Zhong v. Divome & GDCOO US-2: Default Judgment for Charge Protector Design Patent
Patent holder Binglin Zhong secured a default judgment against two Amazon marketplace sellers — Divome and GDCOO US-2 — for infringing design patent USD1008977S covering a charge protector. The Illinois Northern District Court awarded $53,134 in combined infringer profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289 and issued a permanent injunction across major online platforms.
Amazon knockoff sellers face $53K disgorgement in charge protector design case
Filed on 6 December 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, this action was brought by Binglin Zhong against a group of unnamed marketplace sellers listed on Schedule A — a litigation format commonly used to pursue multiple e-commerce infringers simultaneously. The asserted patent, USD1008977S (application number US29/842973), protects the ornamental design of a charge protector product. Two defendants — Divome (Amazon Store ID: A2HQXUCGBOWH4W) and GDCOO US-2 (Amazon Store ID: AY11CCU0PY9UY0) — were specifically identified as selling knock-off versions of the patented design through Amazon ASINs B0BX9YFMFY and B0CWR5FJ14.
The case closed on 18 June 2025 via default judgment after both named defendants failed to answer the amended complaint. The court found personal jurisdiction based on the defendants’ deliberate targeting of U.S. and Illinois consumers through interactive Amazon storefronts. Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, which allows recovery of an infringer’s total profits from articles incorporating a patented design, the court awarded $39,848 against Divome and $13,286 against GDCOO US-2. The court also issued a permanent injunction and ordered Amazon, PayPal, and other financial intermediaries to freeze and release restrained funds to Zhong.
At 194 days, the case resolved relatively quickly, consistent with default-track Schedule A proceedings where defendants — often overseas sellers — never engage with the litigation. What drove the outcome was a combination of defendants’ non-appearance, a TRO obtained early in proceedings, and coordinated asset restraint via payment processors. The public record does not disclose whether either defendant had knowledge of the patent before listing the products, nor whether any restrained funds were sufficient to satisfy the judgments in full — leaving collection risk as the primary unresolved commercial variable.
Filing to Default Judgment in 194 days
194-day resolution — faster than the median Schedule A design patent case in N.D. Illinois
Default judgment explained: what the court’s order means for both parties
Default judgment: liability established without a merits contest
A default judgment is entered when a defendant fails to respond to the complaint within the allotted time. The court treats the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as admitted. Here, Judge Kennelly found design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 established by default, meaning the substantive validity of USD1008977S and the infringement finding were never tested adversarially. The judgment is final but enforceable only to the extent assets can be recovered.
Default — no merits adjudicationZhong secures injunction and $53,134 disgorgement order
Binglin Zhong obtained a permanent injunction barring Divome and GDCOO US-2 from all future infringing activity, platform account use, and product distribution. The court ordered Amazon and PayPal to release restrained funds as partial payment. Under § 289, the plaintiff is entitled to the infringer’s total profits — a powerful remedy that does not require proving lost sales. Practical recovery depends on whether frozen account balances cover the full judgment amounts.
Permanent injunction grantedSellers face account disablement and asset freezes across platforms
By failing to appear, Divome and GDCOO US-2 lost the opportunity to contest infringement, challenge patent validity, or argue design-around. The court’s order extends beyond Amazon to PayPal, Alibaba, eBay, and social media platforms. China- and Hong Kong-based financial accounts are specifically targeted for restraint. Non-appearing defendants in Schedule A cases rarely reverse default judgments, making this outcome effectively final for both sellers.
Accounts disabled, assets restrainedSchedule A enforcement signals heightened risk for marketplace design infringers
This outcome is consistent with a well-established N.D. Illinois enforcement pattern: patent holders use Schedule A filings to obtain TROs and asset freezes early, then convert non-responders to default judgments. For Amazon third-party sellers in the consumer electronics accessories space, the case reinforces that USD design patents are actively enforced and that 35 U.S.C. § 289 profit disgorgement can yield meaningful awards even from low-volume listings. Sellers operating from China or Hong Kong face particular vulnerability given cross-border asset restraint orders.
Design patent enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Binglin Zhong | Individual | Individual design patent holder — holder of USD1008977S for a charge protector deviceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified in Schedule A | Individual | Amazon marketplace sellers Divome and GDCOO US-2, operating from China or Hong KongSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Michael Dewitty | Attorney | Counsel for Binglin ZhongSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dewitty And Associates, Chtd. | Law Firm | Representing Binglin ZhongSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Matthew F. Kennelly | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s default judgment finding liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for design patent infringement rests entirely on the defendants’ non-appearance — the merits of infringement and validity were not contested. The reference to willful infringement in the § 289 damages award is significant: while § 289 does not require willfulness to trigger total-profits disgorgement, the characterisation may reflect the court’s view that deliberate knockoff selling warrants the full statutory remedy. The order’s broad reach — covering affiliated accounts, payment processors, and major platforms — is consistent with standard N.D. Illinois Schedule A default judgment templates.
USD1008977S — ornamental design for a charge protector device
USD1008977S (application number US29/842973) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a charge protector — a consumer electronics accessory likely designed to protect charging ports or cables from damage. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the novel, ornamental characteristics of a functional item, not the functional elements themselves. The scope of protection is defined by the patent’s drawings, making visual similarity to the claimed design the central infringement question.
In the consumer electronics accessories market, design patents have become a primary enforcement tool against overseas marketplace sellers who replicate the visual appearance of patented products without licensing. USD1008977S is asserted against products sold on Amazon under specific ASINs, suggesting Zhong has identified commercially competing listings that closely mimic the patented design. For competitors and distributors in the phone accessory and cable protection space, this patent represents active enforcement risk that warrants proactive clearance before sourcing or listing similar designs.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD1008977S?
Any company sourcing, manufacturing, distributing, or listing consumer electronics accessories — particularly charge protectors, cable guards, or port protection devices — on Amazon, eBay, or other online marketplaces should assess potential overlap with USD1008977S. The patent holder has demonstrated willingness to pursue enforcement aggressively, including obtaining TROs and asset freezes within weeks of filing. Even low-volume listings can generate significant liability under § 289’s total-profits standard.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of USD1008977S against your product’s design drawings, identify the closest prior art that may narrow the patent’s effective coverage, and flag related design patent families held by Binglin Zhong or overlapping rights holders. R&D and sourcing teams can run design clearance searches before committing to production tooling, reducing the risk of costly Schedule A litigation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1008977S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent Schedule A cases in N.D. Illinois
Cases involving design patent enforcement against anonymous Amazon marketplace sellers in the Northern District of Illinois, covering consumer electronics accessories and similar product categories.
What this case signals for the consumer electronics accessories IP landscape
Schedule A design patent enforcement in N.D. Illinois continues to mature as a systematic tool against marketplace sellers of knock-off consumer accessories.
§ 289 profit disgorgement makes even small-volume infringement costly
Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a design patent holder can recover the infringer’s total profits from the infringing article — not just damages proportional to lost sales. The $53,134 combined award here, drawn from what appear to be relatively modest Amazon listings, illustrates how quickly liability can accumulate. Any company sourcing or reselling consumer accessories with distinctive ornamental designs should treat design patent clearance as a baseline commercial obligation.
Asset freezes via payment processors are the enforcement engine in Schedule A cases
The court’s order directing Amazon Pay and PayPal to freeze and release funds to Zhong within days of entry demonstrates the practical enforcement power of Schedule A TROs. For marketplace operators and payment processors, this creates an operational obligation to act quickly on court orders. For IP rights holders, it confirms that coordinated multi-platform asset restraint — rather than waiting for defendant engagement — is the primary recovery mechanism in these cases.
Zhong v Partnerships — key questions answered
The Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment on 18 June 2025 in favour of plaintiff Binglin Zhong. The court found Divome and GDCOO US-2 liable for design patent infringement of USD1008977S and awarded $39,848 against Divome and $13,286 against GDCOO US-2 in infringer profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, alongside a permanent injunction.
Section 289 entitles a design patent holder to recover the total profits an infringer made from selling an article that incorporates the patented design. Unlike utility patent damages, which are typically tied to reasonable royalties or lost profits, § 289 disgorgement does not require the patent holder to prove causation between the infringement and specific lost sales, making it a powerful damages tool even for relatively low-volume infringers.
A Schedule A case is a multi-defendant patent infringement action where the plaintiff sues a group of anonymous online sellers identified only by their marketplace account IDs, listed on an attached Schedule A. Commonly filed in N.D. Illinois, these actions allow plaintiffs to obtain early TROs and asset freezes across payment platforms like Amazon Pay and PayPal before defendants are individually served, leveraging non-appearance to secure default judgments.
The asserted patent is USD1008977S, with application number US29/842973. It is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a charge protector device — a consumer electronics accessory. Design patents protect the visual, ornamental characteristics of a product rather than its functional features, and infringement is assessed by comparing the accused product’s appearance to the patent’s drawings.
A defaulting defendant may move to vacate the default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) if it can demonstrate good cause — such as lack of notice, a meritorious defence, or excusable neglect. However, in practice, overseas sellers in Schedule A cases rarely appear post-judgment. The patent’s validity could also be challenged via ex parte reexamination or IPR at the USPTO by any third party with standing, independent of the district court proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.