Bounce Curl v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in Hair Accessory Design Patent Case
Bounce Curl, LLC sued a slate of anonymous e-commerce sellers in the Northern District of Illinois for infringing design patent USD1028527S covering hair accessories and styling products. With no defendants appearing to contest the claims, Judge Sara L. Ellis entered default judgment — resolving the case in 148 days.
Anonymous Sellers, Uncontested Claims, and a Swift Default Win for Bounce Curl
On November 5, 2024, Bounce Curl, LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-11425) against a group of anonymous online marketplace operators identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ The plaintiff asserted infringement of design patent USD1028527S, covering the ornamental design of hair accessories, with accused products spanning hairbrushes, combs, shampoos, conditioners, hair styling products, oils, perfumes, and related goods.
With no defendants entering appearances or filing responsive pleadings, Bounce Curl moved for entry of default and default judgment on January 22, 2025. Judge Sara L. Ellis granted the motion, and the case was terminated on April 2, 2025 — 148 days after filing. Default judgment in this context means the court accepted the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and awarded relief without a merits adjudication, as the defendants forfeited their right to contest by non-appearance.
The rapid resolution is consistent with the typical trajectory of Schedule A enforcement actions, which are designed to move quickly against anonymous infringers before they can transfer assets or evade service. What remains unknown from the public record is the precise monetary award or scope of injunctive relief granted, and whether any platform-level takedown or asset-freeze orders accompanied the judgment — relief commonly sought in this litigation model.
Filing to Default Judgment in 148 days
148 days — faster than the median district court patent case, consistent with uncontested default proceedings
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: what it means when defendants don’t appear
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond to a complaint. The court does not evaluate the merits of the patent claims — it instead accepts the plaintiff’s allegations as admitted and proceeds to determine relief. Here, none of the Schedule A defendants contested Bounce Curl’s design patent infringement claims, leading Judge Ellis to enter judgment in Bounce Curl’s favour.
No merits adjudicationBounce Curl secures enforceable judgment without contested trial
Default judgment delivers Bounce Curl an enforceable court order against the named defendants without requiring it to prove infringement at trial. This typically enables the plaintiff to seek asset freezes, platform takedowns, and monetary damages awards. The judgment strengthens Bounce Curl’s position in follow-on enforcement — though it does not constitute a binding merits ruling on the validity or scope of USD1028527S.
Enforcement without trialNon-appearance results in full forfeiture of defence rights
By failing to appear, the Schedule A defendants forfeited all defences — including invalidity challenges and non-infringement arguments. Any defendant subject to the judgment faces potential asset seizure, platform account suspension, and damages liability. A defendant may seek to vacate a default judgment under limited circumstances (e.g. demonstrating excusable neglect), but the burden is high and the window narrow.
All defences waivedSchedule A actions signal coordinated design patent enforcement in e-commerce
The Schedule A enforcement model — targeting anonymous marketplace sellers en masse — is increasingly common among consumer brand and design patent holders. Swift default judgments, combined with platform cooperation, can disrupt infringing supply chains at scale. For competing hair care and accessories brands selling on major e-commerce platforms, this case signals that design patent holders like Bounce Curl are actively monitoring and litigating unauthorised listings.
E-commerce brand enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bounce Curl, LLC | Company | Hair care brand and design patent holder — holder of USD1028527S for hair accessory ornamental designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified only via Schedule A — no counsel entered appearanceSearch 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 counsel | Kahlia Roe Halpern | Attorney | Counsel for Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lucas Allen Peterson | 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 Sara L. Ellis | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict record reflects a procedural default posture rather than a contested merits ruling. Bounce Curl’s January 22, 2025 motion for entry of default and default judgment was presented to Judge Ellis after defendants failed to appear, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. The court’s acceptance of the motion means all factual allegations — including the existence of infringement of USD1028527S — are deemed admitted. No finding on patent validity, claim scope, or the degree of infringement was made by the court.
USD1028527S — Ornamental Design for Hair Accessories
USD1028527S (application no. US29/880941) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a hair accessory. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cover the way an article looks, not how it functions — making the visual similarity between the patented design and accused products the central question in any infringement analysis. The patent was asserted across a broad product range including hairbrushes, combs, styling products, and related accessories, suggesting Bounce Curl views the design as applicable across its core product line.
In the competitive hair care accessories market — dominated by mass-market e-commerce listings on platforms like Amazon, Temu, and AliExpress — design patents serve as a front-line enforcement tool against low-cost copycat products. USD1028527S gives Bounce Curl a basis to challenge products that replicate the visual identity of its branded accessories. For competitors and private-label importers, the breadth of accused product categories in this case suggests Bounce Curl is prepared to enforce aggressively across adjacent product lines.
Should you run an FTO against USD1028527S?
Any company designing, importing, or selling hair accessories, hairbrushes, styling tools, or related personal care products on e-commerce platforms should assess their exposure to USD1028527S. Design patent infringement is assessed through the ‘ordinary observer’ test — whether an ordinary consumer would mistake the accused product for the patented design. If your product’s visual appearance resembles Bounce Curl’s registered design, you may face enforcement action regardless of functional differences.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map the ornamental design landscape around hair accessories, identify design patent families held by Bounce Curl and competitors, and flag visual similarity risks before products go to market. With Schedule A enforcement moving faster than traditional litigation, early FTO analysis is a cost-effective safeguard for brands sourcing or launching in the hair care accessories category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1028527S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Cases in the Northern District of Illinois
Related design patent infringement actions filed against Schedule A e-commerce defendants in the Northern District of Illinois involving consumer product and hair care accessory designs.
What this case signals for the hair care and e-commerce design patent landscape
Default judgments in Schedule A cases are fast and enforceable — but they also reveal broader enforcement patterns worth tracking.
Design patent enforcement via Schedule A is accelerating in the Northern District of Illinois
The Northern District of Illinois has become a preferred venue for Schedule A design patent actions due to its procedural familiarity with the model and willingness to grant ex parte TROs and asset freezes. Bounce Curl’s 148-day resolution is consistent with this trend. IP teams at consumer brand companies should monitor this docket for emerging enforcement patterns.
USD1028527S survives unchallenged — but validity was never tested
Default judgment does not validate the patent. No court examined whether USD1028527S is valid, novel, or non-obvious. Any future defendant who appears and contests the action could still raise invalidity. Companies in the hair accessories and styling product space should assess whether the ornamental design claimed poses a genuine infringement risk before assuming the judgment resolves all uncertainty.
Bounce v Partnerships — key questions answered
The case was resolved by default judgment in favour of Bounce Curl, LLC on April 2, 2025, 148 days after filing. No defendant appeared or contested the claims, and Judge Sara L. Ellis entered judgment for the plaintiff after Bounce Curl moved for default on January 22, 2025.
Bounce Curl asserted U.S. design patent USD1028527S (application no. US29/880941), which covers the ornamental design of a hair accessory. The asserted product categories included hairbrushes, combs, styling products, shampoos, conditioners, oils, and perfumes.
In Schedule A patent and IP enforcement actions, defendants are not individually named in the public complaint. Instead, they are identified on a sealed or separately filed schedule, typically comprising anonymous online marketplace sellers. This structure allows plaintiffs to sue large numbers of e-commerce sellers efficiently and to seek platform-level asset freezes early in the litigation.
No. A default judgment does not constitute a merits ruling on patent validity or claim scope. Because no defendant appeared to contest the case, the court accepted Bounce Curl’s allegations as admitted without examining whether USD1028527S is valid, novel, or correctly claimed. A future contested defendant could still raise invalidity arguments.
Bounce Curl was represented by Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., a Chicago-based IP litigation firm known for filing a high volume of Schedule A enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois. Lead attorneys included Justin R. Gaudio, Amy Crout Ziegler, Andrew Daniel Burnham, and several associates.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.