Kunshengze v. Schedule A: Default Judgment in Finger Stretcher IP Dispute
Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. secured a default judgment against anonymous online marketplace sellers accused of copying its registered finger stretching apparatus design. The Illinois Northern District Court resolved the case in just 85 days — none of the defendants appeared or answered.
Schedule A enforcement: Kunshengze wins by default over copycat sellers
Filed on 4 November 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, this action was brought by Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. against an unnamed cohort of online marketplace sellers — a structure commonly known as a ‘Schedule A’ complaint. The asserted intellectual property is Kunshengze’s federally registered design covering its finger stretching apparatus (Application No. US29/814406, Registration No. USD980990S). The defendants were alleged to have sold products bearing or using unauthorised copies of Kunshengze’s registered design through their online marketplace storefronts.
The case closed on 28 January 2025 via default judgment — the most plaintiff-favourable procedural outcome short of a full merits trial. Because none of the named defendants answered the complaint or made any appearance, the court deemed all allegations admitted and entered judgment accordingly. Prior to the default judgment, the court had also entered a preliminary injunction, suggesting Kunshengze successfully demonstrated likelihood of success and irreparable harm at an early stage.
The 85-day duration from filing to closure is consistent with the expedited pace typical of Schedule A ‘seeding’ cases, where e-service on overseas marketplace sellers and rapid injunctive relief are standard tools. The absence of any defendant appearance prevents any public assessment of the merits of potential invalidity or non-infringement defences. The specific damages quantum awarded to Kunshengze is not detailed in the publicly available termination record.
Filing to Default Judgment in 85 days
85-day resolution — well below the district court median for IP default actions
Default judgment entered: what this outcome means for both parties
Default judgment: allegations become admitted facts
When defendants fail to answer or appear, Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the plaintiff to seek a default judgment. The court treats all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as admitted. Here, Kunshengze’s assertions of unauthorised copying of its registered finger stretching apparatus design were deemed uncontroverted, resulting in judgment in its favour without a merits hearing.
Rule 55 default — no merits adjudicationKunshengze secures injunctive relief and judgment
Kunshengze obtained both a preliminary injunction during the case and a final default judgment, giving it a strong enforcement posture against the identified marketplace accounts. The judgment enables the plaintiff to pursue payment processor freezes and marketplace account takedowns. However, actual collection against anonymous overseas sellers can be practically difficult, a common limitation in Schedule A enforcement actions.
Injunction + judgment securedNon-appearance leaves defendants with no appeal path
Defendants who fail to appear forfeit the ability to contest infringement, raise invalidity arguments, or challenge service. While a defaulting defendant can in limited circumstances move to vacate a default judgment, the grounds are narrow. The defendants here have no recorded counsel and no public record of any post-judgment motion, suggesting the judgment stands against all non-dismissed Schedule A parties.
No appearance — appeal rights forfeitedSchedule A tactics remain a potent tool against marketplace infringers
This outcome is consistent with the broader use of Schedule A complaints by Chinese e-commerce rights holders to combat copycat sellers on platforms such as Amazon and eBay. The 85-day timeline and automatic injunction-to-judgment pipeline illustrates how IP holders can rapidly freeze accounts and obtain judgments. Competing sellers in the finger rehabilitation and exercise device category should note the registered design scope when developing or sourcing products.
Marketplace enforcement precedentFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. | Company | E-commerce seller and IP rights holder — registered design owner of the finger stretching apparatusSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified only by Schedule A storefronts; no counsel on recordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Depeng Bi | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Konrad Val Sherinian | Attorney | Counsel for Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC | Law Firm | Representing Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The default judgment recites that Kunshengze’s copyright and design allegations are ‘uncontroverted and deemed admitted’ — standard language confirming that no merits review occurred. The court’s finding of a basis to conclude infringement of the registered design is predicated solely on the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations. This phrasing limits the precedential weight of the judgment on validity or scope questions, but the injunctive and monetary relief granted carries full enforceability against the named defendants.
USD980990S — Finger Stretching Apparatus Ornamental Design
USD980990S, filed under Application No. US29/814406, is a U.S. design patent registration protecting the ornamental appearance of a finger stretching apparatus — a device used in hand rehabilitation and exercise. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of a functional item, not the underlying function itself. The ‘USD’ prefix designates a design patent, distinct from utility patents, and confers a 15-year term from grant.
In the consumer health and physical therapy device segment, design registrations like USD980990S are strategically significant because they are relatively fast to obtain and provide a direct enforcement tool against visually similar copycat products sold through online marketplaces. The finger rehabilitation device category is densely competitive on platforms such as Amazon, making design protection a key differentiator. Competitors sourcing or manufacturing similar-looking products should conduct design clearance searches before market entry.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD980990S?
Any company designing, sourcing, or selling finger stretching or hand rehabilitation devices through online marketplaces should assess freedom-to-operate against USD980990S. The design patent’s ornamental scope — covering the specific visual appearance of Kunshengze’s finger stretcher — means products that are substantially similar in overall visual impression may be at risk. This is especially relevant for white-label manufacturers and resellers who may not independently verify the IP status of products they list.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual design scope of USD980990S against your product designs, identify the claim boundaries of the ornamental protection, and surface any prior art that could support a validity challenge. For product teams in the physical therapy device or exercise equipment space, running a proactive design clearance search before listing on major marketplaces is a cost-effective way to avoid the kind of rapid injunction-to-judgment pipeline demonstrated in this case.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD980990S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A design patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable Schedule A infringement actions involving consumer product design patents litigated in the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design IP landscape
Schedule A default judgments are becoming a standard enforcement mechanism for design rights in the online marketplace sector.
Preliminary injunctions in Schedule A cases move fast — prepare early
Kunshengze obtained a preliminary injunction before the default judgment was entered, suggesting swift ex parte motion practice. IP holders in consumer product design categories should ensure their registered design portfolios are current before filing, as courts require clear IP ownership evidence to support early injunctive relief.
Anonymous defendant structures create collection risk despite judgment wins
A default judgment against Schedule A defendants is legally complete but commercially uncertain. Overseas sellers operating through marketplace aliases may have limited attachable assets in U.S. jurisdiction. Rights holders should factor this enforcement gap into their IP strategy and prioritise payment processor freezes and platform takedowns as the primary enforcement lever.
Shenzhen v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment in favour of plaintiff Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. on 28 January 2025. None of the Schedule A defendants appeared or answered, and the court deemed all allegations of design infringement admitted. A preliminary injunction had also been granted prior to the default judgment.
The case concerns U.S. Design Patent Registration No. USD980990S (Application No. US29/814406), which protects the ornamental design of a finger stretching apparatus. Kunshengze alleged that defendants sold products bearing unauthorised copies of this registered design through their online marketplace storefronts.
A Schedule A complaint is a litigation strategy in which a plaintiff sues a large group of anonymous online sellers — identified by marketplace account rather than legal name — in a single action. It is commonly used by IP rights holders to combat coordinated counterfeiting or infringement across multiple e-commerce platforms. Courts in the Northern District of Illinois have developed specific procedures for e-service and injunctive relief in these cases.
The court found that service was properly completed through a combination of electronic publication and e-mail, along with any notice defendants received from payment processors. The court held this combination was reasonably calculated to apprise defendants of the pendency of the action and afford them the opportunity to respond, satisfying due process requirements for overseas online sellers.
Defaulting defendants who did not appear have limited options. Under Rule 55(c) and Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may move to vacate a default judgment on grounds such as mistake, excusable neglect, or lack of proper service. However, the bar is high, no such motion appears on the public docket, and the judgment is currently enforceable against all non-dismissed Schedule A defendants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.