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-13005
FiledDec 2024
ClosedApr 2025
Patent Litigation

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

Chubby Gorilla, Inc. secured a default judgment in 105 days against a cohort of unnamed e-commerce sellers operating on Alibaba and other platforms, winning permanent injunctions and asset freezes covering four design patents and its distinctive Unicorn Trade Dress for cylindrical bottles with tapered caps.

Resolution time
105days
105-day resolution — faster than the median Schedule A counterfeit case in N.D. Ill.
Patents asserted
4
USD991037, USD999637, USD907500, USD908500 — Unicorn cylindrical bottle design patents
Outcome
Default Judgment
Plaintiff win — defendants failed to appear; all allegations deemed admitted by the court.
Cost ruling
Assets Frozen
Defendant funds held by Alibaba, PayPal, Stripe, Payoneer released to Chubby Gorilla.
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Chubby Gorilla’s rapid default win against Alibaba counterfeit network

Filed 18 December 2024 before Judge Sara L. Ellis in the Northern District of Illinois, this case pits Chubby Gorilla, Inc. — a maker of distinctive cylindrical squeeze bottles — against a cohort of anonymous e-commerce sellers identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A.’ Chubby Gorilla asserted four design patents (USD991,037; USD999,637; USD907,500; USD908,500) and its Unicorn Trade Dress, a cylindrical bottle-and-cap combination where the cap concavely tapers to a flat top, across storefronts operating primarily through Alibaba-connected platforms.

The case closed on 2 April 2025 via default judgment — a plaintiff win obtained because no defendant appeared or answered within the permitted window. The court found willful design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, willful trade dress infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, false designation of origin, and violation of Illinois’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Damages were ordered under 35 U.S.C. § 289 (infringer’s profits), floored at $250 per defendant, with all remaining account balances seized. Third-party processors — Alibaba, Alipay, PayPal, Stripe, LianLian, and Payoneer — were ordered to release frozen funds within 14 days.

Resolution in 105 days is consistent with the accelerated Schedule A docket practice in N.D. Illinois, where TROs and asset freezes are routinely entered ex parte before defendants are served. The public record does not disclose the total number of Schedule A defendants or aggregate funds recovered, leaving the true monetary scale uncertain. What is notable is the breadth of relief: permanent injunctions reach not only the named storefronts but any ‘colorably different’ products, and supplemental proceedings under FRCP 69 remain authorised until Chubby Gorilla is made whole.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:24-cv-13005
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 counterfeit case in N.D. Ill.

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 order means for both sides

Legal mechanism

Default judgment: allegations deemed admitted without trial

Where defendants fail to answer or appear, a court may enter default judgment under FRCP 55. All well-pleaded allegations in Chubby Gorilla’s complaint are treated as admitted. The court still independently assessed jurisdiction and found personal jurisdiction over foreign e-commerce sellers targeting Illinois consumers — a threshold step that can be contested but was uncontested here.

FRCP 55 — no merits contest
Patent holder outcome

Chubby Gorilla secures injunctions, asset seizure, and ongoing recovery rights

Chubby Gorilla obtained permanent injunctive relief barring manufacture, import, sale, or offer for sale of infringing bottles and caps across all platforms. Third-party payment processors were ordered to freeze and transfer defendant funds immediately. FRCP 69 supplemental proceedings remain available, meaning Chubby Gorilla can pursue newly discovered accounts without filing a new action — a commercially significant enforcement lever.

Permanent injunction + asset recovery
Defendant exposure

Non-appearing sellers face account closures and frozen payments

By failing to respond, the Schedule A defendants forfeited any opportunity to contest validity, claim design-around, or negotiate settlement. The order extends to any future accounts traced to the same parties. Historically, many Schedule A defendants are overseas sellers whose practical ability to comply or appeal is limited — but the injunction and fund transfer create immediate commercial consequences regardless of geographic location.

No contest — full default exposure
Commercial implications

Enforced design rights raise the cost of counterfeiting Unicorn-style bottles

A default judgment with asset seizure sends a market signal to other Alibaba-platform sellers carrying similar bottle designs. With four design patents covering the Unicorn bottle form factor, Chubby Gorilla holds overlapping IP that makes design-arounds more difficult. Processors such as PayPal and Stripe are now on actual notice, potentially accelerating future account suspensions for repeat infringers in this product category.

Deterrence signal to e-commerce counterfeiters
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:24-cv-13005 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffChubby Gorilla, Inc.CompanySpecialty bottle manufacturer — holder of USD991037, USD999637, USD907500, USD908500Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule AIndividualAnonymous e-commerce sellers operating counterfeit storefronts on Alibaba and related platforms.Search 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-13005 Document #: 42 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1249 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 to 6-6 and 16-25], which includes screenshot evidence confirming that each Defendant e-commerce store does stand Case: 1:24-cv-13005 Document #: 42 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:1250 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 [6-2 to 6-6] 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 to 6-6]; 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-13005 Document #: 42 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:1251 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-13005 Document #: 42 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:1252 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 to 6-6]. 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-13005 Document #: 42 Filed: 04/02/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:1253 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 $14,000.00 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-13005, Illinois Northern District Court

The court’s default judgment order finds willfulness across all four causes of action — design patent infringement, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, and Illinois deceptive trade practices — without adversarial presentation. In Schedule A cases, willfulness is typically established through plaintiff’s unrebutted evidence of intentional copying. The 35 U.S.C. § 289 damages floor of $250 per defendant combined with full account seizure suggests the court accepted Chubby Gorilla’s damages framing in its entirety, a significant outcome given that § 289 permits recovery of the infringer’s total profits from the infringing article.

PACER case 1:24-cv-13005 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USD991037, USD999637, USD907500, USD908500 — Unicorn cylindrical bottle design portfolio

Publication No.USD0908500S
Application No.US29/614048
Patent details
ProductCylindrical bottle with concave-tapered flat-top cap design (USD908500)
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

Publication No.USD0999637S
Application No.US29/765561
Patent details
ProductCylindrical bottle cap with smooth tapered top design (USD999637)
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

Publication No.USD0907500S
Application No.US29/610633
Patent details
ProductUnicorn-style cylindrical squeeze bottle body design (USD907500)
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

Publication No.USD0991037S
Application No.US29/765567
Patent details
ProductCylindrical bottle and cap assembly — Unicorn form factor (USD991037)
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2024

The four asserted design patents — USD991,037, USD999,637, USD907,500, and USD908,500 — cover the ornamental appearance of a cylindrical bottle paired with a distinctive cap. The cap features a cylindrical portion with a diameter substantially matching the bottle body and a smooth section that concavely tapers to a flat top, creating the recognisable ‘Unicorn’ silhouette. Application numbers span two filing clusters (US29/610633, US29/614048 and US29/765561, US29/765567), suggesting a deliberate continuation strategy to capture both the original design and evolved variants.

In the squeeze-bottle and vape accessories market, the Unicorn bottle’s silhouette has become commercially distinctive — which is precisely why Chubby Gorilla also secured trade dress protection alongside design patents. The combination creates a layered enforcement architecture: invalidating one design patent does not eliminate the others or the trade dress. For competitors in personal-care, condiment, or e-liquid packaging, this portfolio signals that the Unicorn bottle form factor is heavily encumbered and warrants careful FTO review before any product launch involving a similarly shaped cylindrical bottle and cap.

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

Should you run an FTO against USD991037, USD999637, USD907500, and USD908500?

Any manufacturer, importer, or e-commerce seller developing cylindrical squeeze bottles or similar personal-care packaging with a tapered flat-top cap should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against Chubby Gorilla’s design patent portfolio before commercialisation. The Unicorn Trade Dress claim extends the risk beyond registered design patents to any bottle shape that creates consumer confusion with the characteristic concave-taper profile — a broader standard that design-around analysis alone may not capture.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map all four design patent numbers, identify their prosecution history, and surface related continuation applications that may not yet be granted. The tool also flags third-party design-arounds attempted in the cylindrical bottle category, helping R&D and product teams identify safe design corridors. Given the court’s willingness to issue ex parte TROs and freeze payment processor accounts in Schedule A actions, proactive FTO analysis is far less costly than reactive enforcement defence.

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 cases in N.D. Illinois

Browse comparable Schedule A enforcement actions in the Northern District of Illinois involving design patent and trade dress infringement 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
Unicorn bottle design casesN.D. Ill. Schedule A defaultsVape accessory IP disputesTrade dress + design patent combos
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the vape and specialty bottle IP landscape

Schedule A tactics are reshaping how brand owners combat counterfeit e-commerce — this case illustrates both the speed and the limits of that approach.

Four overlapping design patents create a defensive moat worth mapping

Chubby Gorilla’s strategy of filing multiple design patent applications (USD907500, USD908500, USD991037, USD999637) covering the same product form factor is a classic layering technique. Competitors and FTO analysts should map all four to understand the full exclusionary perimeter before commercialising any similarly shaped cylindrical bottle or cap design.

Payment processor cooperation is now standard in Schedule A enforcement

Orders directing Alibaba, PayPal, Stripe, and Payoneer to freeze and transfer funds have become routine in N.D. Illinois. Any e-commerce business selling aesthetically similar bottle products on these platforms should treat this order as a template for the financial exposure they could face — even before a merits hearing.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated analysis covering trade dress strategy, FTO risk in the specialty bottle sector, and N.D. Illinois Schedule A litigation trends.
Trade dress vs. design patentFTO risk for bottle makersSchedule A litigation trends
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

Run an FTO on cylindrical bottle designs before your next product launch

With four overlapping design patents and trade dress rights covering the Unicorn bottle form factor, the risk landscape for cylindrical squeeze bottles is complex. PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent maps the full IP perimeter and surfaces safe design corridors before costly litigation exposure arises.

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.