Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Chubby Gorilla v. Schedule A Defendants — Design Patent Infringement | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:24-cv-13031
FiledDec 2024
ClosedApr 2025
Patent Litigation

Chubby Gorilla v. Schedule A: Default Judgment for Willful Design Patent Infringement

Chubby Gorilla, Inc. secured a full default judgment in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous online sellers infringing three design patents and its Unicorn Trade Dress on cylindrical bottles with caps. The court ordered permanent injunctions, account freezes across Alibaba, PayPal, Stripe, and Payoneer, and profit disgorgement of at least $250 — with supplemental proceedings authorized until full recovery.

Resolution time
105days
105 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the median Schedule A case in N.D. Illinois
Patents asserted
3
USD0999637S, USD0907500S, and USD0991037S — three design patents covering cylindrical bottle with cap
Outcome
Default Judgment
Full default judgment granted; willful infringement found on all counts without merits contest
Cost ruling
$10,000 Bond
Plaintiff’s $10,000 cash bond released; profits from defendant accounts awarded to plaintiff
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Chubby Gorilla wins default judgment over counterfeit bottle sellers

Chubby Gorilla, Inc. filed suit on December 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against an anonymous group of online sellers — styled as ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A’ — alleging willful infringement of three design patents (USD0999637S, USD0907500S, USD0991037S) covering its distinctive cylindrical bottle with cap, along with trade dress and unfair competition claims under federal and Illinois law.

With no defendant appearing to contest the action, the court entered a final default judgment on April 2, 2025 — just 105 days after filing. Judge Sara L. Ellis found the defaulting defendants liable for willful design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, and violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff was awarded defendant profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 and permanent injunctive relief, with third-party payment processors ordered to freeze and transfer account balances to Chubby Gorilla.

The 105-day resolution is consistent with the accelerated Schedule A enforcement playbook, which relies on ex parte TROs, asset freezes, and default when overseas sellers fail to appear. The quantum of damages — set at account balances but not less than $250 — reflects the typical floor in these proceedings rather than a contested damages award. The public record does not disclose the number of individual defendants in Schedule A or the total funds ultimately transferred, leaving the commercial impact of the enforcement campaign only partially visible.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:24-cv-13031
CourtIllinois Northern
JudgeSara L. Ellis
FiledDecember 18, 2024
ClosedApril 2, 2025
Duration105 days
OutcomeDefault Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDefault Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Illinois Northern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Default Judgment in 105 days

105 days from filing to default judgment — faster than the median Schedule A case in N.D. Illinois

Case timeline: Complaint filed DEC 18 2024, FEB–MAR — 105 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Chubby Gorilla, Inc. v The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. DEC 18 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings APR 2 2025 Default Judgment 105 DAYS TOTAL
Default judgment

Default judgment granted: what the court’s findings mean for both parties

Legal mechanism

Default judgment: liability found without contest

Because the defendants failed to appear or respond, the court entered default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). This deems all well-pleaded allegations admitted — including willfulness. The finding of willful infringement is particularly significant: it is entered as a matter of record against the defaulting parties and supports the broadest available remedies under both patent and trade dress law, without any factual adjudication on the merits.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) default
Patent holder outcome

Chubby Gorilla secures injunctions and asset transfer

Chubby Gorilla obtained a permanent injunction covering manufacture, importation, sale, and advertising of infringing products — binding not only the defendants but any third party with actual notice. Critically, payment processors including Alibaba/Alipay, PayPal, Stripe, LianLian, and Payoneer are ordered to freeze and release defendant account balances directly to the plaintiff. The $10,000 bond is also returned. Supplemental enforcement proceedings remain available until full recovery.

Permanent injunction + profit disgorgement
Defendant outcome

Defaulting sellers face frozen accounts and permanent ban

The defaulting defendants are permanently enjoined from selling any products not colorably different from the infringing cylindrical bottles, and from using the Unicorn Trade Dress in any form. Financial accounts across major payment platforms are frozen and assets redirected to plaintiff. Any affiliated online marketplace accounts identified in the future may be subject to supplemental proceedings — meaning the enforcement exposure does not necessarily end with this judgment.

Permanent ban + ongoing exposure
Commercial implications

Schedule A enforcement raises the cost of counterfeit bottle sales

This judgment reinforces the effectiveness of the Schedule A litigation model for consumer product brands with registered design patents and trade dress. The multi-platform asset freeze — spanning Alibaba, PayPal, Stripe, and Payoneer — signals that financial infrastructure providers will comply with court orders on short notice. For competing bottle and vaping accessory manufacturers, the three asserted design patents now carry an active enforcement record, increasing FTO risk for similar cylindrical bottle-and-cap configurations.

Design patent enforcement signal
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:24-cv-13031 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffChubby Gorilla, Inc.CompanyConsumer goods brand — holder of USD0999637S, USD0907500S, and USD0991037S for cylindrical bottle designsSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule AIndividualAnonymous online marketplace sellers identified in Schedule A, primarily operating through Alibaba and related platformsSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBrian P. O’DonnellAttorneyCounsel for Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJames Edward JudgeAttorneyCounsel for Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMarko Romeo ZoreticAttorneyCounsel for Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselYing ChenAttorneyCounsel for Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselZareefa Burki FlenerAttorneyCounsel for Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmFlener IP & Business LawLaw FirmRepresenting Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmKnobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LlpLaw FirmRepresenting Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMorgan, Lewis & Bockius LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Sara L. EllisJudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Defaulting Defendant is liable for willful design patent infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271), willful trade dress infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1125), false designation of origin and federal unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125), and violation of Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS § 510/2). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED in its entirety, that the Defaulting Defendant is deemed in default, and that this Final Judgement is entered against the Defaulting Defendant. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 1. Defaulting Defendant, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting for, with, by, through, under, or in active concert with them be preliminarily enjoined and restrained from: a. making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products that infringe any of Plaintiff’s design patents, including the infringing products identified in Exhibit 1 of the Complaint [5-1 to 5-3] or any products that are not colorably different from such products; b. using the Unicorn Trade Dress or any colorable imitations thereof, including the infringing products identified in Exhibit 1 of the Complaint [5-1 to 5-3]; c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that the Defaulting Defendant’s products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff; and; further infringing the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property and damaging Plaintiff’s goodwill; e. manufacturing, importing, shipping, delivering, holding for sale, selling, transferring or otherwise moving, storing, distributing, returning, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, products or inventory not manufactured by or for Plaintiff nor authorized by Plaintiff to be sold or offered for sale, and which bear any of the Unicorn Trade Dress or any reproductions, counterfeit copies, or colorable imitations thereof; f. aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property, including, for example, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States any of the infringing products or other products that are not colorably different from such products. 2. Defaulting Defendant and any third party with actual notice of this Order who is providing services for the Defaulting Defendant, or in connection with the Defaulting Defendant’s Online Marketplaces, including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as Alibaba Group Holding Limited., Alibaba.com, Inc., Alibaba.com US E-commerce Corp., Alibaba.com U.S. LLC, Alibaba Group (U.S.) Inc., AUS Merchant Services, Inc., and Alipay US, Inc. (“Alibaba” and/or “AliPay”) (collectively, “Third Party Providers”), shall within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order cease: a. using, linking to, transferring, selling, exercising control over, or otherwise owning the Online Marketplaces, or any other online marketplace account that is being used to sell or is the means by which the Defaulting Defendant could continue to sell counterfeit and infringing goods using the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property; and operating and/or hosting websites that are involved with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any product bearing the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property or any reproductions, counterfeit copies or colorable imitations thereof that is not a genuine Plaintiff product or not authorized by Plaintiff to be sold in connection with the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property. 3. Upon Plaintiff’s request, any Third Party Providers with actual notice of this Order who are providing services for Defaulting Defendant, or in connection with any of the Defaulting Defendant’s online marketplaces, including, without limitation, Alibaba, shall within ten (10) business days of receipt of such notice, disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with the Defaulting Defendant in connection with the sale of products that infringe the Plaintiff’s design patents, and/or the sale of products that bear the Unicorn Trade Dress, including the sale of infringing products as shown in Exhibit 1 of the Complaint [5-1 to 5-3]. 4. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, Plaintiff is awarded profits from the Defaulting Defendant for infringing use of Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property on products sold through at least the Online Marketplaces, with such profits being at least the remaining funds in the Defaulting Defendant’s accounts but not less than $250.00. 5. Any Third Party Providers and payment processors, such as Alibaba, Alipay, LianLian Global, LL Pay U.S., LLC, and Lianlian Yintong Electronic Payment Co. Ltd. (“LianLian”); Payoneer Global Inc. (“Payoneer”); PayPal Holdings, Inc. (“PayPal”); Stripe Inc. (“Stripe”), shall, within ten (10) business days of receipt of this Order, permanently restrain and enjoin any financial accounts connected to the Defaulting Defendant from transferring or disposing of any funds, up to the total of the above damages award, or other of the Defaulting Defendant’s assets. 6. All monies, up to the total of the above damages award, in the Defaulting Defendant’s financial accounts, including monies held by Third Party Providers and payment processors, such as Alipay, Alibaba, Ant Financial, PayPal, Stripe, LianLian, and Payoneer are hereby released to Plaintiff as partial payment of the above identified damages, and Third Party Providers are ordered to release to Plaintiff the amounts from the Defaulting Defendant’s financial accounts within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of this Order. 7. Until Plaintiff has recovered full payment of monies owed to it by the Defaulting Defendant, Plaintiff shall have the ongoing authority to commence supplemental proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69. 8. In the event the Plaintiff identifies any additional online marketplace accounts or financial accounts owned by the Defaulting Defendant, Plaintiff may send notice of any supplemental proceeding to the Defaulting Defendant by e-mail at the e-mail addresses provided for the Defaulting Defendant by third parties. 9. The $10,000.00 cash bond posted by Plaintiff is hereby released to Plaintiff or its counsel, Flener IP & Business Law. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the cash bond previously deposited with the Clerk of the Court to Plaintiff or its counsel.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:24-cv-13031, Illinois Northern District Court

The court’s default judgment encompasses findings of willful infringement across four distinct legal theories — design patent (35 U.S.C. § 271), trade dress and false designation (15 U.S.C. § 1125), and state deceptive trade practices — reflecting the breadth of Chubby Gorilla’s enforcement posture. The willfulness finding, though procedurally unchallenged, is entered as a matter of record. The profit disgorgement floor of $250 per defendant is the statutory minimum under 35 U.S.C. § 289, with actual recovery tied to account balances — a structure typical of Schedule A proceedings where defendant financials are opaque until frozen.

PACER case 1:24-cv-13031 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USD0999637S, USD0907500S & USD0991037S — Cylindrical Bottle with Cap Designs

Publication No.USD0999637S
Application No.US29/765561
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design for a cylindrical bottle with cap (primary filing)
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

Publication No.USD0907500S
Application No.US29/610633
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design for a cylindrical bottle with cap (earlier filing)
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

Publication No.USD0991037S
Application No.US29/765567
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design for a cylindrical bottle with cap (variant filing)
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

The three asserted design patents — USD0999637S (App. No. 29/765561), USD0907500S (App. No. 29/610633), and USD0991037S (App. No. 29/765567) — protect the ornamental appearance of Chubby Gorilla’s distinctive cylindrical bottle with cap. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the visual characteristics of a product, not its function. The earlier application number for USD0907500S suggests it predates the 765xxx series filings, providing a layered filing chronology that extends the effective protection window for the product’s visual identity.

For the vaping accessory and consumer bottle market, three registered design patents covering the same product form create a formidable enforcement barrier. Any competitor or manufacturer sourcing similar cylindrical bottle-and-cap products — particularly through Alibaba or other global marketplaces — must now conduct FTO analysis against all three patents before commercializing comparable designs. The active enforcement record established by this judgment further increases the risk premium attached to operating in this product space without a cleared design.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against USD0999637S, USD0907500S, and USD0991037S?

Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling cylindrical bottles with caps — particularly in the vaping accessory, e-liquid, or personal care liquid packaging space — should treat these three Chubby Gorilla design patents as active enforcement risks. The N.D. Illinois default judgment confirms the plaintiff is willing and able to pursue rapid enforcement through Schedule A proceedings, with asset freezes operational within weeks of filing.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the ornamental claim scope of all three design patents against your product portfolio, identify prior art that may limit the patents’ enforceable scope, and flag pending continuation applications that could extend coverage. Use Eureka to run a side-by-side comparison of your cylindrical bottle designs against the asserted patents before any import or marketplace listing decision.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0999637S to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois consumer goods

Cases involving design patent and trade dress enforcement against Schedule A defendants in the N.D. Illinois, particularly in the consumer product packaging and vaping accessory sector.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Chubby Gorilla, Inc. patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern case history, Chubby Gorilla, Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Comparable bottle design casesSchedule A default judgmentsUnicorn Trade Dress precedents§ 289 profit disgorgement awards
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the consumer product design IP landscape

This default judgment illustrates how design patents and trade dress, combined with Schedule A tactics, can rapidly disrupt counterfeit supply chains on global marketplaces.

Three design patents amplify enforcement leverage substantially

Asserting three design patents simultaneously across a Schedule A complaint — covering different application numbers for the same cylindrical bottle form — creates overlapping protection that makes design-arounds harder. Any seller must clear all three patents to avoid liability, raising the cost and complexity of imitation. Brands with multiple design filings covering the same product family should replicate this stacking strategy.

Payment processor orders are the real enforcement teeth here

The court’s orders to Alibaba, Alipay, PayPal, Stripe, LianLian, and Payoneer to freeze and transfer funds represent a practical enforcement mechanism that a standard injunction alone cannot provide. When defendants are anonymous overseas sellers, asset freeze orders directed at third-party processors are the primary lever converting a judgment into actual recovery. IP teams monitoring infringement on global marketplaces should account for this in enforcement planning.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated analysis on design patent enforcement strategy and Schedule A litigation tactics in the N.D. Illinois consumer goods sector.
Willfulness record riskSupplemental proceedings clauseDesign patent stacking tactics
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Chubby v Partnerships — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Track design patent enforcement across global marketplaces

Use PatSnap Eureka to run FTO searches against Chubby Gorilla’s three design patents, monitor new Schedule A filings in the N.D. Illinois, and receive alerts when comparable cylindrical bottle designs are asserted or challenged.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.