E-Link Plastic v. VEIZIBEE: $50K Default Judgment for Pill Organizer Design Infringement
E-Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co., Ltd. filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against online seller VEIZIBEE for willful infringement of its pill organizer design patent USD0898347S. The defendant failed to appear, resulting in a $50,000 default judgment and permanent injunction entered after 343 days.
Design patent default judgment seals pill organizer infringement claim
E-Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co., Ltd., a manufacturer holding design patent USD0898347S (application no. US29/687586) covering an ornamental pill organizer design, filed this infringement action on 15 December 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The defendant — identified as VEIZIBEE, named among entities and individuals in Annex A — was alleged to have reproduced and sold the protected design without authorisation, triggering claims of willful infringement.
VEIZIBEE never appeared to contest the allegations, and the court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment on 22 November 2024. Judge Martha M. Pacold found that E-Link’s evidence submitted in support of the temporary restraining order and the default motion established willful infringement, awarded $50,000 in damages, and entered a permanent injunction. The court determined that monetary damages alone were inadequate to remedy the irreparable harm — including diminished goodwill, brand erosion, loss of exclusivity, and lost future sales — sustained by E-Link.
At 343 days from filing to final judgment, the case resolved relatively swiftly compared with contested design patent disputes, reflecting the procedural trajectory common to default proceedings against non-appearing online marketplace sellers. The public record does not disclose the full commercial scale of VEIZIBEE’s infringing sales, nor the precise methodology behind the $50,000 damages figure, which the court accepted based on E-Link’s submitted evidence and the defendant’s admission of liability by virtue of default.
Filing to Default Judgment in 343 days
343 days from filing to default judgment — typical contested design cases run significantly longer
Default judgment entered: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: liability by non-appearance
When a defendant fails to appear or respond, the court may enter default judgment, treating the defendant’s silence as an admission of liability. Here, VEIZIBEE’s non-appearance meant the court accepted E-Link’s evidence — including TRO submissions — as uncontested. The finding of willful infringement, typically requiring proof of knowing or reckless disregard, was established on that admitted record alone.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 defaultE-Link secures injunction and $50,000 award
E-Link obtained the full relief it sought: a permanent injunction barring VEIZIBEE from further infringement and $50,000 in damages. The permanent injunction, grounded in findings of irreparable harm to goodwill and brand exclusivity, provides ongoing enforcement leverage. However, collecting damages against a non-appearing online seller — often operating pseudonymously — typically presents a separate practical challenge not resolved by the judgment itself.
Permanent injunction grantedVEIZIBEE faces judgment debt and market exclusion
VEIZIBEE is now subject to a $50,000 judgment and a permanent injunction it never contested. A defaulting defendant retains a narrow right to move to set aside the default under Rule 55(c) upon showing good cause, but the window is limited and courts set high standards. Operating under the judgment exposes VEIZIBEE to contempt proceedings and asset enforcement action if it continues selling the infringing design.
Judgment debt; injunction riskAnnex A enforcement model targets online marketplace sellers
This case follows a well-established enforcement model where design patent holders file against groups of online sellers identified in an annex, seek TROs to freeze assets or listings, and pursue default judgments against non-responders. For competitors and marketplace sellers in the pill organizer or general consumer housewares segment, the pattern signals that E-Link actively enforces its design portfolio and is willing to pursue permanent injunctive relief.
Marketplace IP enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | E-Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co., Ltd. | Company | Consumer product manufacturer and design patent holder — holder of USD0898347SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Entities and Individuals Identified in Annex A | Individual | Online seller VEIZIBEE, accused of willful pill organizer design infringement; failed to appearSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ge Lei | Attorney | Counsel for E-Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Getech Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing E-Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Martha M. Pacold | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s default judgment language is expansive: it expressly finds willful infringement, awards $50,000 in damages, and enters a permanent injunction — all on an uncontested record. The willfulness determination is particularly significant because it was made without any adversarial testing of the evidence, relying solely on E-Link’s TRO submissions and the legal admission arising from VEIZIBEE’s non-appearance. The permanent injunction findings track the four-factor eBay test, with the court concluding irreparable harm, inadequacy of monetary relief, balance of hardships in plaintiff’s favour, and no public interest bar.
USD0898347S — Ornamental design for a pill organizer
USD0898347S (application no. US29/687586) is a U.S. design patent protecting the specific ornamental appearance of a pill organizer product manufactured by E-Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co., Ltd. Design patents protect the visual, non-functional characteristics of an article — in this case, the aesthetic form of a pill storage container. The application number prefix US29/ indicates a design patent application, a category that has seen growing enforcement activity against online marketplace sellers reproducing consumer product aesthetics.
For competitors in the pill organizer, medicine storage, and general consumer healthcare organiser segment, USD0898347S represents an active enforcement asset in E-Link’s portfolio. The willful infringement finding in this case, even on a default record, signals that E-Link is prepared to pursue TROs, asset freezes, and permanent injunctions against sellers it identifies as reproducing its design. Any new product entry in this segment warrants a design clearance search against E-Link’s registered design portfolio before commercialisation.
Should you run an FTO against USD0898347S before entering the pill organizer market?
Any manufacturer, importer, or online marketplace seller commercialising pill organizers, medicine organisers, or similar consumer storage products in the U.S. should evaluate USD0898347S before market entry. E-Link’s demonstrated willingness to seek TROs and pursue default judgments makes this patent an active litigation risk, not a dormant filing. The Annex A enforcement model means multiple sellers can be swept into a single action with minimal notice.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product design against USD0898347S’s ornamental claim scope, surface related design patent families in E-Link’s portfolio, and flag prosecution history that may bound the claim. For marketplace sellers, Eureka can also identify whether similar enforcement actions have been filed by E-Link in other districts, providing a fuller picture of portfolio-level enforcement risk before you list a competing product.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0898347S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent enforcement cases in consumer products — N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable design patent infringement actions against online marketplace sellers in the Northern District of Illinois covering consumer product categories similar to pill organizers.
What this case signals for the consumer product design IP landscape
Default judgments against online sellers reveal a systematic enforcement posture that competitors and marketplace operators should monitor closely.
Annex A enforcement is a scalable litigation strategy — not a one-off
Filing against unnamed defendants in an annex allows plaintiffs like E-Link to sweep multiple online sellers in a single action, minimising per-defendant costs. Companies operating on Amazon, eBay, or similar platforms in consumer housewares should treat any Annex A filing in their product category as a material infringement risk signal.
Willfulness finding on default raises damages exposure for any future defendant
Courts granted willfulness here without a contested hearing. Any seller who does appear and contest will face a plaintiff armed with a prior willfulness record. Enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 could multiply exposure well beyond the $50,000 floor established in this default judgment.
E-Link v Entities — key questions answered
The court entered a default judgment in favour of plaintiff E-Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co., Ltd. on 22 November 2024. Judge Martha M. Pacold found willful infringement of design patent USD0898347S, awarded $50,000 in damages, and entered a permanent injunction against defendant VEIZIBEE, which had failed to appear in the proceedings.
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to respond or appear. The court treats the defendant’s silence as an admission of liability, allowing it to accept the plaintiff’s evidence as uncontested. The defendant may seek to set aside the default under Rule 55(c) by showing good cause, excusable neglect, or a meritorious defence, but the standard is demanding and the window is narrow.
The patent at issue is USD0898347S, application number US29/687586, a U.S. design patent held by E-Link Plastic & Metal Industrial Co., Ltd. covering the ornamental design of a pill organizer. Design patents protect the specific visual appearance of a product rather than its functional features.
The court applied the four-factor eBay test, finding that E-Link demonstrated irreparable harm through diminished goodwill, brand damage, and lost sales; that monetary damages were inadequate to remedy those harms; that the balance of hardships favoured E-Link given VEIZIBEE’s non-appearance; and that a permanent injunction would not disserve the public interest.
The Annex A model allows a plaintiff to file a single complaint against multiple unnamed defendants — typically online marketplace sellers — identified in an attached schedule. It is frequently used in the Northern District of Illinois to pursue TROs that freeze marketplace accounts and payment reserves, then obtain default judgments against sellers who do not appear. It is an efficient, scalable enforcement strategy for design patent holders with active e-commerce infringement problems.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.