Dyson v. Schedule A Sellers: Design Patent Enforced Against Online Hair Care Counterfeiters
Dyson Technology Limited pursued anonymous e-commerce sellers in the Northern District of Illinois for infringing USD853642S, a design patent covering hair styling and hair care apparatus. The case resolved in 207 days via settlement and default judgment, securing a permanent injunction and $6,500 in damages — a result consistent with Dyson’s broader anti-counterfeiting enforcement strategy.
Dyson’s Schedule A Anti-Counterfeiting Playbook Delivers Injunction
Filed on 17 May 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Manish S. Shah, this action saw Dyson Technology Limited assert design patent USD853642S against a group of anonymous online marketplace sellers — a procedural format widely used to pursue e-commerce counterfeiters at scale. The accused products were hair styling and hair care apparatus alleged to infringe Dyson’s registered design.
The case closed on 10 December 2024 via a default judgment incorporating the parties’ settlement agreement. The court permanently enjoined the defendant from selling, offering for sale, or importing the infringing product, and ordered Walmart Inc. to transfer $6,500 from the defendant’s accounts to Dyson. The dismissal was entered without prejudice, a standard posture in settled Schedule A matters that leaves Dyson’s enforcement rights intact.
At 207 days, the resolution is notably swift for a patent case — consistent with the default judgment pathway that N.D. Ill. Schedule A proceedings typically follow when defendants fail to mount a defence. The absence of defendant legal representation and the Walmart account freeze mechanism suggest this was a marketplace-based seller, likely operating on a third-party platform. The public record does not disclose whether other Schedule A defendants remain active in related proceedings.
Filing to Default Judgment in 207 days
207 days — resolved faster than the median N.D. Ill. patent case, consistent with Schedule A default proceedings
Default judgment and settlement: what the order means for both parties
Default judgment with settlement — how this works
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond. Here, the court incorporated the parties’ settlement agreement into its order, making the $6,500 payment and permanent injunction court-enforceable obligations — not merely contractual ones. The dismissal without prejudice preserves Dyson’s right to refile if the injunction is violated or new infringement emerges.
Default + settlement hybrid orderWithout prejudice: Dyson retains full re-filing rights
A dismissal without prejudice means the case is closed but Dyson is not barred from bringing a new action on the same patent against the same or related parties. This is strategically significant: if the defendant resumes sales under a new entity or account — a known tactic in Schedule A cases — Dyson can refile without waiving its prior enforcement position. The injunction itself also carries independent enforcement teeth via contempt.
Enforcement rights preservedPermanent injunction bars all future sales of the infringing product
The defendant is permanently restrained from selling, offering for sale, or importing the infringing hair care apparatus, and from assisting others in doing so. The order explicitly prohibits circumvention through new entities or transfers — a provision specifically targeting the entity-hopping common among marketplace sellers. Walmart’s account restraint was lifted only upon payment of the $6,500 damages amount.
Permanent injunction issuedDyson’s design patent proves enforceable against marketplace sellers
The outcome reinforces that design patents on consumer product aesthetics — here, hair styling apparatus — can be rapidly enforced against anonymous e-commerce sellers in N.D. Ill. via the Schedule A mechanism. For competitors and OEM suppliers in the hair care appliance space, this signals that Dyson actively monitors and enforces USD853642S across online marketplaces, with account-freeze injunctive relief available at early stages.
Design patent enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dyson Technology Limited | Individual | Global consumer electronics company — holder of USD853642S hair care apparatus designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers identified on Schedule A; no legal representation on recordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Daniel Burnham | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin R. Gaudio | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Tyler Joseph | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kahlia Roe Halpern | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lawrence J. Crain | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Trevor Christian Talhami | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Manish S. Shah | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order’s permanent injunction language is deliberately broad — covering not just the named defendant but all persons acting in concert, and expressly prohibiting entity transfers designed to evade the restraint. This scope reflects standard N.D. Ill. Schedule A practice and is consistent with courts treating marketplace seller anonymity as a heightened flight risk. The Walmart account-freeze and transfer mechanism confirms that financial holds obtained under the TRO were operative throughout the proceedings, functioning as effective leverage toward settlement.
USD853642S — Dyson Hair Styling and Hair Care Apparatus Design Patent
USD853642S is a US design patent (application no. US29/627749) protecting the ornamental appearance of a hair styling and hair care apparatus — a category that encompasses products such as hair dryers, stylers, and associated tools bearing Dyson’s distinctive industrial design. Design patents protect visual characteristics rather than functional features, meaning the claim scope turns on whether an accused product creates a substantially similar visual impression in the eye of an ordinary observer.
For Dyson, design patent protection on hair styling apparatus is commercially significant: the company’s premium positioning in the hair care market — anchored by products such as the Dyson Supersonic and Airwrap — depends heavily on distinctive form factors that are both brand identifiers and legal assets. Enforcement of USD853642S against marketplace counterfeiters protects both revenue and brand equity. Competitors developing hair care appliances in similar form-factor categories should treat this patent as an active enforcement asset and conduct design clearance accordingly.
Should you run an FTO against USD853642S before launching hair care products?
Any company developing, importing, or selling hair styling or hair care apparatus in the US market should evaluate freedom-to-operate against USD853642S — particularly if the product’s handle profile, body silhouette, or nozzle geometry resembles Dyson’s registered design. This applies not only to direct competitors but also to OEM manufacturers, white-label distributors, and marketplace sellers sourcing products from overseas suppliers, who may unknowingly carry infringing inventory.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD853642S’s visual claim scope against your product’s design, identify design-around opportunities, and flag related Dyson design patent families that may present parallel risk. With Dyson actively enforcing through Schedule A proceedings — where account freezes can precede formal notice — running FTO analysis before product launch or marketplace listing is significantly lower cost than responding to a TRO.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0853642S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Cases Against Online Sellers in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving design patent enforcement against Schedule A e-commerce defendants in N.D. Ill., particularly in consumer electronics and hair care appliance categories.
What this case signals for the hair care appliance IP landscape
Dyson’s Schedule A enforcement model is systematic — this case is one data point in a broader IP enforcement posture worth tracking.
Schedule A proceedings give design patent holders rapid marketplace leverage
The N.D. Ill. Schedule A procedure allows plaintiffs like Dyson to obtain TROs freezing seller accounts before defendants are even identified. Combined with Walmart’s compliance, this creates a powerful early enforcement mechanism. Companies manufacturing or distributing hair care appliances that resemble Dyson’s registered designs face asymmetric litigation risk — injunctions can arrive before a defence is mounted.
A $6,500 settlement obscures the real deterrent: the permanent injunction
The damages figure here is modest, but the strategic value is the court-ordered injunction and entity-circumvention prohibition. For Dyson, each default judgment builds an enforceable record against individual sellers and signals to the broader grey-market ecosystem that the company pursues these cases to judgment. IP teams monitoring Dyson’s enforcement activity should track Schedule A filings as a leading indicator of marketplace enforcement intensity.
Limited v Partnerships — key questions answered
USD853642S (application no. US29/627749) is a US design patent held by Dyson Technology Limited protecting the ornamental appearance of a hair styling and hair care apparatus. In case 1:24-cv-04085, Dyson asserted this patent against anonymous online sellers accused of selling infringing hair care products on e-commerce marketplaces including Walmart.
The case closed on 10 December 2024 via a default judgment incorporating a settlement agreement. The defendant was permanently enjoined from selling the infringing product, ordered to pay $6,500 in damages, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. Walmart was ordered to transfer funds from the defendant’s frozen account to Dyson and then lift the account restraint.
A dismissal without prejudice means Dyson retains the right to refile against the same defendant if the injunction is violated or new infringement occurs. It does not bar future actions on USD853642S. Given the anti-circumvention language in the injunction order, Dyson also has contempt remedies if the defendant attempts to resume sales through new entities.
Schedule A cases allow patent and trademark holders to sue groups of anonymous online sellers under a single case number, listing defendants on a confidential schedule. The Northern District of Illinois is a preferred venue for such cases due to its receptiveness to ex parte TROs and asset freezes targeting marketplace accounts. This procedure enables plaintiffs to act before defendants can dissipate assets or disappear.
Walmart Inc. was not a party to the infringement claim but was named in the court order as the platform holding the defendant’s e-commerce store and financial account. Under the TRO issued earlier in proceedings, Walmart had frozen the defendant’s account. The final order directed Walmart to transfer the $6,500 settlement amount to Dyson and then release the account freeze — a standard mechanism in marketplace-based Schedule A enforcement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.