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-13000
FiledDec 2024
ClosedApr 2025
Patent Litigation

Chubby Gorilla v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment on Unicorn Bottle Design Patents

Chubby Gorilla, Inc. secured a court-ordered default judgment in 105 days against overseas e-commerce sellers counterfeiting its Unicorn-branded cylindrical squeeze bottle, asserting four US design patents and distinctive trade dress. The court enjoined Alibaba, PayPal, Stripe, and other payment processors from releasing defendants’ frozen funds and ordered those funds transferred directly to Chubby Gorilla.

Resolution time
105days
105-day resolution — faster than the median Schedule A default action in N.D. Illinois
Patents asserted
4
US D991,037; D999,637; D907,500; D908,500 — four design patents covering Unicorn cylindrical squeeze bottle
Outcome
Default Judgment
Court found willful infringement; defendants never appeared; all allegations deemed admitted
Cost ruling
Funds Seized
Defendants’ frozen e-commerce and payment accounts released to plaintiff as damages
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Chubby Gorilla’s Unicorn bottle wins swift default judgment against counterfeit marketplace sellers

Filed 18 December 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Sara L. Ellis, this action saw Chubby Gorilla, Inc. target an unnamed cohort of e-commerce sellers — identified only as the Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations in Schedule A — alleged to have sold counterfeit versions of its Unicorn-branded cylindrical squeeze bottle through Alibaba-hosted storefronts. The plaintiff asserted four US design patents (D991,037; D999,637; D907,500; D908,500) and distinctive Unicorn trade dress comprising a cylindrical bottle with a concavely tapering cap that closely matches the bottle’s diameter.

The case closed on 2 April 2025 via a default judgment after defendants failed to answer or appear despite service by electronic publication and email — a service method the court accepted as constitutionally adequate given the defendants’ anonymous online presence. Judge Ellis found willful design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, willful trade dress infringement and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, and violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The judgment granted a permanent injunction, ordered Alibaba, PayPal, Stripe, LianLian, and Payoneer to freeze and transfer defendants’ account balances to Chubby Gorilla, with a minimum floor of $250 per defendant.

The 105-day cradle-to-judgment timeline is consistent with the expedited Schedule A playbook common in the Northern District of Illinois, where brand owners routinely obtain TROs and asset freezes before defendants can dissipate funds. What remains unknown from the public record is the aggregate number of Schedule A defendants, the total monetary recovery, and whether any defendants subsequently moved to vacate the default — a not-uncommon follow-on step in these mass-defendant actions.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:24-cv-13000
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-day resolution — faster than the median Schedule A default action 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 entered: what the ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Default judgment: allegations admitted by defendants’ silence

A default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is entered when defendants fail to answer or appear. The court treats all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as admitted. Here, the defendants’ non-appearance meant the court accepted Chubby Gorilla’s evidence of willful infringement without adversarial challenge, allowing the case to conclude in just 105 days from filing.

FRCP 55 — uncontested on the merits
Plaintiff outcome

Chubby Gorilla secures injunction, asset freeze, and damages floor

The judgment delivers Chubby Gorilla a permanent injunction, immediate access to defendants’ frozen payment accounts (Alibaba, PayPal, Stripe, LianLian, Payoneer), and a damages floor of $250 per defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 289. The court also preserved Chubby Gorilla’s right to launch supplemental enforcement proceedings if additional accounts are identified — extending the practical reach of this single judgment.

Permanent injunction + asset recovery
Defendant outcome

Defaulting defendants face frozen funds and permanent ban on infringing sales

Defendants who failed to appear now face a permanent injunction, confiscation of their e-commerce account balances, and a ban on selling any product not colorably different from the Unicorn bottle. Any defendant wishing to contest the judgment must move to vacate under FRCP 55(c) and 60(b), demonstrating excusable neglect and a meritorious defence — a high bar after a willful infringement finding.

FRCP 60(b) motion required to contest
Commercial implications

Schedule A precedent reinforces platform-level accountability for counterfeit bottle sellers

The order’s direct targeting of Alibaba, Alipay, PayPal, Stripe, LianLian, and Payoneer signals that payment infrastructure operators remain central enforcement targets in US design patent counterfeiting cases. For legitimate competitors in the squeeze-bottle and vape-accessories market, this judgment clarifies that Chubby Gorilla’s Unicorn bottle design is actively enforced, raising the risk profile for any similar product geometry entering the US market.

Platform enforcement — payment processor liability
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:24-cv-13000 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffChubby Gorilla, Inc.CompanyVape and squeeze bottle brand — holder of US D991,037, D999,637, D907,500, D908,500Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule AIndividualAnonymous Alibaba e-commerce sellers alleged to counterfeit Chubby Gorilla’s Unicorn bottleSearch 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 [5-2 to 5-3] 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-13000 Document #: 44 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1225 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 [5-2 to 5-3 and 18-27], which includes screenshot evidence confirming that each Defendant e-commerce store does stand Case: 1:24-cv-13000 Document #: 44 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:1226 3 ready, 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 [5-2 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 [5-2 to 5-3]; 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-13000 Document #: 44 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:1227 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-13000 Document #: 44 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:1228 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 [5-2 to 5-3]. 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-13000 Document #: 44 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:1229 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 $11,000.00 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-13000, Illinois Northern District Court

The default judgment is comprehensive in scope: the court found willful infringement under both patent and Lanham Act theories without adversarial presentation, meaning no defendant argued claim scope, invalidity, or non-infringement. The willfulness finding is significant — while not triggering enhanced damages here (§ 289 profits were awarded instead), it forecloses any future argument that the infringement was innocent. The injunction extends to third-party platform operators, which is the operative enforcement mechanism given the defendants’ anonymity.

PACER case 1:24-cv-13000 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US D991,037; D999,637; D907,500; D908,500 — Unicorn cylindrical squeeze bottle design

Publication No.USD0908500S
Application No.US29/614048
Patent details
ProductUnicorn cylindrical squeeze bottle body design
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

Publication No.USD0999637S
Application No.US29/765561
Patent details
ProductUnicorn bottle cap with concave taper and flat top
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

Publication No.USD0907500S
Application No.US29/610633
Patent details
ProductUnicorn squeeze bottle — alternate body configuration
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

Publication No.USD0991037S
Application No.US29/765567
Patent details
ProductUnicorn bottle cap — alternate concave taper configuration
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

The four asserted design patents — US D991,037, D999,637, D907,500, and D908,500 — protect ornamental aspects of Chubby Gorilla’s Unicorn cylindrical squeeze bottle, a product widely used in the vape accessories and e-liquid market for dispensing liquids. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel ornamental appearance of an article, not its functional utility. The application numbers suggest these patents were filed across two prosecution campaigns (29/610633 and 29/614048 in one cluster; 29/765561 and 29/765567 in a second), consistent with a portfolio strategy protecting both the bottle body and its distinctive cap geometry.

The Unicorn bottle’s distinctive silhouette — a smooth cylindrical body capped by a narrowing, concave-tapered top — has become strongly associated with Chubby Gorilla in the e-liquid accessories market. Four overlapping design patents make design-around difficult without departing substantially from the recognisable form. For any competitor producing dropper or squeeze bottles in a similar size category, these patents represent a meaningful clearance risk, particularly given Chubby Gorilla’s demonstrated willingness to pursue Schedule A mass-defendant enforcement through the Northern District of Illinois.

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 retailer of cylindrical squeeze bottles, dropper bottles, or e-liquid dispensing containers with a concave-tapering cap should assess clearance risk against US D991,037, D999,637, D907,500, and D908,500. This is especially relevant for products sold through Alibaba, Amazon, or other US-facing e-commerce platforms — the precise channels Chubby Gorilla has already targeted. The default judgment demonstrates that even passive platform participation can trigger injunctions and asset freezes.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of all four Chubby Gorilla design patents against your product geometry, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and flag related pending applications in the same family. With four patents in play and active enforcement already underway, a structured FTO analysis is the minimum prudent step before commercialising any visually similar bottle design in the US market.

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 Schedule A design patent cases in the Northern District of Illinois

Explore comparable N.D. Illinois Schedule A enforcement actions involving design patents and trade dress on consumer product packaging.

🔍
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 TRO timelinesPayment processor freeze ordersMulti-patent design portfoliosAlibaba counterfeit judgments
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the consumer bottle design IP landscape

Chubby Gorilla’s rapid default judgment illustrates how design patent portfolios can be weaponised against anonymous online counterfeiters at scale.

Multiple design patents create overlapping protection for a single product geometry

Chubby Gorilla asserted four design patents covering different aspects of the same Unicorn bottle. This layered approach makes it harder for counterfeiters to design around any single patent while maintaining a visually similar product. IP teams in consumer packaging should audit whether their hero SKUs carry comparable multi-patent coverage.

Asset freezes are the real enforcement lever in Schedule A cases

The TRO-to-asset-freeze sequence, executed before defendants could respond, effectively transferred financial leverage to Chubby Gorilla within weeks of filing. In-house teams considering anti-counterfeiting strategy should treat payment-processor cooperation — Alibaba, PayPal, Stripe — as a core tactic rather than an afterthought.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated insights on design patent enforcement and Schedule A strategy in the N.D. Illinois district court.
Trade dress stacking strategyElectronic service precedentPayment processor 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

Protect your bottle designs before the next Schedule A wave

Use PatSnap Eureka to run an FTO against Chubby Gorilla’s four Unicorn bottle design patents and monitor new enforcement filings in the Northern District of Illinois. Early clearance analysis is significantly cheaper than defending an asset-freeze TRO.

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.