Bounce Curl v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in Hair Brush Design Patent Dispute
Bounce Curl, LLC filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous marketplace sellers for infringing hair brush design patent USD1028527S. With no defendants appearing to contest the claims, the court entered default judgment in Bounce Curl’s favour — resolving the case in just 111 days.
Anonymous Sellers Face Default Judgment in Bounce Curl Design Patent Action
On 19 March 2025, Bounce Curl, LLC — a hair care brand — filed a design patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Thomas M. Durkin. The action targeted an undisclosed group of defendants, identified only as partnerships and unincorporated associations on Schedule A, a common procedural device used in e-commerce enforcement actions to pursue anonymous or pseudonymous online sellers alleged to be infringing the same intellectual property simultaneously.
The patent at issue, USD1028527S (Application No. 29/880941), protects the ornamental design of a hair brush. Bounce Curl, represented by Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. — a firm with a track record in Schedule A e-commerce enforcement — moved the court for entry of default and default judgment against all remaining defendants. No defendants filed appearances or responses, and the court entered default judgment, closing the case on 8 July 2025.
The 111-day resolution is consistent with default judgment timelines in Schedule A cases, which typically resolve quickly when defendants fail to appear. The absence of any defence means the court did not conduct a merits review of the infringement or validity claims. The financial terms of the default judgment — including any damages award or injunctive relief — are not fully detailed in the public record, though default judgments in such actions commonly include permanent injunctions and statutory damages.
Filing to Default Judgment in 111 days
111 days from filing to default judgment — faster than typical N.D. Illinois IP dispositions
Default judgment entered: what this outcome means for both parties
Default judgment: plaintiff wins without a merits contest
A default judgment is entered when defendants fail to appear or respond to a complaint. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, the court first enters default, then judgment. This does not involve a merits adjudication — the court accepts the well-pleaded allegations as true. In Schedule A cases, this is a common outcome because defendant sellers often do not engage with U.S. litigation proceedings.
No merits review conductedBounce Curl secures enforceable judgment and likely injunctive relief
Default judgment gives Bounce Curl an enforceable court order against the named defendants. In Schedule A e-commerce actions, courts typically couple default judgments with permanent injunctions and statutory damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289 for design patent infringement, which can reach the infringer’s total profits. The judgment also enables Bounce Curl to seek platform-level de-listing and asset freezes where applicable.
Enforcement-ready outcomeNon-appearing defendants face permanent injunction and damages exposure
Defendants who failed to appear are bound by the default judgment without having contested validity or non-infringement. While defendants may in limited circumstances move to vacate a default judgment under Rule 60(b) — for example, by demonstrating lack of proper service or excusable neglect — the bar is high. The practical effect is an enforceable order that platforms such as Amazon or AliExpress may act upon to remove listings.
Limited post-judgment recourseDesign patent enforcement via Schedule A is a growing e-commerce litigation strategy
This case is consistent with a broader enforcement pattern in which brand owners use Schedule A omnibus actions in Illinois federal courts to pursue offshore or anonymous marketplace sellers at scale. For competing hair care accessory brands and manufacturers, the case signals that Bounce Curl is actively monitoring and enforcing its design IP. Companies selling hair brush products in the U.S. should assess whether their designs clear USD1028527S.
E-commerce IP enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bounce Curl, LLC | Company | Hair care brand and design patent holder — holder of USD1028527S for ornamental hair brush designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified collectively via Schedule A procedural mechanismSearch 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 law firm | Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Thomas M. Durkin | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict record reflects that Bounce Curl moved for entry of default and default judgment after defendants failed to appear — a standard procedural posture in Schedule A e-commerce actions. Because the judgment was entered by default rather than after contested proceedings, the court did not adjudicate the merits of the infringement claim or the validity of USD1028527S. The practical effect is that Bounce Curl holds an enforceable judgment that can be used to compel marketplace platforms to act, though the specific damages quantum and injunctive terms are not fully detailed in the publicly available docket.
USD1028527S — Ornamental Hair Brush Design Patent
USD1028527S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a hair brush, filed under Application No. 29/880941. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the non-functional, aesthetic aspects of an article of manufacture — in this case the visual design of a hair brush. The scope of protection is defined by the drawings in the patent grant, and infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa (Fed. Cir. 2008): whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially similar to the claimed design.
For the hair care accessories market — a category heavily supplied through Asian manufacturing and sold on platforms like Amazon, AliExpress, and Temu — design patents like USD1028527S are strategically important. They are faster and cheaper to obtain than utility patents, yet carry significant enforcement leverage, particularly the total-profits damages remedy under § 289. Bounce Curl’s willingness to litigate against anonymous sellers signals a proactive IP enforcement posture that competitors and private-label hair brush manufacturers should factor into product development and import decisions.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1028527S?
Any company designing, importing, or selling hair brushes through U.S. e-commerce channels should consider whether its product’s ornamental design could be found substantially similar to USD1028527S by an ordinary observer. This is particularly relevant for private-label brands sourcing from manufacturers in China or other low-cost regions, where design differentiation between competing products is often minimal. Given Bounce Curl’s demonstrated willingness to pursue Schedule A enforcement actions, the risk of being named in a future action is real.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can help R&D and product teams map the ornamental design landscape for hair brush accessories, identify close-proximity design patents, and flag potential clearance risks before product launch. Run a design patent FTO on USD1028527S to understand where your product’s design sits relative to the claimed ornamental features, and use Eureka’s litigation monitoring tools to track Bounce Curl’s ongoing enforcement activity.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1028527S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Enforcement Cases in N.D. Illinois
Browse comparable Schedule A design patent infringement actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois targeting e-commerce sellers of hair care and beauty accessories.
What this case signals for the hair care accessory IP landscape
Bounce Curl’s rapid default judgment illustrates how Schedule A enforcement is reshaping design patent risk for e-commerce sellers.
Schedule A actions are a fast-track enforcement tool for design patent holders
By naming anonymous defendants collectively, Bounce Curl obtained a default judgment within 111 days. Brand owners in the hair care and beauty accessories space increasingly use this mechanism to disrupt infringing listings at scale. For marketplace sellers, the risk of a default judgment — absent an active defence — is commercially significant given platform de-listing consequences.
No validity ruling means USD1028527S remains unchallenged and in force
Because no defendant appeared to contest the design patent, there was no invalidity argument tested before the court. USD1028527S remains fully enforceable. Companies in the hair brush and hair care accessories sector should treat this patent as a live design risk and conduct FTO analysis before launching products that could overlap with the claimed ornamental design.
Bounce v Partnerships — key questions answered
The case was resolved by default judgment in favour of plaintiff Bounce Curl, LLC. After defendants failed to appear or respond, the court entered default and default judgment, closing the case on 8 July 2025, approximately 111 days after filing.
The patent at issue is USD1028527S, a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental design of a hair brush, filed under Application No. 29/880941. Design patents protect the non-functional aesthetic appearance of an article and are enforced using the ordinary observer infringement standard.
A Schedule A case is an omnibus litigation strategy where a plaintiff files a single action against multiple anonymous defendants — typically online marketplace sellers — identified on an attached Schedule A. It is commonly used in the Northern District of Illinois to enforce IP rights against large numbers of e-commerce sellers simultaneously, often resulting in default judgments and platform-level de-listing orders.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent infringer is liable for the infringer’s total profits from the sale of the infringing article. This is a broader remedy than the reasonable royalty standard that applies to utility patents, and can result in substantial damages awards even for low-priced consumer goods sold in high volumes on e-commerce platforms.
No. Because the case was resolved by default judgment — with no defendant appearing to contest the claims — the court did not conduct a merits review of validity or infringement. The patent was not tested adversarially in this litigation. USD1028527S remains in force and unchallenged based on the public record of this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.