Bounce Curl v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Hair Brush Design Patent
Bounce Curl, LLC secured a default judgment and permanent injunction against more than 50 anonymous e-commerce seller aliases operating on Amazon, Temu, Walmart, and PayPal, all found to infringe U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527 covering the Bounce Curl hair brush design. The case resolved in 116 days with profit disgorgement awards totaling over $35,000 enforced directly through third-party payment processors.
Design patent ambush: Bounce Curl targets 50+ e-commerce counterfeiters
Bounce Curl, LLC filed suit on August 29, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Andrea R. Wood, asserting infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527 — a design patent for a hair brush issued on May 28, 2024 — against a cohort of anonymous seller aliases operating e-commerce storefronts on platforms including Amazon, Temu, and Walmart. This is a classic ‘Schedule A’ enforcement action, a litigation model heavily used in the Northern District of Illinois to pursue large numbers of offshore or pseudonymous online counterfeiters simultaneously.
The case closed on December 23, 2025 via default judgment, entered because all named defendants failed to answer or otherwise appear. Under default judgment procedure, the complaint’s allegations are deemed admitted, enabling the court to find patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and award disgorgement of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 — the design patent-specific damages provision that permits recovery of a defendant’s total profits from infringing sales. Individual profit awards ranged from the statutory floor of $250 to $11,679.73 for a single seller alias, with the total across all defendants exceeding $35,000. A permanent injunction was also entered against all defaulting defendants.
Resolution in 116 days is consistent with — and arguably towards the faster end of — Schedule A default judgment timelines, suggesting no defendants mounted any defense or filed motions to vacate. The TRO-to-default pipeline, including asset freezes through payment processors, appears to have functioned as intended, effectively cutting off defendants’ access to funds before they could transfer proceeds. What the public record does not reveal is whether any of the frozen assets were sufficient to satisfy the profit awards, or whether some defendants had already moved funds beyond the reach of the third-party providers.
Filing to Default Judgment in 116 days
116-day resolution — fast for a multi-defendant Schedule A design patent action
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: allegations admitted, liability automatic
When defendants fail to appear, a court may enter default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. The complaint’s factual allegations are deemed admitted, bypassing trial. The court still conducts an independent inquiry into damages and jurisdiction. Here, Judge Wood found personal jurisdiction on the basis that defendants targeted U.S. and Illinois consumers via their storefronts, and awarded profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 — the design patent profit disgorgement statute.
Liability deemed admittedPermanent injunction and asset freeze secured across major platforms
Bounce Curl obtained a permanent injunction, disgorgement of profits, and ongoing authority to serve the order on new financial accounts as they are discovered. Third-party providers — Amazon, Temu, Walmart, and PayPal — were ordered to freeze and release funds within seven days. The $10,000 surety bond was returned. The enforcement architecture here means Bounce Curl can continue recovering funds without returning to court for each new account identified.
Injunction + profit disgorgementPermanent sales ban and frozen accounts for all seller aliases
All 50+ seller aliases are permanently enjoined from offering, selling, or importing the infringing hair brush product. Their financial accounts on covered platforms are frozen up to the profit award amounts. Defendants who failed to appear lose any right to contest liability or quantum of damages at this stage, though a defendant can in principle move to vacate a default judgment under Rule 60(b) if they can show good cause — a high bar they have not yet cleared.
Permanent injunction enteredSchedule A enforcement raises the cost of design patent copying on marketplaces
This case illustrates the effectiveness of the Northern District of Illinois Schedule A model for design patent holders. By combining a TRO with platform-level asset freezes, brand owners can neutralise infringing storefronts and recover profits before sellers can relocate funds. For marketplace sellers operating in competitive accessories categories, this signals elevated enforcement risk even for newly registered design patents — D1,028,527 was issued only in May 2024, barely 15 months before the default judgment.
Marketplace enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bounce Curl, LLC | Company | Hair care accessories brand — holder of U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | 50+ anonymous e-commerce seller aliases operating on Amazon, Temu, Walmart, and PayPalSearch 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 | Lucas Allen Peterson | Attorney | Counsel for Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Green, Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Husch Blackwell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bounce Curl, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Andrea R. Wood | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment finding is grounded in the court’s independent jurisdiction analysis — notably, the court satisfied itself of personal jurisdiction even without adversarial briefing, relying on defendants’ targeted sales to U.S. and Illinois consumers. Profit awards under § 289 were set at $250 per defendant as a floor for those with no quantifiable sales data, rising to over $11,600 for the highest-revenue alias. The permanent injunction extends to downstream facilitation, meaning third-party platforms face ongoing compliance obligations.
USD1,028,527 — Bounce Curl ornamental hair brush design
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527 (application no. 29/880,941) covers the ornamental design of a hair brush as shown and described in the patent drawings. Issued May 28, 2024, this is a design patent — it protects the visual appearance of the product, not its functional attributes. Design patents in the U.S. have a 15-year term from grant. The ‘D’ designation distinguishes it from utility patents; infringement is assessed by whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product substantially similar to the claimed design.
The strategic significance of this patent lies in its breadth of application to the anonymous marketplace seller ecosystem. Within 15 months of issuance, Bounce Curl was able to identify over 50 seller aliases across major platforms offering a product it contends is substantially similar to its registered design. For brands in the hair care accessories space, this case demonstrates that early design patent filing — combined with vigilant marketplace monitoring — can generate enforceable rights against copycat listings well before infringement volumes become commercially significant.
Should you conduct an FTO against USD1,028,527?
Any brand, private-label seller, or manufacturer developing hair brushes — particularly curl-styling accessories — for sale on Amazon, Temu, Walmart, or similar marketplaces should assess their exposure to D1,028,527. The Northern District of Illinois Schedule A mechanism means enforcement can be rapid and asset-freezing. Products that share visual similarity with the Bounce Curl design are at risk even if independently developed, because design patent infringement is assessed by overall visual impression, not intent.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual and structural claim scope of D1,028,527, identify earlier prior art that could support an IPR petition challenging validity, and flag related pending design applications in Bounce Curl’s portfolio. For in-house IP teams managing marketplace product lines, Eureka’s design patent landscape analysis provides the clearance data needed before a new SKU goes live on a major platform.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1028527S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving hair care and accessories design patents pursued via Schedule A enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous e-commerce sellers.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Hair brush-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedBounce Curl, LLC’s broader IP enforcement history
Bounce Curl, LLC’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the hair care accessories IP landscape
Schedule A design patent enforcement is an increasingly viable tool for small brands. This case shows how quickly asset freezes can neutralise anonymous marketplace infringers.
New design patents can be enforced immediately — this case shows how fast
D1,028,527 issued May 2024; suit filed August 2025; default judgment December 2025. Brands with recently issued design patents should not wait for large-scale infringement before acting. The Northern District of Illinois Schedule A pipeline can move from filing to permanent injunction in under four months when defendants fail to appear.
Payment processor freezes are the real enforcement lever in marketplace cases
The operative remedy here is not the injunction — it is the coordinated asset freeze across Amazon, Temu, Walmart, and PayPal. IP owners who secure TROs early can lock infringing revenues before defendants transfer funds offshore. This makes swift filing strategy as important as underlying patent strength in Schedule A cases.
§ 289 profit disgorgement makes design patents disproportionately powerful
Unlike utility patents, design patents allow recovery of the infringer’s total profits from the infringing article under 35 U.S.C. § 289 — with no apportionment. In high-volume, low-margin marketplace businesses, this can exceed the actual harm to the brand owner. Competitors and marketplace sellers in accessories categories should conduct design patent clearance before launching new product SKUs.
Schedule A defendants who do appear can still challenge jurisdiction and validity
Defaults are not inevitable. Defendants who respond can contest personal jurisdiction, challenge design patent validity via IPR at the USPTO, or negotiate early settlement for a fraction of the default award. The public record for this case shows no defendant appeared — but a single well-advised seller mounting a defense could shift the risk calculus for the plaintiff in future actions.
Bounce v Partnerships — key questions answered
D1,028,527 is a U.S. design patent issued May 28, 2024, covering the ornamental design of a hair brush. In case 1:25-cv-10383, Bounce Curl asserted this patent against over 50 anonymous e-commerce seller aliases selling a visually similar hair brush product on platforms including Amazon, Temu, and Walmart.
A Schedule A case names defendants not by their real identities but by seller aliases listed on an attached schedule. It is used in the N.D. Illinois to pursue multiple anonymous or offshore online sellers simultaneously. The court permits electronic service and coordinated platform-level asset freezes, making it an efficient enforcement vehicle for design patent holders targeting counterfeit marketplace listings.
Under § 289, a design patent infringer is liable for their total profits from articles to which the patented design has been applied, without apportionment. In this case, defendants with no documented sales received the minimum $250 award, while those with recoverable account balances received awards matching their actual profits — the highest single award being $11,679.73.
Yes. A defaulting defendant may move to vacate the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), arguing lack of proper service, lack of personal jurisdiction, or excusable neglect. However, this is a high bar. In Schedule A cases, courts have typically found that electronic service via the marketplace platform email satisfies due process, making successful Rule 60(b) motions uncommon.
The order requires those third-party providers to freeze financial accounts connected to the defaulting seller aliases within seven days, cease displaying infringing advertisements, and release funds up to the profit award amounts directly to Bounce Curl. Bounce Curl also retains ongoing authority to serve the order on newly discovered accounts without returning to court.
Monitor design patent enforcement risk in your product category
If you sell hair care accessories on major marketplaces, D1,028,527 and similar design patents represent active enforcement risk. Use PatSnap Eureka to run an FTO, track new filings, and monitor Schedule A actions before your SKU becomes the target.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.