Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Schedule A Defendants: Default Judgment in 77 Days
Deckers Outdoor Corporation sued over 80 e-commerce sellers across AliExpress, Amazon, Temu, and DHgate for infringing its registered UGG footwear design patent D866,941. Judge Kennelly granted default judgment with a permanent injunction and profit disgorgement awards — the largest single award reaching $60,128 against seller MATIAS — closing the case in just 77 days.
Deckers targets global counterfeit UGG network via Schedule A enforcement
Filed on March 6, 2024, in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, this case pits Deckers Outdoor Corporation — owner of the UGG brand — against more than 80 pseudonymous e-commerce sellers operating across platforms including Amazon, AliExpress, Temu, DHgate, Wish, and Walmart. The single asserted patent, U.S. Design Patent D866,941, issued November 19, 2019, covers the ornamental design of a footwear upper and midsole — the distinctive visual identity of an UGG boot silhouette.
The case closed on May 22, 2024 — just 77 days after filing — via default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. The court found personal jurisdiction because defendants actively targeted U.S. consumers, accepted U.S. dollar payments, and shipped to Illinois. Profit disgorgement was ordered under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which permits recovery of a defendant’s total profits from an infringing article of manufacture. Awards ranged from $250 to $60,128, with the court also issuing a permanent injunction and ordering third-party payment processors to release restrained funds directly to Deckers.
The 77-day resolution is characteristic of the ‘Schedule A’ litigation model, which allows brand owners to pursue large defendant pools efficiently through a single complaint and early asset freezing. What remains unknown from the public record is the total aggregate recovery actually collected — the profit awards represent court-ordered maximums, but whether all restrained funds were sufficient to satisfy each judgment is not disclosed. The absence of any defendant appearances also means no invalidity or non-infringement defenses were ever tested on the merits.
Filing to Default Judgment in 77 days
77 days — well below the median N.D. Illinois IP case duration of ~2 years
Default judgment granted: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: no merits contest, full plaintiff relief
Default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 is entered when a defendant fails to answer or otherwise appear. The court does not adjudicate the merits adversarially — it accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true. Here, all 80+ defendants defaulted, enabling the court to issue permanent injunctions and profit awards without opposition. This mechanism is structurally favored in Schedule A enforcement because defendants are often anonymous overseas sellers with no U.S. legal representation.
Rule 55 default — no merits adjudicationDeckers wins permanent injunction and profit disgorgement
Deckers secured its full ask: a permanent injunction barring defendants from selling, offering, or importing the infringing product; orders compelling marketplaces and payment processors to disable listings and release frozen funds within seven days; and profit awards under 35 U.S.C. § 289. The $10,000 surety bond was also returned. The outcome reinforces D866,941 as an actively enforced design right against counterfeit UGG products on global platforms.
Full relief granted — injunction + profitsDefaulting sellers face frozen accounts and permanent bans
By failing to appear, defendants lost the opportunity to contest jurisdiction, patent validity, or infringement. The court ordered third-party providers — including Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, Temu, PayPal, and Alipay — to freeze and transfer defendant funds within seven days. Sellers face permanent platform bans and ongoing exposure if new accounts are identified. The default also precludes re-litigation of these specific infringement allegations in a subsequent proceeding.
Assets frozen — no appeal rights preservedSchedule A model raises the cost of counterfeit UGG distribution
This case illustrates how design patent holders can weaponize the Schedule A/default judgment playbook to rapidly neutralize large seller networks with minimal litigation cost. The asset-freeze mechanism — executed before defendants can liquidate platform accounts — is the key enforcement lever. For the broader footwear sector, it signals that ornamental design registrations combined with cross-platform monitoring are a commercially viable deterrent against counterfeit operations originating primarily in China.
Asset-freeze enforcement model validatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Deckers Outdoor Corp. | Company | Footwear and lifestyle brand — holder of Design Patent D866,941 (UGG boot design)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | 80+ pseudonymous online marketplace sellers operating across global e-commerce platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | clsichuan_shops | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | g31n | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | hengzhe | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | hfdlxsm | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | junzhuang | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | mimiki | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others too numerous to list: ccur, GGOODD Store, zhiniao, kaifang, FREEDOM CM, kvt1, suolong11, trainerskids, Ningbo Youqi Import & Export Co., Ltd., discountbags168, handbagshow004, s5oq, liandai, JIEGUO, DinaUs, West Wind Footwear Store, cheap_shoes_2021, nnmw, sportfashion001, xiangyue318, ogmine, ranhanshoes, keyibaihuo, handbagshow002, zuigua, xiaoge_seller, act8, zeankan, topaj4003, lianzai, Da Fu, clputian_shops, cl_shoes, pig999, dekang store, Negroke LoveNighty Store, xianhua77, FEGGB, yeezyshoes01, shanchuan2516, funny_store23, designerkids, luxury_sneaker_2019, stpf, pg24, Houwsbaby Official Store, chayuan99, topputianshoes, biglove999, luxury_brand_sneaker, verygood_shoes, clhubei_shops, max0529, jizc, Shiyi Life Store, featured_sellers, longlids, wuxh2018, darksworder, v1to, dhshoes8, akap, Cstar Fashion, shuzhai, STQ GROUP INC, STQ Inc, us_new_jersey, pk_designer, guaguo55, jiang1, ggstar, top_selection, Shenzhen Aifurui Technology Co., Ltd., jordanshoes88, MATIAS, Design For You Store, tongshanxianduminbaihuodian, topaj002, jinzi_sports, bcmcxmy, brand_sports_shoes, cegui, xmbks, popular_products, aaee4 | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | qiuti16 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | shoes_running_store | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | tomota999 | Individual | Search 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 | 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 Matthew F. Kennelly | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment order is broad and operationally detailed, reflecting the court’s acceptance of all well-pleaded allegations. The finding of personal jurisdiction over anonymous overseas sellers — grounded in active U.S. consumer targeting and dollar-denominated transactions — is consistent with prevailing Schedule A doctrine in N.D. Illinois. The profit awards under § 289 vary significantly by seller (from $250 to $60,128), suggesting Deckers submitted individualized sales evidence for higher-volume defendants while accepting the statutory floor for others. The permanent injunction binds not just named defendants but affiliated entities and future accounts — a forward-looking enforcement posture.
D866,941 — UGG ornamental footwear upper and midsole design
U.S. Design Patent D866,941 issued November 19, 2019, with application number 29/663,103. Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than functional features — here, the distinctive visual profile of an UGG footwear upper and midsole. Design patent terms run 15 years from grant under post-2015 law, placing D866,941 in force until approximately 2034. The patent covers the specific aesthetic geometry that makes UGG boots visually recognizable — a high-value enforcement asset in a market flooded with lookalike imports.
For the footwear sector, D866,941 represents a core brand protection asset for Deckers’ UGG line — one of the most counterfeited footwear designs globally. The Schedule A enforcement strategy applied here is purpose-built for design patents because the infringement analysis is a straightforward visual comparison under the ‘ordinary observer’ test, reducing litigation complexity. Competitors and private-label footwear manufacturers operating in the UGG-adjacent silhouette space should treat this patent as actively monitored and enforced, particularly on cross-border e-commerce platforms.
Should you run an FTO against D866,941 before launching footwear products?
Any brand, manufacturer, or online retailer developing or distributing footwear products with a boot upper and midsole profile visually similar to the UGG silhouette should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against D866,941 before market entry. This case confirms Deckers enforces the patent aggressively via multi-defendant Schedule A actions, with asset freezes executed at the TRO stage — meaning enforcement risk materialises before you have an opportunity to respond. The risk is not limited to direct counterfeiters; adjacent design choices in the same product category can trigger infringement claims under the ordinary observer standard.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of D866,941 against your product design, identify prior art that may constrain the patent’s effective coverage, and flag related Deckers design filings that may cover adjacent silhouettes. Eureka’s patent landscape tools also surface active enforcement patterns — showing which platforms and product categories Deckers has targeted historically — so your product and legal teams can make launch decisions with full IP risk visibility rather than reactive crisis management.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0866941S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois footwear litigation
Cases matching Schedule A multi-defendant design patent enforcement in N.D. Illinois footwear counterfeiting — sorted by damages awarded and resolution speed.
What this case signals for the footwear and design patent IP landscape
The Deckers ruling is a textbook Schedule A enforcement win — fast, asset-freezing, and scalable across global marketplace platforms.
Design patent + Schedule A is the fastest counterfeit deterrent available
The 77-day cradle-to-judgment timeline demonstrates that a registered design patent, combined with a Schedule A multi-defendant complaint and early TRO, can neutralize a global counterfeit network before defendants can withdraw platform funds. Brand owners with high-volume counterfeit exposure should prioritize design patent registration as an enforcement asset, not just a registration formality.
35 U.S.C. § 289 profit disgorgement removes the safe harbor of low-revenue sellers
The court awarded minimum $250 profit disgorgement even against sellers with minimal apparent sales. Section 289 allows recovery of a defendant’s total profits on the infringing article — not apportioned to the patented design. This creates meaningful financial exposure even for small-volume counterfeiters and removes the argument that infringement at low volumes is economically inconsequential to the patent holder.
Deckers v Partnerships — key questions answered
D866,941 is a U.S. design patent owned by Deckers Outdoor Corporation, issued November 19, 2019, covering the ornamental design of a footwear upper and midsole — the distinctive visual appearance of an UGG boot silhouette. It was the sole patent asserted in case 1:24-cv-01907 against 80+ online marketplace sellers.
Deckers filed a Schedule A complaint against pseudonymous e-commerce sellers, immediately sought a TRO with asset freeze, effected service by electronic publication and email, and moved for default when defendants failed to appear. This streamlined multi-defendant enforcement model — common in N.D. Illinois — allows brand owners to reach judgment rapidly without contested merits litigation.
Section 289 allows a design patent holder to recover the defendant’s total profits from the sale of any article of manufacture that infringes the design — without apportionment to the patented feature. In this case, awards ranged from $250 (minimum floor for low-revenue sellers) to $60,128 for the highest-revenue defendant, MATIAS. This remedy is distinct from and in addition to damages under § 284.
Defendants who failed to appear may seek to vacate a default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) by demonstrating good cause, a meritorious defense, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff. However, the seven-day fund transfer deadlines mean assets may already have been released to Deckers before any such motion could be filed, significantly reducing the practical incentive to challenge the judgment.
The judgment’s third-party provider orders named eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Amazon, Wish.com, Walmart, Etsy, Temu, and DHgate as marketplace platforms, and PayPal, eBay, Alipay, Alibaba, Ant Financial, Wish.com, DHgate, Walmart, Etsy, Temu, and Amazon Pay as payment processors required to freeze and transfer defendant funds within seven days of receiving the order.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.