Bounce Curl v. Schedule A Defendants: Hair Brush Design Patent Action Ends in 72 Days
Bounce Curl, LLC asserted design patent USD1028527S covering a hair brush against a wave of anonymous online marketplace sellers in the Northern District of Illinois. The case closed after just 72 days when Bounce Curl voluntarily dismissed one named Chinese e-commerce defendant without prejudice, a resolution that leaves all legal options open.
Design patent blitz against online sellers ends before discovery
On August 26, 2025, Bounce Curl, LLC filed a design patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:25-cv-10178) before Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings. The plaintiff asserted USD1028527S — a registered design patent for a hair brush (application no. 29/880941) — against a large, unnamed group of partnerships and unincorporated associations identified only as Schedule A defendants, a common enforcement strategy targeting anonymous online marketplace sellers.
The case closed on November 6, 2025, just 72 days after filing, when Bounce Curl filed a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The dismissal was directed specifically at the entity identified as Xiamenshisinakadianzishangwudiangerenduzi and related operators, and was entered without prejudice. A without-prejudice dismissal means no judgment on the merits was entered and Bounce Curl is not barred from bringing the same claims against the same parties in a future action.
The 72-day resolution is consistent with Schedule A enforcement campaigns where plaintiffs often secure a temporary restraining order, freeze marketplace accounts, and then settle with or drop individual defendants as they are identified or reach agreement. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement, payment, or account action preceded the dismissal of this particular defendant. The remaining Schedule A defendants’ status is not reflected in this termination record, suggesting this filing may address only a subset of the original defendant list.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 72 days
72 days — well below the median N.D. Illinois patent case duration of ~2 years
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1): dismissal as of right, no court approval needed
A Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal can be filed by the plaintiff before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment — no judicial sign-off required. It is one of the fastest and cleanest exits from litigation. The court simply terminates the case administratively. Here, the absence of any defendant counsel on record suggests the defendant never appeared, making this mechanism available and straightforward.
No merits adjudicationPublic record confirms without prejudice — but the distinction matters
The verdict text explicitly states the dismissal is ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Bounce Curl is free to refile identical claims against the same defendant in a future action. A with-prejudice dismissal would have barred refiling permanently. The public record does not indicate whether a settlement was reached — the without-prejudice form is equally consistent with a negotiated exit (often used to preserve flexibility) or a simple decision to drop a non-responsive defendant.
Refiling rights preservedNamed seller exits case — but faces ongoing legal exposure
Xiamenshisinakadianzishangwudiangerenduzi and its associated operators are released from this specific action without any judgment against them. However, the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means they cannot treat this as a clean bill of health. If any marketplace account freezes were in place, their restoration would typically require separate negotiation or court order. Future exposure under USD1028527S remains live.
No judgment, but exposure remainsSchedule A tactics: IP enforcement through volume and speed
Bounce Curl’s approach — filing against anonymous Schedule A defendants, obtaining early injunctive relief, then resolving individual defendants piecemeal — is a well-established e-commerce IP enforcement strategy. For design patent holders in the hair care and beauty accessories sector, it signals an aggressive posture toward online counterfeit and knock-off listings. Competitors and marketplace sellers in this category should treat active design registrations like USD1028527S as genuine enforcement risk, not merely registration formalities.
E-commerce design patent riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bounce Curl, LLC | Company | Hair care brand and design patent holder — asserting USD1028527S for ornamental hair brush designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A, | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers (Schedule A) including Chinese e-commerce operator XiamenshisinakadianzishangwudiangerenduziSearch 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 Jeffrey I Cummings | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal is entered pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1), which operates automatically upon filing — no judicial order is required beyond administrative case closure. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ language is legally significant: it preserves Bounce Curl’s right to re-assert USD1028527S against the same defendant in a future action. No merits determination was made, meaning the validity and infringement questions remain entirely open. The absence of any defendant appearance on record is consistent with the typical Schedule A enforcement posture, where sellers often fail to respond until account assets are frozen.
USD1028527S — ornamental design for a hair brush
USD1028527S is a U.S. design patent registered under application number 29/880941, protecting the ornamental appearance of a hair brush. Design patents cover the visual and aesthetic characteristics of a product — shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation — rather than its functional attributes. In the personal care accessories market, design patents provide meaningful competitive protection because consumers and purchasing algorithms respond directly to product appearance, making visual differentiation a commercial asset worth defending.
For Bounce Curl, a brand operating in the curly hair care niche, protecting the distinctive look of its hair brush is strategically important in a market flooded with visually similar products from low-cost overseas manufacturers. The enforcement of USD1028527S against Schedule A defendants — predominantly Chinese e-commerce operators — signals that Bounce Curl is using its design registration as an active market exclusion tool, not merely as a branding credential. Competitors and private-label sellers producing hair brushes should assess whether their product aesthetics fall within the ornamental envelope defined by this patent’s drawings.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1028527S?
Any company designing, importing, or selling hair brushes in the U.S. market — particularly through Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, Shopify, or other online channels — should evaluate their product against USD1028527S. Design patent infringement is assessed by the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary purchaser, familiar with prior art, would believe the accused product is substantially the same as the patented design. This is a visual comparison, not a functional one, and small differences in handle shape, head geometry, or bristle layout can be dispositive.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product teams and IP counsel to run a structured freedom-to-operate analysis against USD1028527S and related design filings in the personal care accessories space. The tool surfaces design patent families, claim scope visualisations, and prior art comparators — enabling R&D teams to make informed design-around decisions before products reach market. Given Bounce Curl’s demonstrated willingness to enforce, a proactive FTO review is lower-cost than defending a Schedule A TRO motion.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1028527S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases: hair care and beauty accessories
Cases filed in N.D. Illinois asserting design patents against Schedule A e-commerce defendants in the hair care and personal care accessories sector.
What this case signals for the hair care and beauty accessories IP landscape
Bounce Curl’s rapid Schedule A filing demonstrates that even niche consumer product design patents are being actively weaponised against online marketplace sellers.
Design patents are low-cost, high-speed enforcement tools for consumer brands
USD1028527S is a design patent — typically faster and cheaper to assert than utility patents. In Schedule A cases, design patents enable quick TRO motions and marketplace account freezes. Brands in the hair care and beauty accessories space should audit their own design patent portfolios and monitor competitors’ filings on USPTO and in N.D. Illinois, one of the most active venues for this tactic.
Without-prejudice exits preserve enforcement optionality — watch for refiling
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not a resolution — it is a pause. Bounce Curl retains the right to refile against the same sellers. Companies monitoring e-commerce IP enforcement in the beauty and personal care sector should track subsequent filings by Bounce Curl and its law firm, Greer Burns & Crain, which specialises in this enforcement model.
Bounce v Partnerships — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on November 6, 2025, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Bounce Curl dismissed its claims against the specifically named defendant Xiamenshisinakadianzishangwudiangerenduzi. No merits ruling was issued, and Bounce Curl retains the right to refile.
Bounce Curl asserted design patent USD1028527S (application no. 29/880941), which protects the ornamental design of a hair brush. Design patents cover the aesthetic appearance of a product, not its function, and are enforced using the ordinary observer visual similarity test under Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice releases the defendant from the current action without any judgment against it. However, it does not bar the plaintiff from refiling identical claims. In Schedule A enforcement campaigns, without-prejudice dismissals are frequently used after settlements or account resolutions, preserving plaintiff flexibility. The defendant cannot treat this as a final win.
A Schedule A case names a large group of anonymous online sellers — typically discovered through marketplace listings — as defendants on a sealed schedule. Plaintiffs typically seek a TRO and asset freeze immediately after filing. N.D. Illinois is the most popular venue for this strategy due to favourable procedural history. Defendants are often identified only by store name or seller ID, and many are based overseas.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal does not affect the validity or enforceability of USD1028527S. No invalidity finding was made, and the patent remains in force. Bounce Curl retains all rights under the patent and may assert it against other parties or refile against the dismissed defendant in a future action.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.