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.
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.
Filing to Default Judgment in 93 days
Resolved in 93 days — fast even for a Schedule A default action in N.D. Illinois
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
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 defaultDeckers 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 grantedSellers 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 disabledSchedule 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 enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Deckers Outdoor Corp. | Company | Global footwear brand and IP licensor — holder of U.S. Design Patent D927,161Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | 60+ pseudonymous online marketplace sellers of counterfeit UGG-style footwearSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | A3HB9RAVYBMZTV | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | ff_shoes22 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | KK Cotton Boots | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | MingXie Shoes Trade | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others 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, hl853688633 | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | PXJD SHOP | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | QINMINGXIAODIAN | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | supshoesbest | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Yiwu Wenyan Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | YYang SHOP | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Crout Ziegler | Attorney | Counsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Daniel Burnham | 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 | Justin Tyler Joseph | 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 | Thomas Joseph Juettner | Attorney | Counsel for Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greer Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Deckers Outdoor Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Thomas M. Durkin | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
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.
USD0927161S — UGG ornamental footwear upper design
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.
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.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0927161S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →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.
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 Footwear upper-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.
DecidedDeckers Outdoor Corp.’s broader IP enforcement history
Deckers Outdoor Corp.’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat 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.
One defendant exclusion reveals a hidden settlement or appearance risk
Hefei City Shoes Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. was expressly carved out of the default judgment, suggesting it engaged with the litigation. This pattern — where a single commercially significant defendant appears and negotiates while others default — can result in confidential settlements with materially different terms than those entered on the public record.
Platform enforcement orders create secondary liability exposure for marketplaces
The judgment orders Amazon, eBay, Temu, Walmart and others to disable accounts and release funds within seven days of notice. Any delay in compliance could expose platforms to contempt proceedings. Companies selling on these platforms in adjacent footwear categories should audit their listings against D927,161 to avoid account-level collateral impact.
Deckers v Partnerships — key questions answered
U.S. Design Patent D927,161, issued August 10, 2021, protects the ornamental appearance of a footwear upper associated with Deckers’ UGG brand. In Case No. 1:24-cv-00805, Deckers asserted this patent against over 60 online marketplace sellers accused of selling visually similar counterfeit footwear to U.S. consumers, including Illinois residents.
A default judgment was entered on May 2, 2024 after all named defaulting defendants failed to appear or answer the complaint. Under FRCP Rule 55, their failure to respond meant the complaint’s allegations were deemed admitted. The court found liability for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 without a contested trial and issued a permanent injunction and profit awards.
Damages were awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which entitles a design patent holder to recover the total profits of the infringer from the sale of the infringing article. Individual awards ranged from $250 to $5,259 based on actual sales evidence submitted by Deckers. A $250 floor was applied where documented sales were minimal.
The default judgment expressly excluded Hefei City Shoes Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., identified as Defendant No. 1 in the case. The public record does not specify the reason, but this pattern typically suggests the defendant appeared in the litigation, entered a settlement, or was otherwise dismissed prior to the default judgment order. No public settlement terms were disclosed.
The permanent injunction and asset freeze orders applied to major third-party marketplace platforms and payment processors including Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Temu (WhaleCo), Walmart, Wish.com (ContextLogic), DHgate, PayPal, Alipay, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay. These entities were ordered to disable seller accounts and release frozen funds to Deckers within seven to fourteen days of receiving the order.
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.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.