Bounce Curl v. Schedule A Defendants: Hairbrush Design Patent Dismissed
Bounce Curl, LLC filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois asserting design patent USD1028527S against a group of unnamed online sellers allegedly infringing its hairbrush design. After 133 days, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), leaving the door open for future enforcement.
Schedule A enforcement ends in voluntary withdrawal, no merits ruling
Bounce Curl, LLC, a haircare brand and holder of design patent USD1028527S, filed this infringement action on March 17, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case targeted a broad group of defendants — styled as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — a format commonly used in e-commerce enforcement campaigns against alleged counterfeit or infringing online sellers. The asserted patent covers the ornamental design of a hairbrush.
On July 28, 2025, Bounce Curl filed a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), specifically identifying Japanese Banana and associated individuals and entities as the dismissed parties. The dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning Bounce Curl retains the right to re-file claims arising from the same patent against the same or related parties. No merits determination, consent judgment, or damages award appears in the public record.
At 133 days, the timeline is consistent with a negotiated resolution — such as a cease-and-desist agreement or an informal settlement — prior to any court-ordered merits briefing. The fact that the dismissal targets a specific named seller (Japanese Banana) within the broader Schedule A group suggests selective resolution rather than a wholesale withdrawal. What drove the dismissal — and whether any private commercial terms were agreed — is not reflected in the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 133 days
133 days — faster than the median N.D. Illinois IP case closure
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice: what Rule 41(a)(1) means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal: no court approval required
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This mechanism requires no judicial approval and leaves no merits ruling on the record. The case is closed procedurally, but the underlying legal dispute is not adjudicated.
Procedural exit, no merits rulingClaims survive: Bounce Curl can re-file against Japanese Banana
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the plaintiff’s claims. Bounce Curl retains the right to initiate a new action asserting USD1028527S against Japanese Banana or related entities, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. This is legally distinct from a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar re-filing permanently. The public record does not specify whether any private terms — such as a settlement, undertaking, or consent order — accompanied this dismissal.
Re-filing right preservedJapanese Banana exits without an adverse judgment
The named defendant, Japanese Banana, faces no injunction, damages award, or finding of infringement as a result of this dismissal. However, without prejudice status means this outcome provides no legal immunity from future suits on the same patent. If any informal agreement was reached, its terms are private. Defendants in Schedule A actions who settle informally should ensure any agreement clearly addresses the scope of the release granted.
No judgment entered against defendantUSD1028527S remains enforceable — risk persists for hairbrush sellers
Because no court ruled on the validity or scope of USD1028527S, the patent emerges from this litigation with its enforceability fully intact. Online sellers of hairbrushes with similar ornamental designs remain at risk of enforcement. Bounce Curl’s use of the Schedule A format signals a systematic approach to brand protection, and the targeted dismissal against a single seller suggests the broader campaign may continue against remaining defendants.
Patent validity unchallengedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bounce Curl, LLC | Company | Haircare brand and design patent holder — USD1028527S (ornamental hairbrush)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Online sellers identified in Schedule A, including Japanese BananaSearch 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 notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the self-executing voluntary dismissal mechanism available before the defendant files a responsive pleading. The express identification of ‘Japanese Banana and the Individuals and Entities Operating Japanese Banana’ as the dismissed parties suggests that one or more defendants within the Schedule A group reached an off-docket resolution with Bounce Curl. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, it carries no preclusive effect and leaves USD1028527S fully enforceable against the dismissed parties and all others.
USD1028527S — ornamental design for a hairbrush
USD1028527S is a U.S. design patent (application number 29/880,941) covering the ornamental appearance of a hairbrush. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of a product — in this case, the specific shape, configuration, and aesthetic of the brush. Design patents typically issue faster than utility patents and are increasingly deployed in consumer goods enforcement, particularly against imported look-alike products sold through online marketplaces.
In the haircare accessories market, where product differentiation often rests on form rather than function, design patents serve as a primary IP enforcement tool. USD1028527S gives Bounce Curl a legally enforceable right to exclude others from making, selling, or importing hairbrushes with a substantially similar ornamental design. The ‘ordinary observer’ test governs infringement — if an average consumer would mistake the defendant’s product for the patented design, infringement may be established without any functional analysis.
Should your hairbrush product be cleared against USD1028527S?
Any company sourcing, manufacturing, or selling hairbrushes — particularly through Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, Shopify, or similar e-commerce channels — should assess exposure to USD1028527S. This is especially relevant for private-label brands, importers of ODM hairbrushes, and retailers carrying third-party brush SKUs. Given Bounce Curl’s demonstrated willingness to file Schedule A actions, the risk of being named in a future enforcement wave is material.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental design scope of USD1028527S against your product line, surface prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and flag related design patent families held by Bounce Curl or competitors. Running a proactive FTO analysis before a product launch — or before scaling an existing listing — is significantly less costly than responding to a Schedule A complaint in the Northern District of Illinois.
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 N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable Schedule A design patent enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois targeting online sellers of consumer haircare and beauty accessories.
What this case signals for the haircare and e-commerce IP landscape
Schedule A design patent enforcement is rising. This case illustrates the tactical playbook and what it means for online sellers and brand owners.
Schedule A filings are systematic — one dismissal does not end the campaign
Bounce Curl’s targeted dismissal of Japanese Banana, while leaving the Schedule A structure intact, is consistent with a rolling enforcement strategy. Brand owners using this format often resolve defendants piecemeal — through private agreements — while maintaining active docket pressure on remaining parties. Competing sellers should not interpret this closure as a signal that enforcement has concluded.
Design patents on consumer products carry real litigation risk for e-commerce sellers
USD1028527S covers the ornamental design of a hairbrush — a product category saturated with look-alike listings on platforms like Amazon and Shopify. Design patent infringement is assessed on overall visual impression, not functional similarity, making it easier to assert against imported or ODM products. Sellers sourcing hairbrushes from third-party manufacturers should verify design clearance before listing.
Bounce v Partnerships — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Bounce Curl, LLC on July 28, 2025, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The dismissal specifically names Japanese Banana and associated entities. No merits ruling, damages award, or injunction was entered.
Bounce Curl asserted U.S. Design Patent USD1028527S (application number 29/880,941), which covers the ornamental design of a hairbrush. Design patents protect the visual appearance of a product, not its function, and infringement is assessed under the ordinary observer test.
Japanese Banana exits the litigation without any judgment, injunction, or finding of infringement on the record. However, the without-prejudice designation means Bounce Curl retains the right to re-file claims asserting USD1028527S against the same party in the future. No legal immunity is conferred by this outcome.
A Schedule A action is an enforcement format commonly used in the Northern District of Illinois where a plaintiff files a single complaint against a large group of unnamed online sellers, identified by pseudonym or marketplace store name in a sealed schedule. It allows brand owners to seek emergency TROs and asset freezes against multiple defendants simultaneously, often used in counterfeit and design patent enforcement campaigns.
Yes. Because the case was dismissed without any ruling on validity, infringement, or claim scope, USD1028527S emerges fully enforceable. No court has ruled on its validity or scope. Companies selling hairbrushes with a similar ornamental design remain at risk of future enforcement action by Bounce Curl under this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.