Bounce Curl v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in Hairbrush Design Patent Case
Bounce Curl, LLC secured a default judgment against a slate of anonymous online marketplace sellers accused of infringing its hairbrush design patent USD1028527S. The Illinois Northern District Court granted a permanent injunction, profit disgorgement, and asset freeze in just 79 days — a textbook Schedule A enforcement outcome.
Schedule A design patent enforcement yields rapid default judgment
Bounce Curl, LLC, holder of design patent USD1028527S covering an ornamental hairbrush design, filed suit on 27 May 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against an anonymous group of online sellers identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ Represented by Greer, Burns & Crain — a firm with deep experience in Schedule A marketplace litigation — Bounce Curl alleged infringement of its registered hairbrush design across multiple e-commerce platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Wish.com, and DHgate.
With no defendant appearing to contest the claims, the court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment on 14 August 2025, just 79 days after filing. Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. entered a permanent injunction restraining all defaulting defendants from selling, offering for sale, or importing any product infringing the Bounce Curl Design. Third-party payment processors — including PayPal, Alipay, Alibaba, Amazon Pay, Ant Financial, and Wish.com — were ordered to freeze and transfer restrained funds to Bounce Curl within 14 days as partial satisfaction of the profit disgorgement award set out in Schedule B.
The 79-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated timelines typical of Schedule A default proceedings, where defendants rarely appear and plaintiffs benefit from ex parte TRO and asset-freeze mechanisms. The specific monetary amounts awarded per defendant are contained in the sealed Schedule B, leaving the aggregate damages figure unknown from the public record. What drove the outcome was the structural default: absent any defendant response, the court accepted Bounce Curl’s well-pleaded allegations as true and entered comprehensive relief.
Filing to Default Judgment in 79 days
79 days from filing to default judgment — well below the median for design patent enforcement actions
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: no contest, full relief granted
When defendants fail to appear or respond, the court may enter default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Here, Judge Tharp accepted Bounce Curl’s pleaded facts as established and granted all requested relief — permanent injunction, profit disgorgement, and asset freeze — without a merits trial. This is a common endpoint in Schedule A design patent cases where anonymous sellers lack incentive or resources to defend.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 defaultBounce Curl wins permanent injunction and profit disgorgement
Bounce Curl obtained the broadest available civil relief: a permanent injunction barring all future infringing sales, mandatory platform deactivation of infringing store accounts, freezing of defendant payment accounts, and direct transfer of restrained funds as partial damages. The $44,000 surety bond was also returned. The company retains ongoing authority to pursue supplemental enforcement proceedings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 until full recovery.
Permanent injunction + asset recoveryDefaulting sellers face account closure and frozen funds
All defaulting defendants are permanently enjoined from selling infringing hairbrush products. Their online marketplace accounts have been ordered disabled and financial accounts frozen, with balances transferred to Bounce Curl. Because no defendant appeared, no invalidity or non-infringement defenses were raised. Any seller wishing to contest the judgment would face the high bar of vacating a default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Accounts frozen, judgment enteredAsset freeze enforcement sets a deterrent for marketplace sellers
The multi-platform enforcement order — covering Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, DHgate, and Wish.com simultaneously — demonstrates the effectiveness of coordinated Schedule A actions for design patent holders. Third-party payment processor cooperation (PayPal, Alipay, Ant Financial, Amazon Pay) enabled near-immediate asset recovery. For sellers in the hairbrush and personal care accessories space, this outcome signals that design patent holders can move from filing to fund recovery in under 90 days.
Multi-platform design enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bounce Curl, LLC | Company | Hairbrush brand and design patent holder — owner of USD1028527S covering the Bounce Curl hairbrush designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers operating across Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Wish.com, and DHgateSearch 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 default judgment order is comprehensive in scope, granting injunctive relief, profit disgorgement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and direct asset transfer from third-party payment processors. Because no defendant appeared, the court’s merits analysis is limited to confirming the well-pleaded complaint establishes design patent infringement — no invalidity or claim construction analysis was conducted. The Schedule B damages schedule, filed under seal, governs per-defendant recovery amounts and cannot be assessed from the public record. The judgment’s explicit extension to new accounts and supplemental Rule 69 proceedings is notable, giving Bounce Curl durable enforcement authority beyond the named stores.
USD1028527S — Bounce Curl Hairbrush Ornamental Design
USD1028527S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of the Bounce Curl hairbrush. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the visual characteristics of a functional article — here, the specific aesthetic configuration of a hairbrush as shown in the registered drawings. The application was filed under U.S. Application No. 29/880,941. Design patents have a 15-year term from grant and are infringed by products whose overall appearance is substantially similar to the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
In the personal care accessories market, design patents are increasingly the primary IP enforcement tool against low-cost overseas counterfeiters who replicate the visual branding of established products. USD1028527S gives Bounce Curl exclusive rights to the registered hairbrush appearance across all sales channels, enabling the coordinated multi-platform enforcement action seen here. Competitors and private-label manufacturers of hairbrushes should conduct design clearance against this patent before launching products with similar aesthetic profiles.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1028527S?
Any brand, private-label supplier, or marketplace seller developing or sourcing hairbrushes for the U.S. market should assess freedom to operate against USD1028527S. The Bounce Curl case demonstrates that design patent holders in personal care accessories are actively monitoring e-commerce platforms and can obtain asset freezes within weeks of filing. Products that closely replicate the ornamental appearance of the Bounce Curl hairbrush design — even if functionally different — may fall within the scope of this patent under the ordinary observer test.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD1028527S against your product designs, identify prior art that may limit the patent’s enforceability, and surface related design patent filings by Bounce Curl or competitors in the hairbrush and personal care accessories category. Run a proactive FTO before listing on Amazon, eBay, or AliExpress to avoid the account freeze and profit disgorgement outcome seen in this case.
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 N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable hairbrush and personal care design patent enforcement actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois using Schedule A multi-defendant procedures.
What this case signals for the hairbrush and personal care IP landscape
Bounce Curl’s swift default judgment is a blueprint for design patent holders targeting anonymous e-commerce infringers at scale.
Schedule A actions remain among the fastest routes to design patent relief
The 79-day filing-to-judgment timeline reflects how Schedule A proceedings — targeting anonymous overseas sellers — can bypass protracted litigation. Courts in the Northern District of Illinois are experienced with this case type, and the ex parte TRO and asset-freeze mechanisms available at filing make early enforcement practical for brand-owning SMEs.
Payment processor cooperation is a critical enforcement lever
The judgment’s direct orders against PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, Ant Financial, and Alibaba show that financial intermediaries are effectively co-opted as enforcement agents. Design patent holders who fail to identify and name the relevant payment processors risk leaving recoverable assets on the table even after winning on liability.
Bounce v Partnerships — key questions answered
Judge Tharp entered default judgment on 14 August 2025, granting a permanent injunction against all defaulting defendants, ordering profit disgorgement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, directing third-party payment processors (PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, Ant Financial, Alibaba) to freeze and transfer defendant funds to Bounce Curl, and releasing the $44,000 surety bond to plaintiff’s counsel.
The asserted patent is USD1028527S (U.S. Application No. 29/880,941), a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of the Bounce Curl hairbrush. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article and are infringed when an accused product is substantially similar in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
The case was filed on 27 May 2025 and closed on 14 August 2025 — a duration of 79 days. This is consistent with the accelerated timeline typical of Schedule A design patent enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois, where no defendant appeared to contest the claims.
Schedule A actions target groups of anonymous online sellers simultaneously, typically operating across multiple e-commerce platforms. When a default judgment is entered, the court can order platforms (Amazon, eBay, AliExpress) to disable seller accounts and direct payment processors to freeze and transfer funds held on behalf of defaulting defendants — all within days of judgment entry. Sellers cannot recover funds without successfully moving to vacate the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Bounce Curl was represented by Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., with attorneys Amy Crout Ziegler, Andrew Daniel Burnham, Jennifer Van Nacht, and Justin R. Gaudio on record. Greer, Burns & Crain is a Chicago-based IP litigation firm widely known for handling Schedule A multi-defendant enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.