Book a demo

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

Try now
Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Schedule A Defendants – UGG Design Patent | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:24-cv-00805
FiledJan 2024
ClosedMay 2024
Patent Litigation

Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Schedule A Defendants – UGG Design Patent Default Judgment

Deckers Outdoor Corporation secured a default judgment and permanent injunction against more than 60 online marketplace sellers accused of infringing U.S. Design Patent D927,161, covering the iconic UGG footwear upper design. The case resolved in just 93 days, with profit awards ordered under 35 U.S.C. § 289 and third-party payment processors directed to freeze and release defendant funds.

Resolution time
93days
Resolved in 93 days — fast even for a Schedule A default action in N.D. Illinois
Patents asserted
1
USD0927161S — UGG footwear upper design, ornamental design patent issued Aug 10, 2021
Outcome
Default Judgment
All defaulting defendants deemed liable; permanent injunction and profit awards granted
Cost ruling
Profits Awarded
Disgorgement of infringer profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289; awards range from $250 to $5,259 per defendant
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

UGG design patent enforced against 60+ counterfeit online sellers

On January 30, 2024, Deckers Outdoor Corporation filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-00805) before Judge Thomas M. Durkin, targeting a network of over 60 online marketplace sellers operating under pseudonymous seller aliases on platforms including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Temu, Walmart, and DHgate. The central claim was infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D927,161, which protects the ornamental appearance of the UGG footwear upper and was issued on August 10, 2021.

None of the named defendants appeared or answered the complaint, and the court entered a default judgment on May 2, 2024 — just 93 days after filing. The judgment permanently enjoins all defaulting defendants from offering for sale, selling, or importing the infringing products, and directs third-party payment processors and marketplace platforms to freeze and remit restrained funds to Deckers. Profit awards under 35 U.S.C. § 289 were calculated per defendant based on actual sales evidence, ranging from the statutory floor of $250 to $5,259 for the highest earner, xiuming shop.

The speed of resolution is consistent with the Northern District of Illinois’s well-established pipeline for Schedule A design patent cases, where ex parte temporary restraining orders and asset freezes are routinely granted at the outset. One named defendant — Hefei City Shoes Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. — was expressly excluded from the default judgment, suggesting it either appeared, was separately settled, or was dismissed prior to the ruling. The public record does not disclose the basis for that exclusion or whether any funds were actually recovered from the frozen accounts.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:24-cv-00805
CourtIllinois Northern
JudgeThomas M. Durkin
FiledJanuary 30, 2024
ClosedMay 2, 2024
Duration93 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 93 days

Resolved in 93 days — fast even for a Schedule A default action in N.D. Illinois

Case timeline: Complaint filed JAN 30 2024, MAR–APR — 93 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Deckers Outdoor Corp. v The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Illinois Northern District Court. JAN 30 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings MAY 2 2024 Default Judgment 93 DAYS TOTAL
Default judgment

Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Default judgment under Rule 55: liability admitted by inaction

When defendants fail to answer or appear, the court may enter default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. Here, all defaulting defendants forfeited their right to contest liability, and the court deemed the complaint’s allegations admitted. This is a common enforcement tool in Schedule A cases, where defendants are typically anonymous overseas sellers unlikely to engage with U.S. proceedings.

Rule 55 default
Patent holder outcome

Deckers wins permanent injunction and profit disgorgement

Deckers obtained a permanent injunction barring all defaulting defendants from selling infringing products and directing platforms to disable seller accounts. Critically, 35 U.S.C. § 289 — which allows recovery of total infringer profits on a design patent — was invoked, enabling awards without proving actual damages. Third-party processors were ordered to release frozen funds directly to Deckers as partial payment.

Permanent injunction granted
Defendant outcome

Sellers face account seizures, fund freezes, and ongoing liability

Defaulting defendants received no opportunity to contest infringement or the profit calculations. Their online marketplace accounts have been disabled and financial accounts frozen up to the awarded amounts. Deckers retains authority to commence supplemental proceedings under FRCP 69 to pursue any unpaid balance, and may identify and pursue additional accounts. The judgment is final with no just reason for delay certified.

Assets frozen, accounts disabled
Commercial implications

Schedule A enforcement sends deterrent signal across counterfeit networks

This judgment reinforces the effectiveness of Schedule A litigation as a rapid enforcement mechanism for design patent holders in the footwear sector. The involvement of major platforms — Amazon, eBay, Temu, Walmart, AliExpress — signals that Deckers is pursuing broad marketplace enforcement. For competitors and counterfeiters, the combination of asset freezes and platform-level account disabling raises the operational risk of UGG-adjacent designs significantly.

Design patent enforcement
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:24-cv-00805 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffDeckers Outdoor Corp.CompanyGlobal footwear brand and IP licensor — holder of U.S. Design Patent D927,161Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantThe Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule AIndividual60+ pseudonymous online marketplace sellers of counterfeit UGG-style footwearSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantA3HB9RAVYBMZTVIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-Defendantff_shoes22IndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantKK Cotton BootsIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantMingXie Shoes TradeIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantOthers too numerous to list: fenghou19834190, Sitongnade INTRACO Ltd, KangChiBaiHuoDian, Stylish Store Direct, TaiYuanKuoSaiShangMaoYouXianGongSi, UGGjgnah.llc, trainers01, xiuming shop, jinshiyuan1999, sts_016, Henan Irwoods Industries Co., Ltd., diao06, Chaumet, LIXISM, heatshoes, A3A49IWTU2EM0O, qiyue09, Luxes Origin (shenzhen) Industrial Co., Ltd., Hefei City Shoes Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., SIBOXIUSI US, mans_sneakers, sheng-pai, rongguandianzishangmaogongzuoshi, Maleaf, maimaimaidh, putianshizhenpindingshengmaoyiyouxiangongsi, Weixi Convenience Store, JUMENGHUAN, dhtop3, sportswordshoes, poolslipper574, ATHMILE-US, TYUIII, georgez321, DUOCOVER, AP29AIV4JE35X, runningshoes_th, CHENZHIMINGfeiyuczm123, shoes_03, anzh939, jianglunxing, VeerMo, haoyun-us, JIAYUN SHOES, WEIXL.LLC, jiuwans, wangleliang, misihan06, dhsneakersnstuff, nuotangfur, TALKING, PUONILCA-US, YiChangBaoJiXinXiKeJiYouXianGongSi, cheaphandbags, ZAAHUIYANG, ZhenRS, SZBMZ, dayremit, fc_flightclub, hainanzhenbaicaidianzishangwuyouxiangongsi, Hu Yuting Store, dh_fast_store, ROEDE NO9, hl853688633CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantPXJD SHOPIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantQINMINGXIAODIANIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantsupshoesbestIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantYiwu Wenyan Trading Co., Ltd.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantYYang SHOPIndividualSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAmy Crout ZieglerAttorneyCounsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAndrew Daniel BurnhamAttorneyCounsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJustin R. GaudioAttorneyCounsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJustin Tyler JosephAttorneyCounsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMarcella Deshonda SlayAttorneyCounsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselThomas Joseph JuettnerAttorneyCounsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmGreer Burns & Crain, Ltd.Law FirmRepresenting Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Thomas M. DurkinJudgeIllinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“This action having been commenced by Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “Deckers”) against the defendants identified on Schedule A, with the exception of Defendant Hefei City Shoes Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd (Def. No. 1), and using the Online Marketplace Accounts identified on Schedule A (collectively, the “Defendant Internet Stores”), and Plaintiff having moved for entry of Default and Default Judgment against the defendants identified on Schedule A attached hereto which have not yet been dismissed from this case (collectively, “Defaulting Defendants”); This Court having entered a preliminary injunction; 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 domain name registrars and payment processors, being notice reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise Defaulting Defendants of the pendency of the action and affording them the opportunity to answer and present their objections; and Case: 1:24-cv-00805 Document #: 57 Filed: 05/02/24 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:2069 2 None of the Defaulting Defendants having 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; This Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over Defaulting Defendants because Defaulting Defendants directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Plaintiff has provided a basis to conclude that Defaulting Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more seller aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, and have sold the footwear shown in Exhibit 1 to the Complaint [3] that infringes Plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. D927,161 (the “Infringing Products”) to residents of Illinois. In this case, Plaintiff has presented screenshot evidence that each Defendant e-commerce store is 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 Infringing Products. See Docket Nos. [3][19], which includes screenshot evidence confirming that each Defendant e-commerce store does stand ready, willing and able to ship its Infringing Products to customers in Illinois. Plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. D927,161 (the “UGG Design”) is shown in the chart below. Case: 1:24-cv-00805 Document #: 57 Filed: 05/02/24 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2070 3 Patent Number Claim Issue Date D927,161 August 10, 2021 This Court further finds that Defaulting Defendants are liable for patent infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271). Case: 1:24-cv-00805 Document #: 57 Filed: 05/02/24 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:2071 4 Accordingly, this Court orders that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED as follows, that Defaulting Defendants are deemed in default, and that this Default Judgment is entered against Defaulting Defendants. This Court further orders 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 permanently enjoined and restrained from: a. offering for sale, selling, and importing the Infringing Product; b. aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in offering for sale, selling, and importing the Infringing Product; and c. effecting assignments or transfers, forming new entities or associations or utilizing any other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwise avoiding the prohibitions set forth in Subparagraphs (a) and (b). 2. Defaulting Defendants and any third party with actual notice of this Order who is providing services for any of the Defaulting Defendants, or in connection with any of the Defaulting Defendants’ Online Marketplaces, including, without limitation, any online marketplace platforms such as eBay, Inc. (“eBay”), AliExpress, Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. (“Alibaba”), Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), ContextLogic, Inc. d/b/a Wish.com (“Wish.com”), WhaleCo, Inc. (“Temu”), Walmart Inc. (“Walmart”), and DHgate (collectively, the “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 Marketplace Accounts, or any other online marketplace account Case: 1:24-cv-00805 Document #: 57 Filed: 05/02/24 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:2072 5 that is being used to sell or is the means by which Defaulting Defendants could continue to sell Infringing Products; and b. operating and/or hosting websites that are involved with the distribution, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or sale of Infringing Products. 3. Upon Plaintiff’s request, those with notice of this Order, including the Third Party Providers as defined in Paragraph 2, shall within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of such notice, disable and cease displaying any advertisements used by or associated with Defaulting Defendants in connection with the sale of Infringing Products. 4. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289, Plaintiff is awarded profits from each of the Defaulting Defendants for the sale of the Infringing Products sold through at least the Defaulting Defendants’ Internet Stores according to the below chart: Defendant Award Henan Irwoods Industries Co., Ltd. $3,634 Luxes Origin (shenzhen) Industrial Co., Ltd. $250 Yiwu Wenyan Trading Co., Ltd. $250 A3A49IWTU2EM0O $250 anzh939 $250 CHENZHIMINGfeiyuczm123 $250 DUOCOVER $250 haoyun-us $587 Hu Yuting Store $250 jianglunxing $477 JIAYUN SHOES $2,067 JUMENGHUAN $250 KangChiBaiHuoDian $509 LIXISM $1,445 Maleaf $592 PXJD SHOP $250 QINMINGXIAODIAN $250 ROEDE NO9 $2,801 rongguandianzishangmaogongzuoshi $1,374 sheng-pai $4,048 Sitongnade INTRACO Ltd $2,298 Case: 1:24-cv-00805 Document #: 57 Filed: 05/02/24 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:2073 6 SZBMZ $3,636 TALKING $418 UGGjgnah.llc $250 Weixi Convenience Store $250 WEIXL.LLC $250 xiuming shop $5,259 YiChangBaoJiXinXiKeJiYouXianGongSi $676 YYang SHOP $682 ZAAHUIYANG $250 cheaphandbags $308 dayremit $2,305 dh_fast_store $269 dhsneakersnstuff $250 dhtop3 $250 diao06 $250 fc_flightclub $461 fenghou19834190 $250 ff_shoes22 $250 georgez321 $1,211 heatshoes $4,172 hl853688633 $250 jinshiyuan1999 $250 jiuwans $250 maimaimaidh $609 mans_sneakers $250 misihan06 $250 poolslipper574 $250 qiyue09 $250 runningshoes_th $1,307 shoes_03 $1,476 sportswordshoes $4,802 sts_016 $250 supshoesbest $250 trainers01 $250 wangleliang $250 Chaumet $2,005 KK Cotton Boots $250 5. Any Third Party Providers holding funds for Defaulting Defendants, including PayPal, Inc. (“PayPal”), eBay, Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Temu, Walmart, Ant Financial Services Case: 1:24-cv-00805 Document #: 57 Filed: 05/02/24 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:2074 7 Group (“Ant Financial”), and Amazon Pay, shall, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this Order, permanently restrain and enjoin any accounts connected to Defaulting Defendants or the Defendant Internet Stores from transferring or disposing of any funds (up to the profit awarded in Paragraph 4 above) or other of Defaulting Defendants’ assets. 6. All monies (up to the amount of the profit awarded in Paragraph 4 above) currently restrained in Defaulting Defendants’ financial accounts, including monies held by Third Party Providers such as PayPal, eBay, Alipay, Alibaba, Temu, Wish.com, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay, are hereby released to Plaintiff as partial payment of the above-identified damages, and Third Party Providers, including PayPal, eBay, Alipay, Alibaba, Wish.com, Temu, Walmart, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay, are ordered to release to Plaintiff the amounts from 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 any Defaulting Defendant, Plaintiff shall have the ongoing authority to commence supplemental proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69. 8. In the event that Plaintiff identifies any additional online marketplace accounts or financial accounts owned by Defaulting Defendants, Plaintiff may send notice of any supplemental proceeding, including a citation to discover assets, to Defaulting Defendants by e-mail at the e-mail addresses identified in Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Laurie Rose Lubiano and any e-mail addresses provided for Defaulting Defendants by third parties. 9. To obtain release of the bond previously posted in this action, Plaintiff’s counsel must file a motion for the return of the bond once the preliminary injunction no longer applies to any Defendant. Case: 1:24-cv-00805 Document #: 57 Filed: 05/02/24 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:2075 8 This Court, having determined that there is no just reason for delay, orders that this is a Final Judgment against the Defaulting Defendants.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:24-cv-00805, Illinois Northern District Court

The default judgment’s scope is broad and final: the court expressly certified no just reason for delay, making this immediately enforceable against all defaulting defendants. The verdict is grounded in deemed admissions under Rule 55 — no infringement analysis was contested. The per-defendant profit awards under § 289 reflect actual sales evidence submitted by Deckers, with a $250 floor applied where sales data was minimal. The exclusion of Hefei City Shoes from the judgment is notable and suggests that defendant engaged with the proceeding in some capacity prior to the May 2, 2024 ruling.

PACER case 1:24-cv-00805 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USD0927161S — UGG ornamental footwear upper design

Publication No.USD0927161S
Application No.US29/712480
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design for a UGG-style footwear upper
Cited in actionJanuary 30, 2024

U.S. Design Patent No. D927,161 protects the ornamental appearance of a footwear upper — specifically the visual design associated with Deckers’ UGG brand boot silhouette. Filed under application No. US29/712480, the patent was issued on August 10, 2021. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the non-functional, ornamental aspects of a product’s appearance, and infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — whether an ordinary purchaser would be deceived into thinking the accused product is the patented design.

D927,161 sits at the center of Deckers’ aggressive design patent enforcement program targeting counterfeit UGG products on global e-commerce platforms. The UGG silhouette is one of the most-copied footwear designs globally, making this patent commercially critical. For footwear brands and designers operating in the casual boot or shearling-style segment, this patent represents a high-risk design proximity zone. Any product mimicking the UGG upper profile — particularly those sold on Amazon, Temu, or AliExpress — faces meaningful infringement exposure under the ordinary observer standard.

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

Should you run an FTO against USD0927161S?

Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing UGG-adjacent footwear uppers — particularly shearling-style or casual boot silhouettes sold through online marketplaces — should treat D927,161 as a live enforcement risk. Deckers has demonstrated willingness to pursue dozens of defendants simultaneously, and the Schedule A mechanism means injunctions and asset freezes can arrive before a seller is even aware litigation has commenced. This applies equally to private-label footwear brands, marketplace resellers, and ODM manufacturers supplying the US market.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map their footwear designs against active design patents including D927,161 before production. Eureka can identify visual similarity clusters, flag design patent families held by Deckers, and surface related enforcement actions across jurisdictions. Running an automated FTO prior to listing a new footwear style on Amazon or Temu is now a baseline risk management step for any brand in this category.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0927161S to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar footwear design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois

Browse comparable design patent infringement actions against anonymous online sellers in the footwear sector adjudicated before N.D. Illinois district courts.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Deckers Outdoor Corp. patent enforcement history, Illinois Northern case history, Deckers Outdoor Corp.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
UGG design patent casesSchedule A footwear actionsN.D. Illinois default judgments§ 289 profit award cases
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the footwear design patent IP landscape

Deckers’ rapid default judgment illustrates how Schedule A litigation has become a primary IP enforcement tool against counterfeit e-commerce networks.

§ 289 profit disgorgement makes design patents highly potent against counterfeiters

By invoking 35 U.S.C. § 289, Deckers bypassed the need to prove lost profits or reasonable royalties. Total infringer profits — however modest — are recoverable per defendant. For high-volume enforcement campaigns against many small sellers, this statutory mechanism makes design patent litigation economically viable even where individual awards are small.

Schedule A TROs freeze assets before defendants can respond — by design

The ex parte TRO and preliminary injunction secured early in this case locked down defendant funds on platforms like Amazon Pay, PayPal, and Alipay before any defendant could move assets. This sequencing is a deliberate litigation strategy used by firms like Greer Burns & Crain. IP teams monitoring counterfeit risk should understand that asset freezes often precede any public docket activity.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper analysis on design patent enforcement strategy in the footwear sector at N.D. Illinois district court level.
Hidden settlement signalsPlatform liability exposure§ 289 damages strategy
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Deckers v Partnerships — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Monitor footwear design patent enforcement with PatSnap Eureka

Track new Schedule A filings, asset freeze orders, and design patent grants in the footwear sector. Run automated FTO searches against Deckers’ D927,161 and related design patents before launching new products.

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.