Bounce Curl LLC Wins Default Judgment Over Hair Tool Design Patent in 80 Days
Bounce Curl, LLC sued a network of anonymous e-commerce sellers operating on Amazon, Temu, TikTok, and other platforms for infringing U.S. Design Patent D1,028,527. The Illinois Northern District Court granted a default judgment, permanent injunction, and disgorgement of profits — all within 80 days of filing.
Design Patent Enforcement Against Anonymous Marketplace Sellers
On November 19, 2024, Bounce Curl, LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a group of defendants identified only as partnerships and unincorporated associations on Schedule A — a common procedural tactic used to pursue anonymous or pseudonymous e-commerce sellers operating across platforms including Amazon, Temu, TikTok, DHgate, Walmart, and Etsy. The asserted patent, U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527, covers the ornamental design of a Bounce Curl hair styling tool and was issued May 28, 2024 — just months before the suit was filed.
The case closed on February 7, 2025, via default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, following the defendants’ complete failure to appear or respond. The court found personal jurisdiction satisfied by evidence that each defendant’s e-commerce storefront actively targeted U.S. and Illinois consumers, accepted U.S. dollar payments, and offered shipping to Illinois. Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, the court awarded infringer’s profits — specifically $500 against defendant An An Sheng Co., Ltd. — and issued a permanent injunction barring all future sales of the infringing product.
The 80-day resolution timeline is consistent with the accelerated pace typical of Schedule A design patent cases in the Northern District of Illinois, where courts have developed streamlined procedures for default scenarios involving overseas marketplace sellers. The outcome is notable for the breadth of the injunction, which extends to third-party platform providers including Amazon, TikTok, Alibaba, and PayPal, requiring account disabling and asset restraint within seven days. What remains unclear from the public record is the full number of Schedule A defendants and the total volume of infringing sales across platforms, as only one named defendant’s profits figure appears in the judgment.
Filing to Default Judgment in 80 days
80 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the median Schedule A case lifecycle
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment under Rule 55: allegations deemed admitted
When defendants fail to appear or respond after proper service, the court may enter default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Here, the court found electronic service via publication and email was reasonably calculated to provide notice. All allegations in the amended complaint — including design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 — were deemed admitted by operation of law. No merits defense was ever raised.
Rule 55 DefaultBounce Curl secures permanent injunction and profit disgorgement
Bounce Curl obtained its full requested relief: a permanent injunction blocking all future sales of the infringing product, disgorgement of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, and orders requiring third-party platforms to disable accounts and freeze assets. The $1,000 bond posted for the preliminary injunction was also returned. The patent’s enforceability is reinforced, and Bounce Curl retains authority to initiate supplemental proceedings to recover any unpaid damages.
Full relief grantedNon-appearing sellers face permanent platform bans and asset seizure
Defaulting defendants are permanently enjoined from selling the infringing product on any platform and face account termination across Amazon, TikTok, Temu, Alibaba, eBay, Etsy, DHgate, and Walmart. Financial accounts held by PayPal, Ant Financial, Amazon Pay, and other processors are subject to asset restraint and release to the plaintiff. Sellers who did not appear have no practical appellate path absent a successful Rule 55(c) motion to set aside the default, which requires showing good cause.
Assets frozen; accounts disabledBroad injunction signals high enforcement risk for marketplace design copycats
This judgment illustrates the potency of design patent enforcement in the Northern District of Illinois against Schedule A defendants. The court’s willingness to extend injunctive relief to major platforms — requiring action within seven calendar days — creates immediate commercial disruption for sellers of similar hair tool designs. Brands with recently issued design patents can move quickly and obtain substantial relief even where individual damages awards appear modest, given the platform-level reach of the injunction.
Platform-level enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bounce Curl, LLC | Company | Hair care brand and design patent holder — owner of U.S. Design Patent D1,028,527Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers operating marketplace storefronts targeting U.S. consumersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Daniel Burnham | Attorney | Counsel for Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Van Nacht | Attorney | Counsel for Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin R. Gaudio | Attorney | Counsel for Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Tyler Joseph | Attorney | Counsel for Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge LaShonda A. Hunt | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment is comprehensive in scope: it combines a finding of liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271, a profit award under § 289, and a permanent injunction that binds not only the defaulting defendants but also major third-party platform providers. Because this is a default judgment rather than a contested ruling, the court did not evaluate the patent’s validity or scope on the merits — the infringement finding rests solely on the admitted allegations of the amended complaint. This limits the judgment’s precedential weight on claim scope but does not diminish its enforcement effectiveness against the named defendants.
USD1028527S — Bounce Curl Hair Tool Ornamental Design
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527 protects the ornamental appearance of the Bounce Curl hair styling tool — specifically its visual design as depicted in the patent drawings. Filed under application number US29/880941, the patent issued on May 28, 2024, and covers the aesthetic configuration of a hair tool in the curly hair care segment. Design patents protect only the ornamental features shown in the drawings, not functional aspects, and infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ standard from Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.
The rapid enforcement of D1,028,527 — within months of issuance — reflects a growing trend among specialty hair care brands to use design patents as front-line tools against marketplace counterfeit and copycat products. The hair styling accessories segment is particularly vulnerable to fast-follower competition from overseas sellers on platforms like Amazon and Temu, where visual similarity to an established brand’s product drives consumer confusion. This patent’s enforceability is now confirmed at the default judgment level, and the permanent injunction covering all major e-commerce platforms substantially raises the barrier for potential infringers.
Should your hair tool products be cleared against USD1028527S?
Product teams and sourcing managers developing curl-defining brushes, diffusers, hair tools, or accessories with a similar form factor to the Bounce Curl product should consider an FTO review against D1,028,527. The ornamental design is now actively enforced, and the Northern District of Illinois has demonstrated a willingness to grant rapid injunctive relief. Sellers on Amazon, Temu, TikTok Shop, and DHgate are especially exposed given the platform-level reach of this judgment.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to compare product designs against the visual claims of active U.S. design patents — including D1,028,527 — and identify design-around opportunities before launch. Eureka can map the full landscape of Bounce Curl’s design patent portfolio and flag related applications, helping you assess commercial risk across hair tool categories before reaching the marketplace.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1028527S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Cases in Hair Care & Beauty Accessories
Browse comparable Schedule A design patent enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois involving hair care and beauty accessory products.
What this case signals for the hair care and beauty accessories IP landscape
Schedule A design patent enforcement in Illinois is a proven, rapid-resolution strategy for consumer goods brands targeting anonymous e-commerce sellers.
Design patents are potent enforcement tools against marketplace sellers
The Northern District of Illinois has established streamlined procedures for Schedule A cases, enabling plaintiffs to obtain preliminary injunctions, account freezes, and default judgments in under 90 days. Brands in hair care, beauty accessories, and consumer goods with distinctive product designs should consider design patent filing as a front-line enforcement strategy against overseas e-commerce competition.
Platform-level injunctions amplify individual enforcement actions
The judgment’s scope — requiring Amazon, TikTok, Temu, Alibaba, eBay, Etsy, DHgate, and Walmart to disable accounts and freeze assets within seven days — demonstrates that a single default judgment can disrupt an infringer’s entire multi-platform operation. This makes design patent enforcement economically viable even when per-defendant damages awards are modest.
Bounce v Partnerships — key questions answered
U.S. Design Patent D1,028,527, titled the ‘Bounce Curl Design,’ covers the ornamental appearance of a curl-defining hair styling tool. It was filed under application number US29/880941 and issued May 28, 2024. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of a product as depicted in patent drawings, assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ infringement standard.
Bounce Curl, LLC filed suit on November 19, 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous e-commerce sellers for infringing D1,028,527. Defendants failed to appear. The court entered a default judgment on February 7, 2025, awarding profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, issuing a permanent injunction, and ordering third-party platforms including Amazon, TikTok, and Temu to disable defendant accounts within seven days.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent infringer is liable to the patent holder for the infringer’s total profits from the sale of any article of manufacture to which the infringing design was applied. This is a strict standard that does not require proof of intent or willfulness. In this case, the court awarded $500 in profits against defendant An An Sheng Co., Ltd. under this provision.
Schedule A cases are a litigation strategy used primarily in the Northern District of Illinois where plaintiffs sue large groups of anonymous e-commerce sellers under a single action, identifying them on a schedule filed under seal. Courts allow electronic service via publication and email, and the accelerated procedures enable rapid preliminary injunctions and default judgments against non-appearing defendants — often within 60–120 days of filing.
Yes, but the standard is demanding. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), a defendant must show good cause to set aside a default, and courts consider whether the default was willful, whether setting it aside would prejudice the plaintiff, and whether the defendant has a meritorious defense. Defendants who had actual notice of proceedings and still failed to appear face a higher burden in demonstrating good cause.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.