Bounce Curl v. Schedule A Defendants: Hair Brush Design Patent Dismissed Without Prejudice
Bounce Curl, LLC pursued design patent infringement claims in the Northern District of Illinois against unnamed e-commerce sellers over USD1028527S, a registered hair brush design. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice after just 96 days, leaving the door open for future enforcement against the same defendants.
Design patent enforcement against anonymous sellers ends in voluntary dismissal
On March 14, 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-02703), assigned to Judge Sunil R. Harjani. The complaint targeted an unnamed group of defendants — described as ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — a common enforcement structure used against anonymous e-commerce marketplace sellers. The patent at issue, USD1028527S (Application No. 29/880941), covers the ornamental design of a hair brush.
On June 18, 2025 — just 96 days after filing — Bounce Curl voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The dismissal named specifically ‘daily_betterus’ and associated individuals and entities as the dismissed defendants. A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff has not forfeited its claims; it retains the right to refile the same infringement allegations against these defendants at a future date, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
The rapid resolution — under 100 days — is consistent with several patterns common in Schedule A design patent cases: early settlement, defendants’ failure to appear, or a strategic decision by the plaintiff to pursue a different enforcement avenue. The public record does not disclose whether any payment, licensing agreement, or takedown was secured before dismissal. Represented by Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., a firm with substantial experience in Schedule A e-commerce enforcement, Bounce Curl’s filing strategy suggests this action may be one of several coordinated enforcement efforts.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 96 days
96 days — faster than the median N.D. Illinois IP case closure, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed without prejudice: what this means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1): plaintiff retains the right to refile
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) is filed unilaterally by the plaintiff before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. It terminates the current action but does not adjudicate the merits. Crucially, it does not bar Bounce Curl from refiling the same infringement claims against daily_betterus in a future action, provided the statute of limitations has not expired.
No merits rulingWithout prejudice: the public record is silent on the reason
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ differs materially from one ‘with prejudice.’ The former preserves the plaintiff’s claims; the latter would extinguish them permanently. The public termination record does not indicate whether this dismissal followed a settlement, a licensing arrangement, a takedown compliance by the defendant, or a purely tactical decision by Bounce Curl. Readers should not infer any particular resolution from the dismissal form alone.
Claims preserveddaily_betterus: dismissed but not cleared
The named defendant, daily_betterus, exits this specific action without a judgment against it. However, a dismissal without prejudice confers no immunity from future suit. The defendant cannot rely on this termination as a legal shield. If no formal settlement or license was executed, Bounce Curl retains full enforcement rights and may initiate a new action based on the same design patent and the same alleged infringement conduct.
No immunity grantedSchedule A enforcement: a repeatable playbook for design patents
Schedule A cases targeting anonymous e-commerce sellers — particularly on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and Wish — have become a standard enforcement tactic for design patent holders in the N.D. Illinois. Rapid dismissals in these cases often reflect off-court resolutions that never surface in public dockets. For competing sellers in the hair care accessories space, USD1028527S remains an active, enforceable design patent, and Bounce Curl’s willingness to litigate signals continued enforcement intent.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bounce Curl, LLC | Company | Hair care brand and design patent holder — owner of USD1028527S (hair brush ornamental design)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers operating as ‘daily_betterus’ identified 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 Sunil R. Harjani | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal language is precise and consequential: Bounce Curl invoked Rule 41(a)(1), which permits unilateral dismissal without court order at this early procedural stage. The explicit designation ‘without prejudice’ is the operative phrase — it preserves every infringement claim the plaintiff held on the date of filing. The specific identification of ‘daily_betterus’ in the dismissal notice suggests targeted resolution with one defendant from a broader Schedule A list, consistent with piecemeal settlement or takedown compliance common in this enforcement model.
USD1028527S — ornamental design for a hair brush
USD1028527S is a U.S. design patent (Application No. 29/880941) protecting the ornamental appearance of a hair brush. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the way an article looks, not how it functions. The patent grants Bounce Curl the exclusive right to the specific visual design claimed — assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ standard established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa (Fed. Cir. 2008). Design patents have a 15-year term from grant date, with no maintenance fees required.
In the consumer hair care accessories market, design differentiation is commercially significant — product appearance directly influences purchasing decisions on e-commerce platforms. A registered design patent on a hair brush creates meaningful IP leverage against overseas manufacturers and marketplace resellers who copy product aesthetics. Given Bounce Curl’s positioning as a curl-care brand, USD1028527S likely protects a distinctive brush form factor tied to brand identity. Competitors and private-label sellers in the hair brush category should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis before launching visually similar products.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1028527S?
Any brand, private-label seller, or OEM manufacturer developing or sourcing hair brushes for the U.S. market — particularly for sale on Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or Shopify storefronts — should assess design clearance against USD1028527S. This case demonstrates Bounce Curl’s willingness to file and pursue infringement actions in federal court. The relevant test is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design. Marginal differences in color or materials are insufficient — silhouette, proportions, and ornamental features are determinative.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD1028527S against your product design and surface the nearest prior art that may limit the patent’s effective reach. Eureka can also identify related design patent families filed by Bounce Curl, flag co-pending applications, and monitor new enforcement actions naming similar defendants — giving R&D and product teams early warning before a Schedule A complaint lands in their inbox.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1028527S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar hair brush design patent cases in N.D. Illinois federal court
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent infringement actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois involving consumer hair care accessories and ornamental design claims.
What this case signals for the hair care accessories IP landscape
This action reflects broader trends in design patent enforcement against marketplace sellers and the strategic use of N.D. Illinois courts.
USD1028527S remains live — enforcement risk persists for hair brush sellers
The dismissal without prejudice does not retire Bounce Curl’s design patent. Any e-commerce seller or manufacturer offering a hair brush with a design substantially similar to USD1028527S remains exposed to a new infringement action. Companies sourcing or distributing similar products should treat this case as a signal, not a clearance.
N.D. Illinois is a preferred venue for Schedule A design patent campaigns
Greer, Burns & Crain regularly files Schedule A actions in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants who receive summons in these cases frequently lack U.S. counsel, which accelerates default or settlement timelines. IP teams monitoring competitive enforcement activity in consumer goods should track this court and this firm as indicators of broader campaign activity.
Bounce v Partnerships — key questions answered
The dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) means Bounce Curl voluntarily ended Case No. 1:25-cv-02703 without a merits ruling. Critically, it preserves Bounce Curl’s right to refile the same infringement claims against daily_betterus or other Schedule A defendants in a future action. No judgment was entered, no liability was adjudicated, and the design patent USD1028527S remains fully enforceable.
Yes. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice has no effect on the validity or enforceability of the underlying patent. USD1028527S (App. No. 29/880941) remains a live U.S. design patent. Bounce Curl retains full rights to assert it in new litigation against the same or different defendants. Sellers of hair brushes with similar ornamental designs remain exposed to infringement claims.
The Northern District of Illinois is a preferred venue for Schedule A e-commerce enforcement because its procedures facilitate early temporary restraining orders and asset freezes against anonymous online sellers before they can move funds or inventory. Plaintiffs like Bounce Curl, represented by experienced firms such as Greer, Burns & Crain, use this structure to target multiple marketplace sellers simultaneously under one complaint, reducing litigation costs per defendant.
The ordinary observer test, established in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa (Fed. Cir. 2008), asks whether an ordinary observer, giving the same attention a purchaser would, would find the accused hair brush design substantially similar to USD1028527S in light of the prior art. The analysis focuses on ornamental features — overall shape, proportions, and visual impression — not functional elements. This is the standard Bounce Curl would apply to assert infringement in any future action.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Bounce Curl is not barred from refiling infringement claims against daily_betterus based on USD1028527S. The defendant received no judgment in its favour and no declaration of non-infringement. The only constraint would be the applicable statute of limitations (generally six years for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 286) and any private settlement or licensing agreement that may have been reached outside the public docket.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.