Dyson v. Schedule A Sellers: Default Judgment for Hair Styling Design Patent
Dyson Technology Limited filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous e-commerce sellers for infringing USD853,642S, a design patent covering hair styling and hair care apparatus. The court entered a default judgment after defendants failed to appear, closing the case in 422 days.
Dyson pursues anonymous e-commerce infringers via default judgment
Dyson Technology Limited filed this infringement action on 31 July 2023 in the Illinois Northern District Court before Judge Andrea R. Wood. The complaint named a class of anonymous online sellers — identified only as ‘The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A’ — who were operating fully interactive e-commerce storefronts alleged to be selling unauthorised products infringing USD853,642S, a U.S. design patent covering hair styling and hair care apparatus.
The court initially issued a temporary restraining order, and Dyson effected service on the defendants through a combination of electronic publication and email — a method the court found reasonably calculated to provide adequate notice under the circumstances. Having received no appearance or substantive response from the defendants, the court entered default and subsequently default judgment against all Schedule A defendants, closing the case on 25 September 2024.
The 422-day duration is broadly consistent with Schedule A design patent enforcement campaigns, which often resolve at the default judgment stage without contested litigation. What remains unknown from the public record includes the specific number of defendants on Schedule A, the quantum of damages awarded, and whether any injunctive relief was tailored to specific platforms or payment processors. The use of electronic service and payment processor notification suggests defendants were likely operating across multiple international e-commerce channels.
Filing to Default Judgment in 422 days
422 days from filing to default judgment — consistent with Schedule A enforcement timelines
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for Dyson and the defendants
Default judgment: court rules without a contested hearing
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to appear or respond to the complaint. The court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true and may award the relief sought. Here, after Dyson demonstrated proper service via electronic publication and email, the court found defendants had adequate notice and entered judgment in Dyson’s favour without any merits contest from the opposing side.
Uncontested rulingDyson secures enforceable judgment against infringing sellers
Default judgment gives Dyson an enforceable court order that can be used to compel payment processors and e-commerce platforms to freeze or transfer funds held for the named seller accounts. Combined with the prior temporary restraining order, this outcome suggests Dyson likely secured both injunctive relief and a damages award, though the specific figures are not disclosed in the public record.
Plaintiff prevailsNon-appearing sellers face enforcement without any merits defence
By failing to appear, the Schedule A defendants forfeited the opportunity to contest infringement, challenge the validity of USD853,642S, or dispute the damages claimed. Default judgment is binding and enforceable against named defendants, and the prior TRO likely resulted in frozen marketplace accounts and payment processor holds that may have pre-empted any practical ability to respond.
Defendants in defaultDesign patent enforcement through marketplace channels carries real financial risk
This case illustrates Dyson’s willingness to pursue anonymous marketplace sellers at scale using Schedule A complaints — a litigation strategy that is cost-efficient for brand owners and high-risk for cross-border e-commerce operators. Sellers on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and AliExpress offering hair care products resembling Dyson’s design-patented lineup should treat this judgment as a signal of active and systematic enforcement.
Marketplace IP riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dyson Technology Limited | Individual | Global consumer technology company — holder of USD853,642S hair styling design patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous e-commerce sellers operating under aliases listed on Schedule A to the complaintSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Daniel Burnham | Attorney | Counsel for Dyson Technology LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jake Michael Christensen | 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 | 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 Andrea R. Wood | Judge | Illinois Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict reflects a procedurally complete but substantively uncontested resolution. The court’s finding that electronic service via publication and email constituted adequate notice is legally significant — it confirms that Illinois federal courts will accept non-traditional service methods in Schedule A actions, enabling plaintiffs to obtain binding default judgments against marketplace sellers who never engage with the proceeding. No merits determination was made regarding the scope or validity of USD853,642S.
USD853,642S — Hair Styling and Hair Care Apparatus Design Patent
USD853,642S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a hair styling and hair care apparatus — almost certainly referencing the distinctive visual design of one of Dyson’s high-profile hair tools, such as its Airwrap or Supersonic product lines. The application number US29/627749 follows USPTO design patent numbering conventions. Design patents protect only the novel ornamental aspects of a product, not its functional features, and are infringed when an ordinary observer would mistake the accused product for the patented design.
Dyson’s design patents on hair care products represent a strategically significant layer of IP protection supplementing any utility patents on airflow or motor technology. A Schedule A default judgment tied to this design patent signals that Dyson is actively monitoring marketplaces for visual lookalikes and is prepared to litigate at scale. Competitors and OEM suppliers in the hair care and personal grooming sector should assess whether their product designs could be viewed as confusingly similar to the protected appearance under the ordinary observer standard.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD853,642S?
Any company developing, importing, or selling hair styling or hair care apparatus — particularly premium cordless or powered styling tools — should assess exposure against USD853,642S. This is especially relevant for brands distributing through Amazon, AliExpress, or other mass-market e-commerce platforms that Dyson monitors for infringing listings. The ordinary observer test for design patents can capture products that are not identical but are visually similar, making proactive FTO analysis critical before market entry.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claims of USD853,642S against your product’s design, identify prior art that may constrain the patent’s effective scope, and flag related Dyson design patent families that could present additional risk. Automated monitoring alerts can also notify your team if Dyson files new Schedule A complaints naming products similar to yours — giving you early warning before a TRO or asset freeze is sought.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0853642S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Schedule A Cases in Consumer Electronics
Browse related Schedule A design patent enforcement actions filed in Illinois federal courts targeting e-commerce sellers of consumer electronics and personal care products.
What this case signals for the consumer electronics IP landscape
Dyson’s default judgment reinforces the potency of Schedule A design patent campaigns against anonymous e-commerce sellers.
Schedule A litigation is a scalable enforcement weapon for design patents
By consolidating numerous anonymous defendants in a single filing, Dyson achieved an enforceable judgment efficiently without contested discovery or trial. This strategy is increasingly common among consumer brand owners seeking to disrupt counterfeit and knock-off supply chains operating through online marketplaces.
Electronic service lowers the barrier to international enforcement
The court’s acceptance of service via electronic publication and email means brand owners are not required to navigate complex international service-of-process rules to obtain enforceable default judgments. This significantly reduces cost and timeline for enforcement against overseas marketplace operators infringing U.S. design patents.
Limited v Partnerships — key questions answered
Dyson asserted USD853,642S (application number US29/627749), a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design of a hair styling and hair care apparatus. The case was filed on 31 July 2023 in the Northern District of Illinois against anonymous Schedule A e-commerce defendants.
The case resolved via default judgment on 25 September 2024, approximately 422 days after filing. After the court issued a temporary restraining order and Dyson completed electronic service, the defendants failed to appear. The court entered default and subsequently default judgment against all Schedule A defendants.
A Schedule A complaint allows a plaintiff to sue multiple anonymous defendants — typically online marketplace sellers — in a single action, listing them on a confidential Schedule A attachment. This approach is used in e-commerce IP enforcement to obtain a temporary restraining order quickly, freeze seller accounts via payment processors, and then proceed to default judgment if defendants do not appear.
USD853,642S is a U.S. design patent, identifiable by the ‘D’ prefix. Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of a product, not its functional features. This patent covers the visual design of a hair styling and hair care apparatus, likely corresponding to one of Dyson’s premium hair tool product lines such as the Airwrap or Supersonic. Infringement is assessed using the ordinary observer test.
Yes. Default judgments obtained in U.S. federal court can be enforced against marketplace accounts and payment processors operating within U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of where the seller is located. The court in this case found that electronic service via publication and email was adequate notice, enabling enforcement without successful physical service on overseas defendants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.