Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Ajoffic — Dismissed Without Prejudice in 58 Days
Deckers Outdoor Corporation, owner of the USD927161S footwear upper design patent, filed suit against Ajoffic in the Northern District of Illinois in January 2024. The action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice within 58 days, leaving Deckers free to refile against the same defendant.
Early exit in a footwear design patent enforcement action
On 2 January 2024, Deckers Outdoor Corporation — the California-based company behind the UGG and HOKA brands — filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a group of online sellers identified on Schedule A, including the operator(s) of the storefront Ajoffic. The asserted patent, USD927161S (application number US29/712480), protects an ornamental design for a footwear upper, consistent with Deckers’ longstanding strategy of asserting design rights against alleged counterfeit or copycat e-commerce sellers.
The case closed on 29 February 2024 — just 58 days after filing — when Deckers filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Because all defendants were thereby dismissed, the court confirmed the case could be closed. No answer or motion for summary judgment had been filed by Ajoffic, meaning Deckers was entitled to dismiss as of right without a court order. The without-prejudice designation is legally significant: Deckers’ claims survive and can be refiled against Ajoffic at a later date.
The 58-day lifespan suggests the matter resolved at an early stage, potentially following informal outreach, a cease-and-desist compliance, or an undisclosed private settlement. Deckers routinely files Schedule A enforcement actions across multiple defendants simultaneously; early dismissals in such cases often reflect a seller taking down infringing listings rather than contested litigation. The public record does not disclose any financial terms, consent order, or confirmed takedown, leaving the precise trigger for dismissal unknown.
Filing to voluntary dismissal in 58 days
58 days — well under the median lifespan for design patent infringement cases in N.D. Illinois
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice — what it means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal — no court order required
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Deckers exercised this right here. The procedural simplicity of the mechanism is significant: it signals the case ended at its earliest possible stage, with no substantive judicial engagement on the merits of the infringement claims.
Plaintiff’s right to dismissWithout prejudice — Deckers’ claims are not extinguished
A dismissal without prejudice does not resolve the underlying dispute on its merits. Deckers retains the full legal right to refile identical or related claims against Ajoffic in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. This contrasts with a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar refiling permanently. The public record is silent on whether any private agreement — such as a consent decree or settlement — accompanied this filing, so the practical finality of the outcome is uncertain.
Claims survive — refile possibleSchedule A actions — a systematic anti-counterfeiting strategy
Deckers regularly pursues ‘Schedule A’ litigation: a single complaint naming dozens of anonymous or pseudonymous online sellers simultaneously. This model is common in fashion and footwear IP enforcement, enabling plaintiffs to obtain TROs, asset freezes, and domain seizures rapidly. Early dismissals against individual defendants — as seen here — are routine and typically reflect seller compliance, listing removal, or informal resolution rather than substantive legal defeat for the plaintiff.
Systematic e-commerce enforcementUSD927161S — ornamental footwear upper design rights
Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of a product, not its function. USD927161S covers the visual design of a footwear upper, a core asset in Deckers’ UGG brand portfolio. In infringement analysis, courts apply the ‘ordinary observer’ test: would an ordinary purchaser mistake the accused design for the patented one? This standard can be powerful against copycat e-commerce sellers who closely replicate distinctive brand aesthetics without authorisation.
Ordinary observer test appliesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Deckers Outdoor Corp. | Company | Footwear brand conglomerate (UGG, HOKA) — holder of USD927161SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Company | Ajoffic — online marketplace seller, no public corporate profile on recordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin R. Gaudio | Attorney | Counsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marcella Deshonda Slay | Attorney | Counsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rachel S. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas Joseph Juettner | Attorney | Counsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman | Chief Judge | Illinois Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal notice expressly invokes Rule 41(a)(1) and states that Ajoffic was the sole remaining defendant, enabling the court to close the docket. The without-prejudice language is the operative legal phrase: it confirms no merits ruling was made and Deckers’ infringement claims remain legally viable. The absence of any defendant filing on record suggests Ajoffic never engaged counsel, which is common among small e-commerce operators targeted in Schedule A actions.
USD927161S — Ornamental Design for a Footwear Upper
USD927161S (application number US29/712480) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a footwear upper — the portion of a shoe above the sole. Design patents in the U.S. have a term of 15 years from grant and are narrower in scope than utility patents, covering only the specific visual characteristics shown in the patent drawings. The footwear upper is a commercially critical design element in the UGG product line, where distinctive silhouettes and surface treatments are central to brand recognition and consumer purchasing decisions.
For Deckers, maintaining design patent coverage over footwear uppers provides a registered IP right that complements trademark and trade dress claims, enabling faster platform-level enforcement and stronger TRO applications. Competitors and white-label manufacturers in the sheepskin, suede, and casual footwear segments should treat USD927161S as a boundary marker: products with visually similar upper designs risk infringement claims regardless of whether they use the UGG brand name. The patent’s enforceability in Schedule A proceedings against anonymous online sellers underscores its practical commercial value beyond traditional court-based litigation.
Should your product team run an FTO check against USD927161S?
Any manufacturer, importer, or online retailer developing or sourcing footwear with uppers that share visual characteristics with Deckers’ UGG-family designs should treat USD927161S as a live enforcement risk. This case confirms Deckers actively monitors e-commerce platforms and files suit rapidly — with litigation commencing and completing within two months. Product teams launching footwear on Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or similar platforms are the most directly exposed, particularly if designs are sourced from third-party manufacturers without IP clearance documentation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD927161S’s claim scope against your product drawings and identify design patent families in Deckers’ broader portfolio that may cover adjacent aesthetics. Claim monitoring alerts can notify your team the moment Deckers files related design applications or continuation-in-part applications, giving you a compliance runway before products reach market. Running a proactive FTO is materially cheaper than responding to a Schedule A TRO application with an asset freeze already in place.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0927161S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A footwear design patent cases in N.D. Illinois
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for footwear IP enforcement on e-commerce platforms
Deckers’ rapid Schedule A filing and swift dismissal is a pattern worth tracking for any brand operating in fashion, footwear, or lifestyle accessories.
Schedule A enforcement is a high-velocity, low-cost deterrence tool
Deckers’ filing and dismissal within 58 days — with no defendant counsel engaged — is consistent with using litigation as a deterrent mechanism rather than a route to damages. IP teams at footwear and fashion brands should consider whether their design patent portfolios are structured to support this kind of systematic enforcement, including securing design rights across multiple product elements.
Design patents are increasingly central to anti-counterfeiting strategy
USD927161S illustrates how design patents — not just trade dress or trademarks — are being deployed against e-commerce counterfeiters. The ornamental footwear upper design gives Deckers a registered IP right that supports TRO applications and platform takedown requests. R&D and brand teams in footwear should audit whether key product aesthetics have design patent protection in place before launch.
Deckers v The — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on 29 February 2024. Deckers Outdoor Corporation voluntarily dismissed the action under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1) after 58 days, with no answer filed by Ajoffic. Deckers retains the right to refile the same infringement claims in future.
Deckers asserted USD927161S (application number US29/712480), a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental design of a footwear upper. Design patents cover the visual appearance of a product, not its function, and are enforced using the ordinary observer test for infringement.
Dismissed without prejudice means the court made no ruling on the merits. Deckers’ infringement claims against Ajoffic were not extinguished — Deckers can refile the same claims in the future. This contrasts with dismissal with prejudice, which permanently bars the same claims from being refiled.
The Northern District of Illinois is a frequently used venue for Schedule A IP enforcement actions targeting anonymous or pseudonymous e-commerce sellers. The district has familiarity with this filing model and has historically granted temporary restraining orders in such cases, making it strategically attractive for brand enforcement plaintiffs like Deckers.
A Schedule A case names multiple unknown or pseudonymous online sellers in a single complaint, typically identified only by their storefront names. Deckers used this model to pursue Ajoffic alongside other sellers. The approach enables rapid TRO applications and asset freezes, with individual defendants often dismissed early once they comply with takedown demands or engage informally with plaintiff counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.