PE, LLC Wins Default Judgment in Hair Device Copyright Case

Case Overview

The Parties

The Intellectual Property at Issue

• Design Patent: USD787,124 (Corrected Application No. US29/534,498) covering the ornamental appearance of a “hair device for lifting, retention, and styling.”
• Copyright: Plaintiff’s copyrighted works applied to product design and marketing materials, reinforcing the visual distinctiveness.
• Technology Area: Consumer hair care devices, specifically apparatuses for hair lifting, retention, and styling.

Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of a functional item. Here, the visual distinctiveness of PE, LLC’s hair device formed the core of the infringement claim, reinforced by copyright protection over associated creative works.

The Accused Products

Defendants allegedly manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold counterfeit versions of PE, LLC’s hair device through at least one identified “Defendant Internet Store” — likely an Amazon storefront — without authorization. The commercial harm arises from consumer confusion, brand dilution, and direct revenue diversion in a competitive personal care product market.

Legal Representation

• Plaintiff Attorneys: James Edward Judge, Ying Chen, Zareefa Burki Flener
• Plaintiff Law Firm: Flener IP & Business Law
• Defendant Attorneys: None (default entered due to non-appearance)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Filed March 14, 2025, in the Illinois Northern District Court — a jurisdiction recognized for its active Schedule A docket and experienced IP bench — the case moved through litigation without defendant participation. Chief Judge Sara L. Ellis presided over the proceeding.

The 322-day timeline is relatively efficient for federal IP litigation, driven almost entirely by the default posture. When defendants fail to appear — as is characteristic of offshore counterfeit sellers — plaintiffs may move for entry of default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), followed by a motion for default judgment under Rule 55(b). The court’s ruling on PE, LLC’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment concluded the matter at the first-instance district court level with no trial required.

This procedural path, while swift, demands careful documentation: plaintiffs must establish service, liability, and damages entitlement through uncontested evidentiary submissions.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

Chief Judge Sara L. Ellis granted PE, LLC’s Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment in full, entering judgment against all Schedule A defendants. The court awarded:

• Statutory Copyright Damages: $15,000 per defendant under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) for willful infringement.
• Permanent Injunction: Broad prohibitions on manufacturing, distributing, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, or selling any infringing products.
• Domain Name Relief: Court-ordered transfer or disabling of defendant domain names through registrars including GoDaddy, Namecheap, and others.
• Marketplace Account Suspension: Third-party providers including Amazon ordered to cease operation of defendant storefronts within seven calendar days.
• Asset Freeze and Release: Payment processors — including PayPal, Stripe, Payoneer, and LianLian — ordered to freeze and release defendant funds up to the statutory damages amount.
• Surety Bond Return: The $10,000 surety bond posted by PE, LLC released back to plaintiff/counsel.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The verdict rests on copyright infringement, with the design patent providing additional IP scaffolding establishing ownership and distinctiveness. Because defendants failed to appear, the court accepted well-pleaded allegations as admitted — a critical procedural point.

The willfulness finding under § 504(c)(2) is significant. Willful infringement elevated the statutory damages ceiling (up to $150,000 per work), though the court awarded $15,000 — at the lower-to-mid range — reflecting the evidentiary posture of an uncontested proceeding. Plaintiffs seeking maximum statutory damages in default cases should ensure robust documentation of willfulness indicators: actual knowledge of the IP, continuation of infringing sales post-notice, and volume of infringing activity.

The multi-layered enforcement mechanism — targeting domain registrars, online marketplaces, and payment processors simultaneously — reflects evolved best practices in Schedule A litigation. By obtaining injunctive relief against infrastructure providers rather than solely against named defendants, PE, LLC maximized practical enforcement impact against parties unlikely to voluntarily comply.

Legal Significance

This case reinforces the Illinois Northern District’s utility as an enforcement venue for IP holders combating online counterfeiting. The court’s willingness to grant broad third-party relief — including payment processor asset freezes — reflects an established body of Schedule A precedent in this jurisdiction.

The interplay between design patent protection (USD787,124) and copyright protection over the same product ecosystem illustrates a layered IP strategy increasingly adopted by consumer product companies. Design patents provide strong visual exclusivity; copyright adds an additional enforcement avenue with statutory damages and lower evidentiary thresholds in default scenarios.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent and Copyright Holders

• File in jurisdictions with active Schedule A dockets and favorable precedent for third-party enforcement relief.
• Layer design patent and copyright protection to maximize enforcement options and damages theories.
• Document willfulness carefully — it directly affects statutory damages elections.
• Post surety bonds promptly to avoid delays in obtaining TROs and preliminary injunctions.

For Accused Infringers

• Non-appearance guarantees default; even a limited defense preserves procedural rights and can substantially reduce damages exposure.
• Payment processor and marketplace account freezes create immediate commercial harm — early engagement with counsel is essential.

For R&D and Product Development Teams

• Design patent clearance (freedom-to-operate) must assess ornamental features, not just utility claims.
• Products sold through Amazon and similar platforms are increasingly subject to rapid IP enforcement actions with account-level consequences.