Bounce Curl v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in 57 Days for Hair Brush Design Patent
Bounce Curl, LLC secured a swift default judgment against 29 online marketplace sellers accused of infringing U.S. Design Patent USD1028527S covering a hair brush. The Northern District of Illinois granted a permanent injunction and ordered profit disgorgement under 35 U.S.C. § 289 across platforms including Amazon, TikTok, Temu, and AliExpress — all within 57 days of filing.
Design Patent Enforcement via Schedule A: A Rapid Default Win for Bounce Curl
On November 27, 2024, Bounce Curl, LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a group of unnamed defendants — identified collectively as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — alleging infringement of U.S. Design Patent USD1028527S, which covers the ornamental design of a hair brush. The case is a classic ‘Schedule A’ enforcement action, a procedural mechanism favored by U.S. brand owners targeting clusters of overseas e-commerce sellers operating across platforms such as Amazon, AliExpress, TikTok, Temu, and DHgate.
The case closed on January 23, 2025 — just 57 days after filing — when Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins granted Bounce Curl’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in its entirety. Because none of the 29 named seller aliases appeared or responded, the court entered final judgment against all defaulting defendants, issued a permanent injunction barring further sale or importation of the infringing product, and ordered profit disgorgement under 35 U.S.C. § 289. Individual profit awards ranged from $250 to $5,051.68 per seller, with third-party platforms directed to freeze and release funds within seven days.
The 57-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated timeline that Schedule A default proceedings typically achieve in the Northern District of Illinois, which has become a preferred venue for this enforcement strategy. The absence of any defendant response — and therefore any merits challenge — means no invalidity or non-infringement analysis appears on the public record. What remains unknown is the total aggregate recovery and whether any defendants will move to vacate the default. The permanent injunction’s reach across major global platforms suggests Bounce Curl pursued this action primarily to disrupt infringing supply chains rather than to litigate on the merits.
Filing to Default Judgment in 57 days
57-day resolution — significantly faster than the average N.D. Ill. patent case (2–3 years)
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: liability established without a merits fight
A default judgment is entered when defendants fail to appear or respond. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true. Here, Judge Jenkins granted Bounce Curl’s motion in its entirety under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, meaning no invalidity defence, no non-infringement argument, and no claim construction dispute was ever litigated. Profit disgorgement was calculated under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which allows recovery of a design infringer’s total profits from the infringing article.
No merits adjudicationBounce Curl wins permanent injunction and profit disgorgement
Bounce Curl obtained the full relief requested: a permanent injunction prohibiting sale, importation, and aiding of infringing activity, plus profit awards against each seller alias. Third-party platforms — including Amazon, TikTok, Temu, Alibaba, and PayPal — are ordered to freeze and transfer defendant funds within seven days. The surety bond of $10,000 posted at the TRO stage is also returned to plaintiff’s counsel, Greer, Burns & Crain.
Full relief granted29 seller aliases face frozen accounts and permanent ban
Each of the 29 defaulting defendants is permanently enjoined from selling or importing the infringing hair brush through any online marketplace. Their financial accounts across major platforms are subject to immediate restraint and transfer to the plaintiff. Defendants retain the right to move to vacate the default under Rule 60(b), but must demonstrate good cause, a meritorious defence, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff — a high bar given the deliberate non-appearance.
Accounts frozen; injunction permanentSchedule A enforcement as a platform-level supply chain tool
This outcome illustrates the commercial logic of Schedule A design patent enforcement: a single filing can neutralise dozens of competing sellers simultaneously, with platform operators doing enforcement work via takedown and fund-freeze obligations. For competing hair care brands and white-label manufacturers, the combination of a permanent injunction and 35 U.S.C. § 289 profit disgorgement — without any royalty cap — signals meaningful financial and operational risk for sellers copying ornamental product designs on global e-commerce platforms.
Platform-level enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bounce Curl, LLC | Company | Hair care brand and design patent holder — holder of USD1028527S (hair brush ornamental design)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | 29 anonymous online marketplace sellers operating across Amazon, TikTok, Temu, AliExpress, DHgate, and related platformsSearch 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 Lindsay C. Jenkins | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants Bounce Curl’s motion ‘in its entirety,’ signalling that the pleadings and damages calculations went unchallenged. Profit awards were computed individually per seller alias under 35 U.S.C. § 289, with some capped at $250 — consistent with limited traceable revenue in frozen accounts. The permanent injunction’s explicit reach to affiliates, new entities, and third-party platforms is deliberately broad, designed to prevent circumvention through re-registration. Because this is a default judgment with no merits adjudication, USD1028527S has not been tested for validity or scope in adversarial proceedings.
USD1028527S — Ornamental Design of a Hair Brush
U.S. Design Patent USD1028527S (Application No. 29/880941) protects the ornamental — not functional — design of a hair brush. Design patents grant a 15-year term from grant and cover the visual appearance of an article, as embodied in the patent’s drawings. The scope of protection turns on the ‘ordinary observer’ test: would a consumer, familiar with the prior art, be deceived into thinking the accused product is the same as the patented design? Because design patents are drawing-dependent, even subtle visual differences can be dispositive in adversarial proceedings — though that question was not reached here.
In the hair care accessories market, design patents play an outsized enforcement role because product differentiation is heavily aesthetic. USD1028527S positions Bounce Curl to challenge visually similar hair brush designs across global e-commerce channels. The use of § 289 profit disgorgement — rather than reasonable royalty — amplifies the commercial stakes for any seller whose product is deemed substantially similar. Competitors, OEM manufacturers, and private-label importers supplying brushes with similar silhouettes or handle geometry should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk and conduct clearance analysis before market entry.
Should you run an FTO against USD1028527S before launching a hair brush?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling hair brushes — whether through Amazon, TikTok Shop, Temu, Shopify storefronts, or physical retail — should assess design clearance against USD1028527S. The Schedule A enforcement model means that even small-volume sellers are viable targets. OEM suppliers, brand aggregators, and private-label operators in the hair styling tools category are particularly exposed: a single default judgment can freeze platform accounts and forfeit all traceable revenues with no opportunity to contest validity.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent lets R&D and product teams run visual similarity screens against USD1028527S and related design patent families in minutes. Upload your product renders or CAD outputs, and Eureka identifies overlapping design claims, prosecution history disclaimers, and prior art that could support invalidity arguments — essential groundwork before product launch or before responding to a cease-and-desist or TRO notice in a Schedule A action.
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
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent enforcement actions filed in the N.D. Ill. targeting e-commerce sellers of hair care and consumer accessories.
What this case signals for the hair care and e-commerce IP landscape
Schedule A default judgments in the N.D. Ill. are a scalable enforcement weapon. Here is what IP teams need to know.
N.D. Ill. Schedule A cases can resolve in under 60 days via default
This case closed in 57 days — consistent with the Northern District of Illinois’s reputation as a fast, plaintiff-friendly venue for Schedule A enforcement actions. Brand owners with design patents covering consumer products sold on e-commerce platforms should evaluate whether this strategy fits their enforcement roadmap, particularly where overseas sellers are unlikely to appear.
35 U.S.C. § 289 removes the royalty ceiling — total profits are at stake
Unlike utility patent damages capped at reasonable royalty, § 289 allows recovery of an infringer’s entire profit on the infringing article. In default proceedings where defendants cannot negotiate, every dollar of traceable platform revenue is potentially recoverable. This makes design patents commercially powerful enforcement tools against high-volume, low-margin marketplace sellers.
Bounce v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment and permanent injunction in favour of Bounce Curl, LLC on January 23, 2025 — 57 days after filing. All 29 defaulting defendants were found liable for infringing USD1028527S, with profit awards calculated under 35 U.S.C. § 289 and platform accounts ordered frozen and transferred to the plaintiff.
Section 289 allows a design patent holder to recover the infringer’s total profits from the sale of the infringing article, with no apportionment requirement. In this default judgment, profit awards were calculated per seller alias based on traceable platform revenue, ranging from $250 (minimum floor applied where account balances were low) to $5,051.68 for the highest-earning defendant.
The permanent injunction and fund-freeze orders explicitly cover Amazon, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish.com, Walmart, Etsy, Temu, TikTok, DHgate, eBay, PayPal, Alipay, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay. These third-party providers are required to disable ads, freeze accounts, and transfer funds to Bounce Curl within seven calendar days of receiving the order.
Yes. Defendants may move to vacate a default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), but must show good cause for default, a meritorious defence to the infringement claim, and that setting aside the judgment would not prejudice the plaintiff. Given deliberate non-appearance in a properly served Schedule A action, this standard is difficult to satisfy in practice.
The N.D. Ill. has developed a well-established procedural framework for Schedule A actions, including expedited TRO procedures allowing plaintiffs to obtain asset freezes and service by email before defendants are identified. Judges in this district are familiar with the enforcement model, enabling rapid progression from filing to default judgment — as demonstrated by this case’s 57-day resolution timeline.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.