Bounce Curl v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in 63 Days
Bounce Curl, LLC brought a design patent infringement action against anonymous online marketplace sellers over its hair brush design patent USD1028527S. Filed in the Northern District of Illinois, the case resolved in just 63 days when the defendants failed to appear, resulting in a default judgment — a swift enforcement outcome consistent with Schedule A e-commerce enforcement strategy.
Design patent enforcement via Schedule A: a swift default outcome
On January 8, 2025, Bounce Curl, LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:25-cv-00193) against an anonymous group of defendants — identified only as partnerships and unincorporated associations listed on Schedule A — operating online marketplace stores. The action centred on alleged infringement of USD1028527S, a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a hair brush. Plaintiff was represented by Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., a firm with an established practice in Schedule A e-commerce enforcement actions.
The case closed on March 12, 2025, via default judgment — the most common termination mechanism in Schedule A actions, arising when defendants fail to respond or appear. Bounce Curl moved for entry of default and default judgment against all remaining defendants on Schedule A who had not previously been dismissed. The judgment, presided over by Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., suggests the plaintiff secured relief — typically injunctions and damages — without any contested merits adjudication.
At 63 days from filing to closure, the resolution is notably fast, consistent with the accelerated posture of Schedule A design patent enforcement cases, which often leverage ex parte TROs and asset freezes to compel swift outcomes. The public record does not disclose the number of individual defendants, the quantum of damages awarded, or whether any defendants were individually named. What drove the rapid closure was almost certainly non-appearance by the anonymous overseas sellers, rather than any substantive legal development on the merits of the design patent claims.
Filing to Default Judgment in 63 days
63 days — well below median district court IP case duration of 2+ years
Default judgment entered: what it means for Bounce Curl and the defendants
Default judgment: winning without a fight
A default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true. Bounce Curl did not need to prove infringement at trial — the defendants’ non-appearance effectively conceded liability. This mechanism is standard in Schedule A enforcement campaigns targeting anonymous e-commerce sellers.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 defaultBounce Curl secures judgment without merits contest
Default judgment typically entitles Bounce Curl to permanent injunctive relief, marketplace account takedowns, and monetary damages — potentially statutory damages under the Lanham Act or design patent damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Because no defendant appeared, the relief awarded is unlikely to be publicly detailed. The patent USD1028527S remains in force and has not been challenged on validity.
Injunction + damages likelyNon-appearing sellers face enforceable judgment
Defendants who fail to appear face binding default judgments that can be used to compel online marketplace platforms — Amazon, eBay, Etsy, and others — to remove listings and freeze or transfer funds held in seller accounts. Because the defendants were anonymised on Schedule A, individual enforcement depends on platform cooperation. Any defendant wishing to vacate the judgment would need to show good cause under Rule 55(c).
Platform-level enforcementDesign patent as a rapid e-commerce enforcement tool
This case illustrates how design patents — often dismissed as weaker than utility patents — can be powerful enforcement instruments against anonymous online sellers. The ornamental design claim in USD1028527S provided a low-threshold basis for TRO and default judgment procedures. Competitors and third-party sellers in the hair care accessories space should note that design patent assertions via Schedule A actions can result in account suspension and fund freezes within weeks of filing.
Design patent enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bounce Curl, LLC | Company | Hair care product brand and design patent holder — holder of USD1028527SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified collectively on Schedule ASearch 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 John J. Tharp, Jr. | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text confirms that Bounce Curl moved for default and default judgment against all remaining Schedule A defendants who had not previously been dismissed. The phrasing ‘not yet been dismissed’ suggests some defendants may have settled or been voluntarily dismissed prior to the default motion — a common pattern in Schedule A cases where some sellers respond to TRO pressure. No merits adjudication occurred; the judgment rests entirely on defendants’ failure to appear.
USD1028527S — ornamental design for a hair brush
USD1028527S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a hair brush — specifically, the visual and aesthetic design elements of the product rather than its functional characteristics. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect novel, original, and ornamental designs for articles of manufacture. The corrected application number US29/880941 places this in the design patent series, typically prosecuted on an 18–30 month timeline. Design patents have a term of 15 years from grant under the Hague Agreement amendments.
In the hair care accessories market, design patents serve a dual commercial function: they protect brand-distinctive product aesthetics and provide a low-cost litigation mechanism against copycat sellers on online marketplaces. USD1028527S represents Bounce Curl’s proprietary brush design, giving the company a basis to challenge visually similar products regardless of functional differences. For competitors developing hair brushes with similar silhouettes, profiles, or surface patterns, this patent represents a direct freedom-to-operate concern — particularly given Bounce Curl’s demonstrated willingness to file and pursue enforcement rapidly.
Should you run an FTO against USD1028527S?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or selling hair brushes through online marketplaces — Amazon, eBay, Etsy, Walmart Marketplace, or similar platforms — should assess exposure to USD1028527S before launching or continuing to list products. Design patent infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: would an ordinary purchaser mistake the accused product for the patented design? The visual similarity threshold is lower than utility patent claim construction, meaning even minor design overlaps can create risk. Given Bounce Curl’s active enforcement posture, sellers with visually similar brush designs face a credible and fast-moving threat.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD1028527S against your product’s design parameters, identify prior art that might support an invalidity challenge, and flag pending design applications in adjacent brush and hair care product categories. Eureka’s landscape analysis can also surface other active Schedule A plaintiffs asserting design patents in the hair accessories space, giving your IP and product teams a fuller picture of enforcement risk before a TRO lands in your inbox.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1028527S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving design patent infringement actions against Schedule A online marketplace defendants in the N.D. Illinois District Court, covering hair care and consumer accessories.
What this case signals for the hair care accessories IP landscape
Bounce Curl’s 63-day default judgment reflects a deliberate, repeatable enforcement model that design patent holders across consumer goods categories are increasingly deploying.
Schedule A actions are accelerating design patent enforcement timelines
By grouping anonymous online sellers under a single Schedule A complaint, IP holders compress litigation timelines dramatically. The 63-day resolution here is consistent with the broader N.D. Illinois pattern for default-driven Schedule A cases. Brands with registered design patents in consumer goods should consider whether this model fits their enforcement strategy.
USD1028527S remains unchallenged — a live risk for hair brush sellers
No IPR, PGR, or validity challenge was filed or adjudicated. The design patent for the Bounce Curl hair brush stands intact. Any seller offering a visually similar hair brush on third-party marketplaces should conduct a freedom-to-operate review before listing, given the demonstrated willingness to litigate quickly and aggressively.
Bounce v Partnerships — key questions answered
The case closed on March 12, 2025 via default judgment in favour of Bounce Curl, LLC. The defendants — anonymous online marketplace sellers listed on Schedule A — failed to appear, and the court entered default judgment against all remaining defendants who had not previously been dismissed. The case lasted 63 days from filing.
Bounce Curl asserted U.S. design patent USD1028527S (application number US29/880941), which protects the ornamental design of a hair brush. Design patents protect the visual and aesthetic appearance of a product rather than its functional attributes, and have a 15-year term from grant.
A Schedule A action allows a plaintiff to sue multiple anonymous online sellers in a single complaint by listing them on an attached schedule. Courts in the Northern District of Illinois routinely hear these cases. Plaintiffs typically seek ex parte TROs to freeze marketplace accounts and prevent asset dissipation before defendants are notified, making non-appearance particularly costly for sellers.
No. A default judgment is entered on the basis of non-appearance by defendants and does not constitute a merits adjudication on the validity or enforceability of the patent. USD1028527S has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or any inter partes proceeding, and remains in force as a valid design patent.
Bounce Curl was represented by Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., with attorneys Amy Crout Ziegler, Andrew Daniel Burnham, Jennifer Van Nacht, and Justin R. Gaudio listed as counsel. Greer, Burns & Crain is one of the most active firms in Schedule A enforcement litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.