Deckers v. Schedule A Sellers: UGG Design Patent Default Judgment in 83 Days
Deckers Outdoor Corporation secured a default judgment against anonymous e-commerce sellers infringing U.S. Design Patent D901,870 — the ornamental design of its UGG footwear line. Filed in the Northern District of Illinois and resolved in just 83 days, the court issued a permanent injunction and ordered disgorgement of profits from platforms including Amazon, Alibaba, Temu, and TikTok.
Deckers deploys Schedule A playbook to shut down UGG counterfeit network
Deckers Outdoor Corporation filed this action on 14 November 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Manish S. Shah, asserting infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D901,870 — the registered ornamental design of its iconic UGG footwear. The defendants were a collective of anonymous e-commerce sellers operating under pseudonymous seller aliases on major online marketplaces, identified only as the ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.’ This structure is characteristic of coordinated brand enforcement actions targeting offshore counterfeit networks.
The case resolved by default judgment on 5 February 2025 — just 83 days after filing. Deckers obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction early in the proceedings, including an asset freeze order. Defendants never appeared or answered. The court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting further sale, importation, or facilitation of the infringing product, and awarded Deckers the defendants’ profits from sales of infringing footwear under 35 U.S.C. § 289, the design patent profits disgorgement statute. Third-party payment processors and marketplace platforms were ordered to release frozen funds to Deckers within seven days.
The 83-day timeline is consistent with the Northern District of Illinois’s established efficiency in Schedule A design patent actions, where early TROs and asset freezes often compel resolution before defendants can regroup. The public record does not disclose the total monetary amount of profits awarded, as individual defendant-level figures appear in a sealed or redacted schedule. What remains unknown is the aggregate recovery and the number of distinct sellers named — details that would clarify the commercial scale of the counterfeit operation Deckers disrupted.
Filing to Default Judgment in 83 days
83 days — well under the typical 12–24 months for contested design patent cases; resolved by default
Default judgment entered: permanent injunction and profits disgorgement against all defendants
Default judgment: defendants’ failure to appear is deemed infringement admission
When defendants fail to answer or otherwise plead, the court treats the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as admitted. Here, Judge Shah found by virtue of default that each named seller infringed D901,870 under 35 U.S.C. § 271. The procedural posture means no merits contest occurred — liability was established without trial. This is a standard but strategically powerful outcome in Schedule A actions where defendant anonymity makes conventional service impractical.
Liability established by defaultDeckers secures permanent injunction and platform-level account freezes
Deckers obtained the full scope of requested relief: a permanent injunction barring sale, importation, and facilitation of infringing UGG-design footwear, plus a profits disgorgement award under § 289. Critically, the order binds major platforms — Amazon, Alibaba, Temu, TikTok, eBay, Etsy, Walmart, DHgate, and Wish — requiring them to freeze and transfer defendant funds within seven days. The $10,000 surety bond posted by Deckers was also returned. This result gives Deckers an enforceable monetisation mechanism against frozen marketplace accounts.
Full plaintiff relief grantedSellers face permanent ban and frozen financial accounts across all major marketplaces
Defaulting defendants are permanently enjoined from selling or importing the infringing product across any platform. Their financial accounts — including PayPal, Alipay, Amazon Pay, and others — are frozen and ordered released to Deckers up to the damages amount. The order also grants Deckers ongoing authority to serve supplemental proceedings if new accounts are identified, effectively cutting off financial exit routes. Any seller attempting to re-register under a new alias risks immediate contempt exposure.
Permanent injunction + asset forfeitureDesign patent enforcement via Schedule A remains a high-velocity deterrent for brand owners
This case reinforces the Schedule A model as a commercially efficient enforcement tool: a single filing can neutralise dozens of counterfeit storefronts within weeks. For footwear and consumer goods brands, it signals that design patent registrations — particularly for distinctive product silhouettes — carry real enforcement weight on cross-border e-commerce platforms. Competitors and private label sellers offering UGG-adjacent designs should treat D901,870 as an active litigation risk, not merely a registered right.
Design patent enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Deckers Outdoor Corp. | Company | Premium footwear brand owner — holder of U.S. Design Patent D901,870 (UGG ornamental design)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce seller network operating across Amazon, Alibaba, Temu, TikTok, and other platformsSearch 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 | 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 Manish S. Shah | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s default judgment finding is unambiguous: by virtue of defendants’ failure to appear, infringement of D901,870 under 35 U.S.C. § 271 is deemed established as a matter of law. The verdict’s breadth — permanently enjoining not only direct sale but also aiding, abetting, and entity restructuring to evade the order — signals judicial awareness of the recidivist patterns common in Schedule A defendant networks. The § 289 profits award, combined with mandatory platform compliance windows of seven days, reflects the court’s intent to make the judgment operationally effective, not merely declaratory.
USD0901870S — UGG footwear ornamental design patent
U.S. Design Patent No. D901,870 (application no. 29/699,054) protects the ornamental appearance — not functional features — of Deckers’ UGG brand footwear. Design patents cover the distinctive visual characteristics of a product, including silhouette, surface ornamentation, and overall aesthetic impression. The patent’s protection is limited to the specific design shown in its drawings, meaning infringement requires an accused product to be substantially similar to an ordinary observer. Design patents typically issue faster than utility patents and provide up to 15 years of protection from grant.
The UGG brand is among the most commercially recognised footwear designs globally, making D901,870 a high-value IP asset for Deckers. The patent functions as a front-line enforcement tool against the large volume of UGG-imitation products circulating on cross-border e-commerce platforms. For competitor footwear brands and private-label manufacturers, the combination of an active design registration and Deckers’ demonstrated willingness to pursue Schedule A actions creates a credible litigation threat. Any product sharing UGG’s characteristic silhouette warrants careful clearance against this patent before market entry.
Should you run an FTO against USD0901870S before launching footwear?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or selling footwear that shares aesthetic similarities with UGG’s characteristic silhouette — particularly comfort-leisure or slipper-style boot designs — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against D901,870. This is especially critical for brands selling through Amazon, Alibaba, Temu, Etsy, TikTok Shop, or similar platforms, which are explicitly named in Deckers’ enforcement orders and are obligated to cooperate with takedown and asset freeze requests.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of D901,870 against your product design, identify design-around opportunities, and surface related Deckers design filings that may extend protection to adjacent UGG product lines. Given that default judgments in Schedule A cases are obtained without defendants’ participation, early FTO clearance is a lower-cost alternative to facing a TRO and asset freeze after launch. Eureka can also monitor Deckers’ ongoing design patent prosecution activity to flag new filings before they issue.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0901870S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in footwear and apparel
Explore related design patent infringement actions against Schedule A e-commerce seller networks in footwear and apparel at the N.D. Illinois district court.
What this case signals for the footwear design patent IP landscape
Deckers’ swift default judgment illustrates how proactive design patent portfolios can rapidly neutralise counterfeit e-commerce networks at scale.
Schedule A filings compress enforcement timelines to under 90 days
This case closed in 83 days — far faster than a contested district court action. Brand owners with registered design patents should model Schedule A filings as a first-response tool, not a last resort. The combination of TRO, asset freeze, and platform cooperation creates leverage that typically forecloses defendant participation entirely.
§ 289 profits disgorgement makes design patent infringement financially existential for infringers
Unlike reasonable royalty damages, § 289 awards the infringer’s total profits from sales of the infringing article. For e-commerce sellers, this means the entire revenue from counterfeit listings is at risk. Coupled with platform-level account freezes, the financial exposure effectively shuts down the defendant’s business model before any appeal can be filed.
Deckers v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment finding that all named defendants infringed U.S. Design Patent D901,870 by selling footwear copying the UGG ornamental design. The court issued a permanent injunction and ordered disgorgement of defendants’ profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, with major e-commerce platforms ordered to freeze and transfer defendant funds within seven days.
D901,870 (application no. 29/699,054) is a U.S. design patent held by Deckers Outdoor Corporation protecting the ornamental appearance of its UGG brand footwear. Design patents protect the visual characteristics of a product rather than its functionality. Infringement is assessed by whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented design.
Deckers used the Schedule A filing mechanism, which allows brand owners to sue groups of anonymous e-commerce sellers collectively. Courts in the Northern District of Illinois routinely permit service by electronic publication and email in these cases. When defendants — typically offshore sellers — fail to appear, the court enters default. Deckers obtained a TRO and asset freeze early, leaving defendants with diminishing incentive to contest the action.
The order binds Amazon, Alibaba, AliExpress, eBay, Etsy, Walmart, Temu (WhaleCo), TikTok (ByteDance, TikTok Ltd., TikTok Inc., TikTok LLC), DHgate, Wish.com, PayPal, Alipay, Ant Financial, and Amazon Pay. These platforms are required to disable defendant listings within seven days of notice and to release frozen funds to Deckers as satisfaction of the profits award.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent infringer is liable for their total profit from the sale of any article to which the patented design has been applied. Unlike reasonable royalty damages, § 289 does not require apportionment — the entire profit from the infringing product may be awarded. In e-commerce enforcement contexts, this means all revenue held in defendants’ marketplace accounts is potentially recoverable by the patent holder.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.