Book a demo

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

Try now
Chubby Gorilla v. Schedule A Defendants – Unicorn Bottle Design Patents | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:24-cv-13027
FiledDec 2024
ClosedApr 2025
Patent Litigation

Chubby Gorilla v. Schedule A: Default Judgment on Four Design Patents in 105 Days

Chubby Gorilla, Inc. secured a full default judgment against a constellation of anonymous e-commerce sellers accused of counterfeiting its Unicorn cylindrical bottle design across Alibaba-linked marketplaces. The court found willful design patent and trade dress infringement and ordered asset seizure from multiple payment processors — all within 105 days of filing.

Resolution time
105days
105 days — resolved from filing to final judgment, well under the typical district court median
Patents asserted
4
USD991037, USD999637, USD907500, USD908500 — four design patents covering Unicorn cylindrical bottle and cap
Outcome
Default Judgment
Plaintiff win — defendants failed to appear; all allegations deemed admitted by the court
Cost ruling
N/A
No separate costs ruling recorded; damages awarded as infringer profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

A design patent enforcement blitz against anonymous e-commerce counterfeiters

Filed on 18 December 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Sara L. Ellis, this case pitted Chubby Gorilla, Inc. against a large class of unnamed defendants — ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A’ — a litigation structure commonly deployed in anti-counterfeiting campaigns targeting overseas e-commerce operators. Chubby Gorilla asserted four design patents (USD991,037, USD999,637, USD907,500, and USD908,500) alongside its distinctive Unicorn Trade Dress: a cylindrical bottle whose cap mirrors the bottle diameter and smoothly tapers to a flat top.

The case closed on 2 April 2025 via default judgment — the court’s finding that defendants never answered or appeared, rendering all complaint allegations admitted. Judge Ellis granted Chubby Gorilla’s motion in full, entering a permanent injunction, ordering Alibaba, AliPay, PayPal, Stripe, Payoneer, and LianLian to freeze and release defendants’ financial accounts to plaintiff, and awarding profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 at a minimum of $250 per defendant from restrained account balances.

Resolution in 105 days is notably swift even for a default-judgment track, suggesting the TRO and asset freeze secured early in the case may have effectively neutralised defendants before any substantive contest could arise. The public record does not disclose the total number of Schedule A defendants or the aggregate funds ultimately released, leaving the full financial scope of the enforcement action uncertain. The multi-platform enforcement mechanism — encompassing payment processors across multiple jurisdictions — is consistent with Chubby Gorilla’s apparent strategy of disrupting the counterfeiting supply chain rather than merely obtaining an injunction.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:24-cv-13027
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 — resolved from filing to final judgment, well under the typical district court median

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 ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Default judgment: allegations deemed admitted without contest

Because the Schedule A defendants never appeared or answered, Judge Ellis entered default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. All factual allegations in the complaint are legally deemed admitted, including willfulness. The court found personal jurisdiction on the basis that defendants’ e-commerce stores actively shipped to Illinois residents — a standard theory in Northern District Schedule A cases.

Plaintiff win — no merits contest
Patent holder outcome

Chubby Gorilla secures injunction and frozen-account payment

Plaintiff obtained a permanent injunction barring defendants from making, using, selling, or importing infringing products, an order compelling third-party platforms and payment processors to disable storefronts, and a direct release of defendants’ restrained account balances as partial satisfaction of the § 289 profits award. The $10,000 bond posted for the TRO was also returned. Ongoing supplemental enforcement rights under FRCP 69 preserve Chubby Gorilla’s ability to pursue additional accounts.

Full relief granted
Defendant outcome

Non-appearance leaves defendants exposed to full judgment

By failing to answer, the Schedule A defendants forfeited any opportunity to contest claim scope, invalidity, or damages quantum. The willfulness finding — made in the absence of any rebuttal — exposes them to the maximum § 289 profits measure. Account freezes at Alibaba, PayPal, Stripe, Payoneer, and LianLian were converted to permanent releases, meaning funds already seized flow directly to plaintiff. Future sales on any platform risk supplemental enforcement.

All relief conceded by default
Commercial implications

Aggressive multi-platform freeze strategy raises enforcement stakes for e-commerce sellers

The simultaneous restraint of funds held by Alibaba/AliPay, PayPal, Stripe, LianLian, and Payoneer signals that design patent holders can effectively paralyse counterfeiting operations financially before any merits hearing. For legitimate sellers of cylindrical bottle products in adjacent categories, this case reinforces the commercial value of Chubby Gorilla’s registered design portfolio and the risk of operating with visually similar bottle-cap geometries without clearing Chubby Gorilla’s design patents.

Enforcement model: payment-channel disruption
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:24-cv-13027 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffChubby Gorilla, Inc.CompanyConsumer products company — holder of four design patents covering the Unicorn cylindrical bottleSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule AIndividualAnonymous e-commerce sellers operating Alibaba-linked storefronts targeting US and Illinois consumersSearch 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

“This action having been commenced by Plaintiff Chubby Gorilla, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) against the Defendants identified in Schedule A attached hereto (collectively, “Defaulting Defendants”), and using at least the online marketplaces in Exhibit 1 to the Complaint [6-2] and attached hereto (the “Online Marketplaces”), and Plaintiff having moved for entry of Default and Default Judgment against Defendants; This Court having entered upon a showing by Plaintiff, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Defaulting Defendants which included an asset restraining order; Plaintiff having properly completed service of process on Defaulting Defendants, the combination of providing notice via electronic publication and e-mail, along with any notice that Defaulting Defendants received from e-commerce platforms and payment processors, being notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise Defaulting Defendants of the pendency of the action and affording it the opportunity to answer and present its objections; and Defaulting Defendants have not answered or appeared in any way, and the time for answering having expired, so that the allegations of the Complaint are uncontroverted and are deemed admitted; Case: 1:24-cv-13027 Document #: 42 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1127 2 THIS COURT HEREBY FINDS, in the absence of adversarial presentation, that it has personal jurisdiction over Defaulting Defendants because Defendants directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Plaintiff has provided a basis to conclude that the Defaulting Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating ecommerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more seller aliases, offers shipping to the United States, including Illinois, and has sold or offered for sale products infringing Plaintiff’s design patents (US D991,037, D999,637, D907,500, and D908,500) and Unicorn Trade Dress (a cylindrical bottle with a cap, where the cap has a cylindrical portion having a diameter substantially similar to the bottle and a smooth portion that concavely tapers toward a flat top (an example of which is depicted in the image below)) (collectively, the “Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property”) to residents of Illinois. In this case, Plaintiff has presented screenshot evidence that the Defaulting Defendants’ ecommerce stores are reaching out to do business with Illinois residents by operating one or more commercial, interactive internet stores through which Illinois residents can and do purchase products using infringing versions of Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property see [6-2 and 15-25], which includes screenshot evidence confirming that each Defendant e-commerce store does stand ready, Case: 1:24-cv-13027 Document #: 42 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:1128 3 willing, and able to ship its counterfeit goods to customers in Illinois bearing infringing and/or infringing versions of the Plaintiff Intellectual Property. THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that each 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 Defendants are deemed in default, and that this Final Judgement is entered against the Defaulting Defendants. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 1. Defaulting Defendants, 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 [6-2] 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 [6-2]; c. committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that the Defaulting Defendants’ products are those sold under the authorization, control, or supervision of Plaintiff, or are sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise connected with Plaintiff; and; Case: 1:24-cv-13027 Document #: 42 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:1129 4 d. 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 Defendants and any third party with actual notice of this Order who is providing services for the Defaulting Defendants, or in connection with the Defaulting Defendants’ 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 Defendants could continue to sell counterfeit and infringing goods using the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property; and Case: 1:24-cv-13027 Document #: 42 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:1130 5 b. 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 Defendants, or in connection with any of the Defaulting Defendants’ 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 Defendants 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 [6-2]. 4. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, Plaintiff is awarded profits from each of the Defaulting Defendants 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 Defendants’ accounts but not less than $250.00 per Defaulting Defendant. 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 Defendants from Case: 1:24-cv-13027 Document #: 42 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:1131 6 transferring or disposing of any funds, up to the total of the above damages award, or other of the Defaulting Defendants’ assets. 6. All monies, up to the total of the above damages award, in the Defaulting Defendants’ 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 Defendants’ 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 Defendants, 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 Defendants, Plaintiff may send notice of any supplemental proceeding to the Defaulting Defendants by e-mail at the e-mail addresses provided for the Defaulting Defendants 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. This is a Final Judgment.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:24-cv-13027, Illinois Northern District Court

The default judgment verdict is notable for its breadth: the court found liability across four distinct causes — willful design patent infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271), willful trade dress infringement, false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125), and the Illinois UDTPA. Because no defendant appeared, these findings were made without adversarial testing of claim scope or validity. The § 289 profits award — tied to infringing article profits, not apportioned to patent contribution — is consistent with the Supreme Court’s Samsung v. Apple framework and represents the maximum available damages measure for design patent claims.

PACER case 1:24-cv-13027 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USD991037, USD999637, USD907500, USD908500 — Unicorn cylindrical bottle designs

Publication No.USD0908500S
Application No.US29/614048
Patent details
Productcylindrical bottle cap with concave taper and flat top — Unicorn design
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

Publication No.USD0999637S
Application No.US29/765561
Patent details
Productcylindrical bottle with matching-diameter cap — Unicorn design variant
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

Publication No.USD0907500S
Application No.US29/610633
Patent details
Productcylindrical bottle ornamental design — Unicorn base configuration
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

Publication No.USD0991037S
Application No.US29/765567
Patent details
Productcylindrical bottle cap ornamental design — Unicorn cap configuration
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

The four asserted patents — USD907,500; USD908,500; USD991,037; and USD999,637 — are US design patents protecting the ornamental appearance of Chubby Gorilla’s Unicorn product line: a cylindrical bottle paired with a cap whose diameter substantially matches the bottle body and whose upper portion smoothly concaves toward a flat top. Design patents protect only aesthetic appearance, not function, meaning infringement is assessed by the ‘ordinary observer’ test — whether an ordinary purchaser would mistake the accused product for the patented design.

Holding four design registrations on a single product family creates significant freedom to assert against minor geometric variations and is a strategy increasingly favoured in consumer goods and vaping accessories sectors. The combination with trade dress protection — which is not time-limited in the same way as patent rights — means the core product aesthetic may remain legally protected beyond the 15-year design patent term. Competitors in adjacent markets (squeeze bottles, dropper bottles, vaping accessories) should conduct FTO analysis against all four design numbers before commercialising products with similar cylindrical-plus-matched-cap silhouettes.

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

Should you run an FTO against Chubby Gorilla’s Unicorn bottle design patents?

Any manufacturer, importer, or e-commerce seller of cylindrical bottles with matched-diameter caps — particularly in the vaping accessories, dropper bottle, or consumer liquids categories — faces measurable infringement risk from this four-patent design portfolio. The ordinary observer standard applied to design patents means even non-identical products can infringe if the overall visual impression is substantially similar. The active trade dress claim compounds this risk post-patent-expiry.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the four Chubby Gorilla design patents against your product’s geometry, flag pending continuations in the same design family, and identify prior art that could support an invalidity position if needed. Given the Northern District of Illinois’s speed in default-judgment scenarios, clearing this portfolio before listing on US e-commerce platforms is strongly advisable for any seller in adjacent product categories.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0908500S to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar design patent Schedule A enforcement cases in the Northern District of Illinois

Explore comparable design patent infringement and trade dress cases filed against anonymous e-commerce defendants in the Northern District of Illinois.

🔍
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
Design patent TRO casesSchedule A default judgmentsTrade dress + design combos§ 289 profits awards
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the consumer goods design IP landscape

Chubby Gorilla’s rapid default judgment illustrates how design patent portfolios — even without utility claims — can anchor aggressive, multi-platform anti-counterfeiting campaigns.

Design patent portfolios anchor Schedule A enforcement more effectively than utility patents

Four design patents covering a single product silhouette were sufficient to obtain a TRO, asset freeze, and full default judgment in 105 days. For brand owners in consumer goods, building a design patent portfolio around core product aesthetics is increasingly a prerequisite for credible anti-counterfeiting enforcement, particularly against anonymous e-commerce defendants.

Payment-processor freezes have become the enforcement leverage point, not just injunctions

The court’s order compelling Alibaba, PayPal, Stripe, LianLian, and Payoneer to freeze and release account balances transforms a traditional injunction into an immediate financial sanction. IP teams should assess whether their enforcement strategy includes the procedural steps needed to trigger this mechanism — including bond posting and timely TRO motions — rather than relying on injunctive relief alone.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper analysis on design patent enforcement tactics in consumer goods cases at the Northern District of Illinois district court level.
Design-around risk analysis§ 289 profits exposureSchedule A venue strategy
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

Protect your product designs before a Schedule A lawsuit reaches you

Design patent enforcement via payment-channel freezes moves faster than most companies expect — 105 days from filing to final judgment in this case. Use PatSnap Eureka to run FTO searches across active design patent portfolios and monitor new Schedule A filings that could affect your marketplace listings.

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.