Nanjing Migratory Bird v. Kolaric: Design Patent Dispute Settled in 68 Days
Nanjing Migratory Bird Apparel filed suit against Mihelca Kolaric in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting design patent USD1080150S over satin hair bonnet products listed across 12 Amazon ASINs. The parties reached a settlement before the TRO was heard, with the case dismissed without prejudice and a December 1, 2025 automatic conversion deadline.
Amazon hair bonnet design dispute ends in rapid pre-TRO settlement
On August 8, 2025, Nanjing Migratory Bird Apparel CO., LTD — a Chinese apparel manufacturer — filed a design patent infringement action in the Northern District of Illinois against Mihelca Kolaric, asserting U.S. Design Patent USD1080150S (Application No. US29/863752), which covers the ornamental design of a satin hair bonnet. The complaint targeted 12 Amazon ASIN listings, including products sold under what the filing identifies as the ‘Yanibest’ brand.
The case resolved within 68 days when the parties reported a settlement, though they required additional time to finalise their written agreement. Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins denied the pending TRO motion as moot and entered a dismissal without prejudice on October 15, 2025. Critically, the court retained jurisdiction over all settlement-related matters and set an automatic conversion mechanism: the dismissal will convert to one with prejudice on December 1, 2025 unless a party moves to reinstate before that date.
The 68-day resolution suggests the defendant may have been motivated to avoid a TRO that could have de-listed competing Amazon products — a commercially significant outcome for e-commerce sellers. The standstill and status quo obligations imposed during the settlement negotiation period indicate the court was actively managing interim competitive risk. The specific financial terms of the settlement remain undisclosed from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 68 days
68 days — faster than the median district court IP case resolution, consistent with early settlement
Settled and dismissed without prejudice: what the court’s order means
Dismissal without prejudice with automatic conversion clause
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims. Here, Judge Jenkins added a conditional conversion: the dismissal automatically becomes one with prejudice on December 1, 2025 unless a party moves to reinstate. This mechanism protects both sides — the plaintiff retains leverage while the settlement is finalised, and the defendant gains certainty if no reinstatement motion is filed.
Conditional dismissal structureWithout prejudice now — but prejudice clock is ticking
The public record confirms a settlement was reached but does not disclose its terms. The court’s retention of jurisdiction suggests financial or licensing terms may require judicial oversight if a dispute arises. The distinction matters: a with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes the claims permanently; without prejudice preserves them. Once the December 1, 2025 deadline passes without a reinstatement motion, the claims are effectively extinguished.
Settlement terms undisclosedTRO denied as moot — but settlement implies commercial resolution
Nanjing Migratory Bird did not obtain an injunction, but the early settlement — before the TRO was contested — suggests the defendant agreed to terms that addressed the plaintiff’s core commercial concern: competing Amazon listings. The standstill order maintaining the status quo during negotiations indicates the plaintiff secured interim protection even without a formal TRO grant.
Interim standstill obtainedIndividual seller avoids TRO but faces settlement obligations
For Mihelca Kolaric, settling before a TRO ruling avoided the risk of an emergency Amazon listing suspension. However, the standstill obligations imposed during settlement negotiations likely restricted continued sales. Represented by Neal Gerber & Eisenberg, the defendant’s swift engagement suggests awareness that contesting a design patent TRO over multiple ASINs carried significant commercial and legal risk.
TRO risk avoided via settlementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Nanjing Migratory Bird Apparel CO., LTD | Company | Chinese apparel manufacturer — holder of design patent USD1080150S for satin hair bonnetsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Mihelca Kolaric | Individual | Individual Amazon seller allegedly listing competing satin hair bonnet products across multiple ASINsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Solter | Attorney | Counsel for Nanjing Migratory Bird Apparel CO., LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cross-Boarder Counselor, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Nanjing Migratory Bird Apparel CO., LTDSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ian J. Block | Attorney | Counsel for Mihelca KolaricSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Neal Gerber & Eisenberg LLP | Law Firm | Representing Mihelca KolaricSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a carefully structured settlement exit: the TRO motion was denied as moot rather than on the merits, preserving neither party’s litigation position on the underlying design patent infringement claims. The retention of jurisdiction is noteworthy — it signals that the settlement agreement may include performance obligations (such as takedown compliance or royalty payments) where judicial supervision provides an enforcement backstop. The standstill clause maintaining status quo obligations during the finalisation period further suggests the parties’ commercial relationship required active management even after reaching agreement in principle.
USD1080150S — Ornamental design for a satin hair bonnet
U.S. Design Patent USD1080150S, filed under application number US29/863752, protects the ornamental design of a satin hair bonnet. Design patents protect the visual and aesthetic appearance of an article — not its function — meaning protection attaches to the specific shape, lines, and configuration depicted in the patent drawings. In the hair care accessories market, satin bonnets are a high-volume Amazon product category, making visual differentiation through design patent registration a commercially viable protection strategy.
For competitors operating in the satin hair bonnet and protective hair accessory space, USD1080150S now carries active litigation history. The plaintiff’s willingness to pursue TRO relief in federal court — targeting 12 distinct ASINs — signals an enforcement posture that goes beyond a single competitor. Any seller sourcing or private-labelling similar satin bonnet designs should conduct design clearance against this patent, particularly given the visual similarity standard applied under Egyptian Goddess in design patent infringement analysis.
Should you run an FTO against USD1080150S?
If your business sells satin hair bonnets or similar protective hair accessories on Amazon or other e-commerce platforms, USD1080150S is a live enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that the patent holder has already pursued TRO relief against a competing seller. The relevant FTO question is not functional — it is visual: does your product’s ornamental design create a substantially similar overall impression to the design depicted in USD1080150S under the ordinary observer test?
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD1080150S against your product designs, identify prior art that may limit the patent’s scope, and surface related design patent families filed by the same applicant. For e-commerce teams managing large Amazon catalogues, Eureka can flag ASIN-level design patent exposure before enforcement occurs — shifting your team from reactive to proactive IP risk management.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1080150S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent infringement cases: hair accessories and Amazon ASIN disputes
Cases involving design patent enforcement against Amazon sellers in the Northern District of Illinois, particularly in the apparel and hair accessory category.
What this case signals for the e-commerce design patent IP landscape
Design patent enforcement against Amazon sellers is accelerating. This case illustrates the TRO-driven leverage model now common in apparel IP disputes.
TRO threat is the real enforcement weapon in Amazon design patent cases
Filing for a TRO in an Amazon ASIN dispute creates immediate commercial pressure on the defendant — de-listing risk often outweighs litigation cost. Nanjing Migratory Bird’s strategy of filing with a TRO motion and a standstill request is consistent with a settlement-first enforcement playbook increasingly used by Chinese apparel rights holders in U.S. district courts.
Design patent USD1080150S now has active litigation history — monitor it
Any competitor selling satin hair bonnet products on Amazon should treat this case as a signal. USD1080150S has been asserted in litigation and the plaintiff demonstrated willingness to pursue TRO relief. A formal FTO analysis against this design patent is warranted for any seller operating in the satin hair accessory category.
Nanjing v Mihelca — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on October 15, 2025 after the parties reported reaching a settlement. The dismissal automatically converts to one with prejudice on December 1, 2025 unless a party files a motion to reinstate before that date. The TRO motion was denied as moot and the court retained jurisdiction over settlement-related matters.
The plaintiff asserted U.S. Design Patent USD1080150S (Application No. US29/863752). This is a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a satin hair bonnet. Design patents cover visual and aesthetic characteristics, not functional features, and are evaluated under the ordinary observer test for infringement.
The complaint targeted 12 Amazon ASINs, including B09W34VJMH, B0BLXH1KGK, B0BLXLHVCY, B0BLXTPFRL, B0BLXZ4YBJ, B0BLYFFMSV, B0BY1WBRRX, B0BY1X5FV6, B0BY1YXCRD, B0C4KT26VR, B0DP6T6NZ9, and B0BLX9Z1HV, the latter identified as a Yanibest-branded satin hair bonnet product.
A dismissal without prejudice allows the plaintiff to re-file the same claims in the future. However, Judge Jenkins’ order provides that the dismissal will automatically convert to one with prejudice — permanently extinguishing the claims — on December 1, 2025, unless either party files a motion to reinstate before that date. This structure incentivises parties to finalise their settlement agreement promptly.
The TRO motion was denied as moot, not on the merits. This means the court did not evaluate whether the plaintiff met the legal standard for injunctive relief. The denial reflects the fact that the parties had already reached a settlement in principle, making interim injunctive relief unnecessary. The court instead maintained a standstill order preserving the status quo while the written settlement agreement was finalised.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.