering the ornamental appearance of eyeliner stencil and peel-away stencil products sold by the defendants.
• The use of a Doe defendant structure — with defendants identified by reference to a sealed or filed exhibit rather than by name — is a recognized enforcement mechanism in the Northern District of Illinois for pursuing e-commerce counterfeiters and knockoff sellers whose true identities are not publicly known at filing.
• Plaintiff’s motion for default and default judgment was filed concurrently with a supporting Memorandum of Law, establishing the procedural record necessary for the court to enter final judgment without a contested hearing.

Legal Significance

1. 1. This case affirms the continued viability of multi-defendant Doe actions in the Northern District of Illinois as an enforcement vehicle for design patent holders targeting e-commerce infringers, with the court’s willingness to enter default judgment reinforcing the practical deterrent value of this litigation strategy.
2. 2. Because the case concluded on default — without claim construction, validity challenge, or infringement analysis on the merits — the four design patents at issue (USD809196S, USD809197S, USD800963S, USD811655S) remain unchallenged and fully enforceable, preserving their strength for future enforcement actions.
3. 3. The rapid 116-day resolution underscores that when defendants in multi-party IP actions fail to engage, courts can and will grant final judgment swiftly, creating a strong incentive for similarly situated defendants in future cases to appear and contest rather than default.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys:

• When filing multi-defendant Doe actions in the Northern District of Illinois, ensure Exhibit-based defendant identification is procedurally sound from the outset, as the court’s acceptance of this structure is critical to obtaining a clean default judgment without jurisdictional challenges.
• Prepare the Memorandum of Law in support of default judgment contemporaneously with the motion to minimize any court-imposed delay; in fast-moving Doe actions, procedural efficiency directly accelerates time-to-judgment.
• Monitor whether the plaintiff entity name used in the default judgment motion (Beth Bender Holdings, LLC) aligns with the patent assignment records and complaint caption — entity name discrepancies can create enforcement and collection complications post-judgment.
• Consider filing for permanent injunction and statutory damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289 simultaneously with the default judgment motion to consolidate relief and avoid a separate damages proceeding, which is particularly efficient when defendants have not appeared.

For IP Professionals:

• Design patent portfolios covering product aesthetics — even in niche consumer categories like cosmetic stencils — carry real commercial enforcement value; this case demonstrates that a four-patent design portfolio can support a 174-defendant enforcement sweep with relatively low procedural friction.
• Brand protection teams should coordinate with IP counsel to maintain current assignment records and entity structure clarity before initiating multi-defendant actions, as post-filing entity name discrepancies (as seen here between Beth Bender Beauty, LLC and Beth Bender Holdings, LLC) can complicate enforcement and licensing negotiations.

For R&D Teams:

• Product designers and R&D teams developing cosmetic applicator tools — including stencils, guides, or peel-away accessories — should conduct design patent FTO searches against registered ornamental designs in the beauty tools space before commercialization, as this case confirms active enforcement of design aesthetics in this category.
• The existence of four distinct design patents covering variations of eyeliner stencil products (application nos. US29/561912, US29/564195, US29/600041, US29/600043) signals a deliberate portfolio-building strategy around incremental design variations; R&D teams should ensure that design-around efforts address the full scope of a holder’s registered design family, not just a single patent.