1:24-cv-12291
Bounce Curl LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bounce Curl, LLC (Arizona)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-12291, N.D. Ill., 11/27/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ alleged targeting of business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that hairbrushes sold by numerous online merchants infringe its U.S. design patent.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the ornamental design of consumer hair care tools, a market where distinctive product appearance can be a significant commercial driver.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an action against a group of unidentified defendants, listed on a sealed "Schedule A," who allegedly operate e-commerce stores under various aliases. The complaint alleges these defendants are interrelated and take active measures to conceal their identities. Plaintiff states its products are marked in compliance with patent notice statutes.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-07-28 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527 Application (Priority) Date |
| 2024-05-28 | U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527 Issue Date |
| 2024-11-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527 - “Hair Brush”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527 (“Hair Brush”), issued May 28, 2024 (the “’527 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian function. The patent does not describe a technical problem but instead presents a new, original, and ornamental design for a hairbrush. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff is an "innovator in the design and manufacture of innovative hair products" for consumers with natural, curly hair (Compl. ¶5-6).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a hairbrush as depicted in its seven figures ('527 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The design’s ornamental features include a brush head with multiple rows of bristles, a slender tapering handle, and scalloped edges along the sides of the brush head ('527 Patent, FIG. 4, FIG. 5).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's products are known for their "distinctive patented designs" which are "widely recognized by consumers" and "symbolize high quality" (Compl. ¶7, ¶9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a hair brush, as shown and described" ('527 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the hairbrush shown in the patent’s drawings. Key ornamental features include:
- The overall configuration of the brush head and handle.
- The pattern and arrangement of the bristles on the brush face.
- The scalloped or wavy contour along the left and right sides of the brush head.
- The specific shapes of the front and back ends of the brush head.
- The profile view of the brush.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are hairbrushes, referred to as the "Infringing Products," which are allegedly sold by Defendants through various e-commerce storefronts (Compl. ¶3). The complaint states these products are depicted in its Exhibit 1, which was not publicly filed with the complaint.
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are hairbrushes offered for sale on online marketplace platforms such as "Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Wish.com, Walmart, Etsy, Temu, TikTok, and DHgate" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that Defendants operate under multiple "Seller Aliases" to target consumers in the United States, including Illinois, and design their online stores to appear as authorized retailers, outlet stores, or wholesalers (Compl. ¶13, ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused "Infringing Products" are the "same unauthorized and unlicensed product" that infringes the ’527 Patent design (Compl. ¶3). The infringement test for a design patent is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint presents its infringement case through conclusory allegations and by reproducing figures from the patent. Figure 1 from the patent, reproduced in the complaint, provides a perspective view of the claimed hairbrush design (Compl. p. 4).
The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart. The core of the infringement allegation is a direct visual comparison.
| Key Ornamental Feature (from ’527 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a hair brush, as shown and described. | Defendants are making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing "Infringing Products" that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Bounce Curl Design." | ¶26 | FIGS. 1-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Visual Similarity: The central factual question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the claimed design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The dispute will likely depend on a side-by-side comparison of the products and the patent drawings to determine if any differences are significant enough to avoid a finding of infringement.
- Scope Questions: A potential issue, common in design patent cases, is identifying which aspects of the claimed design are ornamental and which are purely functional. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings rather than by textual limitations. As such, claim construction of specific terms is generally not a central issue. The analysis focuses on a visual comparison of the claimed design as a whole with the accused product.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of indirect infringement, and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. ¶26; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations focus on Defendants' own direct actions of making, selling, and importing products, and do not specify acts by third parties that Defendants allegedly induced.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" sell the infringing products and engage in tactics to conceal their identities, such as using multiple fictitious aliases and participating in online forums discussing evasion of intellectual property enforcement (Compl. ¶19-20, ¶22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of visual identity: Is the ornamental design of the accused hairbrushes substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’527 patent in the eyes of an ordinary observer? The outcome will depend on a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the patent’s drawings.
- A key procedural question will be one of joinder and enforcement: Can the Plaintiff establish the "logical relationship" it alleges exists among the numerous, anonymous e-commerce operators listed on Schedule A? Successfully proving this connection is critical to maintaining the case against a wide array of sellers and enforcing any potential judgment, particularly against foreign entities allegedly using offshore accounts.
- A central damages question will be one of disgorgement: Should infringement be found, the Plaintiff seeks to recover Defendants' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289. A significant evidentiary challenge will be to accurately trace and quantify these profits, given the alleged use of multiple storefronts and concealment tactics by the Defendants.