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.
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.
Filing to Default Judgment in 105 days
105 days — resolved from filing to final judgment, well under the typical district court median
Default judgment granted: what the ruling means for both parties
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 contestChubby 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 grantedNon-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 defaultAggressive 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 disruptionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Chubby Gorilla, Inc. | Company | Consumer products company — holder of four design patents covering the Unicorn cylindrical bottleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers operating Alibaba-linked storefronts targeting US and Illinois consumersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian P. O’Donnell | Attorney | Counsel for Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Edward Judge | Attorney | Counsel for Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marko Romeo Zoretic | Attorney | Counsel for Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ying Chen | Attorney | Counsel for Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zareefa Burki Flener | Attorney | Counsel for Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Flener IP & Business Law | Law Firm | Representing Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear Llp | Law Firm | Representing Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP | Law Firm | Representing Chubby Gorilla, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sara L. Ellis | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
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.
USD991037, USD999637, USD907500, USD908500 — Unicorn cylindrical bottle designs
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.
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.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0908500S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →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.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable 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-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedChubby Gorilla, Inc.’s broader IP enforcement history
Chubby Gorilla, Inc.’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat 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.
Trade dress combined with design patents creates layered liability that is difficult to design around
The Unicorn Trade Dress claim — protecting a specific bottle-cap geometry independent of any patent term — means that design-around attempts face a dual hurdle: avoiding both the registered design and the common-law or Lanham Act trade dress. For competitors in squeeze-bottle and vaping accessories markets, this layered IP strategy signals that Chubby Gorilla’s core product geometry may be protected beyond patent expiry.
Northern District of Illinois remains a preferred venue for Schedule A cases — and courts are moving fast
The 105-day timeline from filing to final judgment, including TRO and preliminary injunction stages, is consistent with the Northern District of Illinois’s established efficiency in Schedule A counterfeiting cases. Companies monitoring competitive IP risk should track new filings in this court as early indicators of design enforcement campaigns that may affect supply chains, marketplace listings, and payment processing relationships.
Chubby v Partnerships — key questions answered
Chubby Gorilla asserted four design patents: USD991,037; USD999,637; USD907,500; and USD908,500. All cover the ornamental appearance of its Unicorn cylindrical bottle and cap product. The company also asserted Unicorn Trade Dress under 15 U.S.C. § 1125 and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in favour of Chubby Gorilla on 2 April 2025 — 105 days after filing. The court found willful design patent and trade dress infringement, issued a permanent injunction, and ordered Alibaba, PayPal, Stripe, Payoneer, and LianLian to freeze and release defendants’ account balances to the plaintiff as partial satisfaction of the damages award.
The court awarded plaintiff profits from each defaulting defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 289, representing the infringer’s total profits from sales of infringing articles. The minimum floor was set at $250 per defendant, with actual recovery tied to restrained account balances. Section 289 allows recovery of the infringer’s total profits from the infringing article — not apportioned to the patented design — making it potentially the most powerful damages remedy in design patent cases.
Judge Ellis found personal jurisdiction because the defendants operated interactive e-commerce storefronts that actively shipped to Illinois residents and targeted US consumers. Screenshot evidence showed each defendant store stood ready and able to deliver infringing products to Illinois. This ‘purposeful availment’ of the Illinois market is the standard jurisdictional theory applied in Northern District of Illinois Schedule A counterfeiting cases.
The Unicorn Trade Dress is defined in the judgment as a cylindrical bottle with a cap where the cap’s cylindrical portion has a diameter substantially similar to the bottle body, and a smooth portion that concavely tapers toward a flat top. Trade dress protection under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) covers the distinctive visual appearance of a product and, unlike design patents, does not expire on a fixed schedule — making it a potentially durable IP right even after the 15-year patent term lapses.
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.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.