Pawesome Pet Products v. Dreambliss Stores — Default Judgment & Permanent Injunction
Pawesome Pet Products, LLC and inventor Cindy Ghukasyan sued more than 80 online marketplace sellers for infringing US10477838B2, a patented pet dental self-cleaning chew toy. The Western District of Pennsylvania granted default judgment and a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs after defendants failed to appear — resolving the case in 370 days.
Mass online-seller patent enforcement ends in default judgment
On November 9, 2022, Pawesome Pet Products, LLC and co-plaintiff Cindy Ghukasyan filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:22-cv-01584) against Dreambliss Stores and more than 80 additional online marketplace sellers — including numerous China-based e-commerce stores and third-party platform shops — alleging infringement of US10477838B2, a patent covering a pet chew toy designed for dental self-cleaning by domestic pets.
The recorded basis of termination is Default Judgment. The court's order granted plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and separately granted a motion for permanent injunction, entering judgment in favor of plaintiffs on the patent infringement claim asserted in the complaint. Defendants did not appear, file responsive pleadings, or retain counsel of record, triggering the default posture. The permanent injunction prohibits defendants from continuing the infringing conduct identified in the complaint.
The 370-day resolution is consistent with the procedural trajectory of default judgments, which typically move faster than contested litigation once defendants fail to respond. The breadth of the defendant list — spanning dozens of online storefronts, many appearing to be cross-border e-commerce operations — reflects a litigation strategy commonly used to enforce design and utility patents against marketplace sellers simultaneously. The specific terms of the injunction and any damages award are not fully detailed in the available public record beyond the court's order granting the motions.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Default Judgment in 370 days
Days from filing to default judgment — faster than most contested patent cases
US10477838B2 — Pet dental self-cleaning chew toy
Any manufacturer, brand, or online seller operating in the pet dental chew toy category — particularly those listing products on third-party marketplaces — should consider a formal freedom-to-operate analysis against US10477838B2. The patent holder has demonstrated willingness to pursue mass-defendant litigation, and a court-entered permanent injunction is now on record. Cross-border sellers are not immune: platform-level enforcement can follow U.S. court orders regardless of where a seller is incorporated.
Official order — verbatim text
The court granted both the motion for default judgment and the motion for permanent injunction, entering judgment for plaintiffs on the patent infringement claim without any adversarial merits contest. The dual grant — judgment plus injunction — represents the full relief sought in the complaint. Because no defendant appeared, no invalidity or non-infringement arguments were placed on the record, leaving US10477838B2 uncontested and the injunction operative against all named defendants.
Default judgment & permanent injunction: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: court rules without defendant participation
A default judgment is entered when defendants fail to appear or respond to the complaint. The court treats the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations as admitted and may enter judgment on the merits without a trial. Here, the court granted both a default judgment on patent infringement and a separate permanent injunction — representing the full scope of relief sought by plaintiffs without any adversarial contest.
No defendant appearancePlaintiffs secure judgment and injunction on all asserted claims
Pawesome Pet Products and Cindy Ghukasyan obtained a court-entered judgment affirming infringement of US10477838B2 and a permanent injunction barring defendants from continued infringing activity. This outcome validates the patent's enforceability against marketplace sellers without the cost or risk of a contested trial. The specific scope of the injunction and any monetary award are not fully detailed in the available public record.
Full relief granted80+ sellers face binding injunction after failing to respond
All named defendants — including Dreambliss Stores and dozens of online marketplace storefronts — are bound by a permanent injunction entered against them. By failing to appear, defendants forfeited the opportunity to contest validity, claim scope, or non-infringement. Any seller continuing to list or sell the accused products risks contempt of court. The absence of defendant counsel suggests many are cross-border operators without a U.S. litigation footprint.
Permanent injunction enteredMass-defendant strategy signals aggressive marketplace enforcement
This case illustrates a well-established enforcement playbook targeting multiple online marketplace sellers in a single action. Obtaining a default judgment and permanent injunction across 80+ defendants creates broad enforcement leverage — including potential platform takedown requests — at relatively low per-defendant litigation cost. Competing pet product sellers and marketplace operators in this category should treat this outcome as a signal of active patent enforcement around pet dental chew toy designs.
Marketplace IP enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pawesome Pet Products, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Cindy Ghukasyan | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dreambliss Stores | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Happy Xiaole Store | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lihongjiede | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Maidoul | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Others too numerous to list: U_DESERVE, GUANGZHOU KINYU OUTDOOR PRODUCTS CO., INC., V-LIFE STORE, JINGXINGZESHANGMAOBU, COSARRETY, BHSMLLT, TT PET STORE, HSHEN, CUTEPET SUPPLIER STORE, CHEAPBUNNY, SUPERDEAL STORE, TOYS 4 SPOT, KEIDINOLIFE STORE, DUOER, REFERRAL OFFICER STORE, SUPER FAR SHOW STORE, MZBOUTIQUES, YALGOPALA_0, MORSTA.JNJH5CN, SZXBUS, SHOP911427269 STORE, 100%FUNHOME STORE, SHANGHAIANTUOWANGLUOKEJIYOUXIANZERENGONGSI, SUNYKOI LIFE STORE, MOST WANTED MERCH, ABQP PET STORE, GUANGZHOUSHIHUANGDOUKUAJINGMAOYIYOUXIANGONGSI, LAIDAN, EIPGUFIILU, VIVIBEAR, HAPPY PUPPY UNLIMITED, LLC, YICHANGSHICONGTENGDIANZISHANGWUYOUXIANGONGSI, CHHC GROCERY STORE, HNHCSM, NINGBOCHANGRONGNONGLINFAZHANYOUXIANGONGSI, SHENZHENSHINANSIYANSHANGMAOYOUXIANGONGSI, CHANGLIXIANBULEISHANGMAOYOUXIANGONGSI, TIANXIASHANHE01 STORE, DEAR PET HOME STORE, PETS HOMES STORE, KUNPENG PET TOYS STORE, XMPROMO STORE, ROCITA HOME, WARM-HOME STORE, GF-HUINONG, CAT DOG DP STORE, XIELAIXIXIE, DARWOODS, MASSIMILIANO235, LEAGUE OF PETS STORE, MIN YUE SHANG MAO, RLSOO OFFICIAL STORE OFFICIAL STORE, HANWANGWANGBUDIANZISHANGWU, LOVELYPETS STORE, SHENZHEN GUANGYAO MINGHUI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, PAULADEH, DOGGYFUNPLAY, GREATYYT OFFICIAL STORE, SUNFLOWERPET STORE, SAILING INTERNATIONAL TRADING, EOKOY, YLYC'S LIFE TOGETHER STORE, BRAVE FORWARD PETS STORE STORE, CHITOWNSTORE, NASON02, LUCY JELERY WORLD, HONGRON, SHOP1100371004 STORE, ME PET CARE STORE, BENGBUTIANCHAODIANZISHANGWUYOUXIANGONGSI, LOLLIVE STORE, XINGLONGYUAN STORE, SHENZHENSHIYIZHUODIANZIYOUXIANGONGSI, HI PETS STORE, OWNLIFEYF STORE, IT IS YOUR LIFE STORE | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Shop1100227793 Store | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Shop1102094194 Store | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Shop1102168731 Store | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Tobey Pets Products Store | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Wulili955 | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Yaoxing | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Samuel Malkin | Attorney | Counsel for Pawesome Pet Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stanley D. Ference , III | Attorney | Counsel for Pawesome Pet Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ference & Associates LLC | Law Firm | Representing Pawesome Pet Products, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Mark R. Hornak | Judge | Pennsylvania Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the pet dental health accessories space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence around pet chew toy technology, oral care for pets, and the IP landscape surrounding US10477838B2 and Pawesome Pet Products.
Pawesome Pet Products' patent filing activity in pet care
With US10477838B2 actively enforced and a default judgment secured, Pawesome Pet Products signals a commitment to IP protection in the pet dental accessory space. Monitoring the assignee's broader portfolio — including any continuation or design patent filings — can reveal the strategic boundaries they are seeking to protect around this product category.
Assignee portfolio watchFiling trends in pet dental health and chew toy innovation
The pet oral health category has seen growing IP activity as consumer spending on pet wellness expands. Patent filings around chew toys, dental textures, and self-cleaning mechanisms for domestic pets represent an active innovation space. Mapping filing trends helps product teams understand where white space exists and which incumbents hold blocking positions.
Market filing trendsOnline marketplace sellers' patent exposure in pet accessories
The 80+ defendants — many appearing to be cross-border marketplace operators — demonstrate a pattern of product listing without patent clearance. Established pet product brands and marketplace aggregators should assess their own freedom to operate in this category, particularly as enforcement via default judgment lowers the cost barrier for patent holders pursuing mass-defendant actions.
Competitor FTO riskAdjacent innovation opportunities near US10477838B2
With the core dental self-cleaning chew toy claim enforced, adjacent R&D opportunities may exist in complementary pet oral health mechanisms — such as material compositions, antimicrobial treatments, dispensing features, or smart-sensor integration — that fall outside the current claim scope. Exploring these white spaces could support differentiated product development with defensible IP.
Innovation white spaceSimilar patent enforcement cases: pet products & marketplace sellers
Explore related patent infringement cases involving pet product innovations and mass online marketplace defendants in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the pet products IP enforcement landscape
A default judgment against 80+ sellers shows how patent holders can use federal courts to enforce product IP across entire marketplace ecosystems.
Mass-defendant default judgments are a scalable enforcement tool
Filing against dozens of marketplace sellers in a single action — and securing default judgment when they fail to appear — allows patent holders to obtain injunctions and build an enforcement record efficiently. Pet product IP holders with registered utility or design patents should evaluate whether similar strategies fit their portfolio.
Permanent injunctions from default judgments carry real platform leverage
A court-entered permanent injunction supports takedown requests on major e-commerce platforms. For sellers operating via third-party storefronts, a default judgment may be more commercially damaging than a damages award — removal from a marketplace platform can end revenue streams immediately.
Pawesome v Dreambliss — key questions answered
The Western District of Pennsylvania entered a default judgment in favor of plaintiffs Pawesome Pet Products, LLC and Cindy Ghukasyan, along with a permanent injunction against all named defendants. The court granted both the motion for default judgment and the motion for permanent injunction on the patent infringement claim asserted in the complaint. No defendants appeared or filed responsive pleadings.
The asserted patent is US10477838B2 (application number US15/472206), covering a pet chew toy designed for dental self-cleaning by domestic pets. The patent is held by Pawesome Pet Products, LLC and co-plaintiff Cindy Ghukasyan, who appears to be the inventor. The patent was enforced against more than 80 online marketplace sellers in a single action.
Default judgment is entered when defendants fail to appear or respond to a complaint within the required time. In this case, none of the named defendants — including Dreambliss Stores and more than 80 additional marketplace sellers — filed responses or retained U.S. counsel of record. The court accordingly treated the plaintiffs' allegations as admitted and entered judgment and a permanent injunction in their favor.
The permanent injunction entered by the court prohibits the named defendants from continuing the infringing conduct identified in the complaint — specifically, the sale or distribution of products that infringe US10477838B2. Sellers who violate a permanent injunction risk contempt of court proceedings. The injunction also supports potential enforcement actions with online marketplace platforms. The specific terms are as stated in the court's order; further detail is not disclosed in the available public record.
The case was filed on November 9, 2022 and closed on November 14, 2023 — a duration of 370 days. This timeline is consistent with default judgment proceedings, which typically resolve faster than contested patent cases because no trial or substantive motion practice on the merits occurs once defendants fail to appear.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.