Teleties LLC v. Schedule A Defendants: Permanent Injunction in Hair Clip Design Patent Case
Teleties LLC, holder of design patent USD1031161S covering ornamental hair clips, secured a court-ordered permanent injunction against 18 defendants after none appeared to contest the claims. The Florida Middle District Court entered default judgment on October 10, 2025, binding all 18 defendants and their affiliates from making, selling, or importing any infringing product.
Design patent default: Teleties wins broad injunction against 18 defendants
Teleties LLC filed case 6:25-cv-00539 in the Middle District of Florida on March 26, 2025, asserting infringement of design patent USD1031161S, which covers the ornamental appearance of hair clips. The named defendants — identified only as Schedule A Defendants #1 through #18, a common structure in e-commerce enforcement actions — are typically anonymous marketplace sellers. No defendant law firm or agent appears on the public record, consistent with a failure to respond.
With no defendants entering an appearance or contesting the complaint, the court entered a default judgment and permanent injunction on October 10, 2025. The injunction prohibits the defaulting defendants, their officers, affiliates, successors, and all those acting in concert with them from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing any product embodying the ornamental design of USD1031161S — including reproductions, copies, or colorable imitations. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce both the injunction and any confidential settlement agreements reached with individual defendants.
The 202-day resolution from filing to closure is consistent with the cadence of Schedule A default actions, which typically resolve quickly when defendants do not engage. The court’s explicit retention of jurisdiction and reference to possible confidential settlements with individual defendants suggests that some of the 18 may have resolved their positions privately before the injunction was entered. The full financial terms, if any, remain outside the public record.
Filing to Default Judgment in 202 days
202-day resolution — faster than median Schedule A multi-defendant IP cases
Default judgment and permanent injunction: what the ruling means for both parties
Default judgment: liability without contest
A default judgment is entered when a named defendant fails to respond to a complaint within the required period. The court accepts the well-pleaded allegations as true and may award appropriate relief. Here, none of the 18 defendants appeared, so the court granted Teleties’ requested permanent injunction without a merits trial. Default judgments in Schedule A cases are a primary enforcement tool against anonymous marketplace infringers.
No merits contestTeleties secures maximum injunctive relief
The permanent injunction gives Teleties broad enforcement authority covering not just the named defendants but also their affiliates, successors, and all persons acting in concert — effectively binding the entire seller network. The court’s retained jurisdiction allows Teleties to return for enforcement proceedings if violations continue. Individual confidential settlements with some defendants may also have produced undisclosed monetary compensation.
Broad injunctive scopeAll 18 defendants permanently barred from infringing products
Defendants who failed to appear are bound by the injunction’s full terms with no opportunity to contest validity, claim non-infringement, or negotiate public terms. Any future violation of the injunction exposes them to contempt proceedings in the Middle District of Florida. Defendants who reached confidential settlements retain some procedural protections, but those terms are not visible on the public docket.
Contempt risk for violationsDesign patent enforcement against e-commerce sellers is accelerating
This case is consistent with an established enforcement pattern in which consumer product brands use design patents to obtain rapid injunctive relief against Schedule A marketplace sellers. For competitors and platform sellers in the hair accessories space, the case signals that ornamental design rights are actively enforced. Sellers on platforms such as Amazon or Temu distributing visually similar hair clip designs face meaningful injunction risk without a FTO analysis.
E-commerce design patent riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Teleties, LLC | Company | Hair accessories brand and design patent holder — ornamental hair clip (USD1031161S)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Defendants #1-18 as Identified in Schedule ‘A’ | Individual | 18 anonymous e-commerce sellers identified in Schedule A; no legal representation on recordSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David L. Luikart , III | Attorney | Counsel for Teleties, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas James Banks | Attorney | Counsel for Teleties, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hill, Ward, & Henderson PA | Law Firm | Representing Teleties, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The injunction’s scope is deliberately broad: it binds not only the 18 named defendants but also their directors, officers, affiliates, assigns, and ‘all those persons or entities acting in concert.’ This expansive language, grounded in FRCP 65(d)(2)(C), is characteristic of default judgments in Schedule A e-commerce cases and is intended to prevent shell-company restructuring as an evasion tactic. The court’s explicit reference to confidential settlements suggests the injunction functions partly as a backstop — codifying relief against non-settling defendants while preserving privately negotiated terms with others.
USD1031161S — Ornamental design for a hair clip
USD1031161S is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a hair clip, filed under application number US29/926096. Design patents protect the non-functional, visual characteristics of a product — in this case, the specific decorative form of the hair clip as embodied in Teleties’ product line. Design patent protection in the U.S. runs for 15 years from grant. The ‘D’ designation confirms this is a design, not utility, patent, meaning infringement is assessed by the ‘ordinary observer’ test rather than claim-by-claim analysis.
For Teleties, USD1031161S represents a commercially significant design asset in a crowded consumer accessories market where product appearance is a key purchase driver. The decision to pursue 18 defendants simultaneously via a Schedule A action suggests active portfolio enforcement. For competitors and marketplace sellers, the breadth of the injunction — covering reproductions, copies, and ‘colorable imitations’ — means that products creating a substantially similar visual impression are at risk even if they differ in minor details. This case reinforces the commercial value of design patents in fast-fashion and beauty accessories markets.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD1031161S?
Any company designing, sourcing, or selling hair clips — particularly via e-commerce platforms — should assess freedom to operate against USD1031161S before launch. The ‘colorable imitation’ standard in the injunction means the risk perimeter extends beyond exact copies. If your product shares the overall ornamental impression of the Teleties design, your legal exposure is real regardless of functional differences. This applies equally to OEM manufacturers, platform resellers, and domestic distributors.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map the visual and structural scope of USD1031161S, identify related design patent filings in Teleties’ portfolio, and surface prior art that might bound the patent’s enforceable scope. Eureka’s patent landscape tools can also flag co-pending applications that may extend Teleties’ design protection into adjacent product configurations — critical intelligence before a new hair accessories SKU reaches market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1031161S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable design patent infringement cases involving consumer accessories and Schedule A anonymous defendants in U.S. district courts, including the Middle District of Florida.
What this case signals for the hair accessories and consumer goods IP landscape
Teleties’ default win reinforces why design patents are a preferred enforcement weapon against anonymous e-commerce infringers.
Schedule A actions require no defendant identity to secure injunctive relief
The structure of this case — anonymous defendants, no contest, swift default — is a deliberate enforcement strategy. Brands can obtain a permanent injunction covering an entire network of marketplace sellers within months of filing, without identifying each seller by name at the outset. Any business distributing visually similar hair accessories should treat this outcome as a direct risk signal.
Court-retained jurisdiction extends the enforcement timeline beyond judgment
The Middle District of Florida’s explicit retention of jurisdiction means Teleties can return to enforce the injunction without re-filing. For supply chain participants downstream of the named defendants — distributors, logistics providers, or platform storefronts — the ‘acting in concert’ language in the injunction may extend liability beyond the 18 named parties.
Teleties v Defendants — key questions answered
The Middle District of Florida entered a permanent injunction and default judgment on October 10, 2025, barring all 18 named defendants and their affiliates from making, selling, offering for sale, or importing any product bearing the ornamental design of patent USD1031161S. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the injunction and any confidential settlements.
USD1031161S is a U.S. design patent (application US29/926096) held by Teleties LLC that protects the ornamental appearance of a hair clip. Design patents cover the non-functional visual characteristics of a product. Infringement is assessed using the ‘ordinary observer’ test — whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product substantially similar in overall appearance to the patented design.
Schedule A actions allow plaintiffs to file suit against multiple anonymous or pseudonymous e-commerce sellers listed in an attached schedule, without identifying each by name in the complaint. Courts in Florida and Illinois have frequently permitted this structure in IP enforcement against marketplace sellers. Defendants are often identified only by their platform store names or account numbers at the time of filing.
A default judgment is entered when defendants fail to respond to a complaint. The court treats the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as admitted and grants appropriate relief. Here, none of the 18 defendants appeared, so the court granted the permanent injunction without a merits hearing. Defendants bound by the default have no right of appeal on the merits and face contempt proceedings for future violations.
Defendants subject to a default judgment have limited options. They may move to vacate the default under FRCP 60(b) if they can show excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff. However, the standard is demanding and time-sensitive. Defendants who reached confidential settlements retain whatever contractual rights those agreements provide, but those terms are not visible on the public docket.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.