DCT

1:25-cv-00193

Bounce Curl LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
    • Plaintiff: Bounce Curl, LLC (Arizona)
    • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Jurisdiction Unknown; alleged to be operating from the People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: Bounce Curl, LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A”, 1:25-cv-00193, N.D. Ill., 01/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants’ alleged targeting of business activities toward consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores, offering shipping to the state, and accepting payment in U.S. currency.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators are selling hairbrushes that infringe a U.S. design patent covering Plaintiff's "Bounce Curl Design."
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer hair care products industry, specifically concerning the ornamental design of hairstyling tools.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is filed against a schedule of unidentified defendants, a common procedure in actions targeting online counterfeiters and infringers who allegedly use fictitious identities to operate e-commerce storefronts.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-01-01 Plaintiff Bounce Curl, LLC founded (approximate date)
2023-07-28 U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 Priority Date (Filing Date)
2024-05-28 U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 Issued
2025-01-08 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 Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem and solution in the manner of utility patents. Instead, they protect a "new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture" (D1,028,527 Patent, Title Page). The implied goal is to create a visually distinct and aesthetically pleasing appearance for a hairbrush.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hairbrush as illustrated in its seven figures (D1,028,527 Patent, Claim). Key visual features that create the overall appearance include a handle that tapers to a point, a brush head with a specific bristle pattern, and a distinctive ridged or scalloped contour along the sides of the brush head base (D1,028,527 Patent, FIG. 1, 6, 7). The complaint asserts this is the "Bounce Curl Design" (Compl. ¶9).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that products incorporating Plaintiff's patented designs are "instantly recognizable," "symbolize high quality," and are "widely recognized by consumers" (Compl. ¶¶7, 9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for the hair brush, as shown and described" (D1,028,527 Patent, Claim).
  • Unlike a utility patent, a design patent claim is not broken into discrete elements. The scope of protection is defined by the overall visual appearance of the design as depicted in the patent's drawings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are hairbrushes, referred to as the "Infringing Products," allegedly sold by the unidentified Defendants through various e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, AliExpress, and Temu (Compl. ¶¶3, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants sell "the same unauthorized and unlicensed product...that infringes Plaintiff's patented design" (Compl. ¶3). While the complaint does not include photographs of the actual products sold by Defendants, it does provide figures from the patent itself, which Plaintiff alleges the Infringing Products embody (Compl. p. 4). For example, the complaint displays a perspective view of the patented design, labeled FIG. 1, as part of the "Bounce Curl Design" that is allegedly infringed (Compl. p. 4). The complaint alleges Defendants' e-commerce stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a traditional claim chart. Instead, it alleges infringement based on the visual identity between the accused products and the patented design. The legal test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving the matter the attention a typical purchaser would, would find the design of the accused product to be substantially the same as the patented design.

The complaint alleges that 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 ’527 Patent (Compl. ¶26). The complaint contains a table with figures from the patent, such as the top view in FIG. 2 and bottom view in FIG. 3, which it alleges represent the infringed design (Compl. p. 4). It further alleges that the Defendants are selling "the same product that infringes directly and/or indirectly the Bounce Curl Design" (Compl. ¶22).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Question: A central question for the court will be the actual appearance of the products sold by the Defendants. The complaint's infringement allegations rest on the assertion that the accused products embody the patented design, but it presents figures from the patent rather than photographs of the accused articles themselves (Compl. p. 4).
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on a comparison of the overall visual appearance of the accused products with the patented design. This raises the question of whether any differences between the designs are minor enough that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not focused on defining textual terms but on understanding the scope of the claimed design as shown in the drawings.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for the hair brush"
  • Context and Importance: The scope of the claim is defined by the patent's drawings. The critical issue is the overall visual impression created by the combination of features. Practitioners may focus on which aspects of the design are ornamental and which, if any, are purely functional, as functional aspects are not protected by a design patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim covers the holistic appearance created by the combination of the tapered handle, the bristle layout, the head shape, and the distinctive side profile. The unique overall impression, rather than any single feature, constitutes the protected design.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that common features of a hairbrush, such as having a handle and bristles, are functional and should be given little weight. The analysis would then focus more narrowly on the purely ornamental flourishes, such as the specific scalloped or ridged pattern on the sides of the brush head (D1,028,527 Patent, FIG. 6, 7).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing the patent (Prayer ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations in the body of the complaint focus on Defendants' own direct acts of making, offering to sell, and selling the accused products (Compl. ¶¶22, 26).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" (Compl. ¶22) and engaged in tactics to conceal their identities, such as using false registration information and operating multiple storefronts, which may suggest an awareness of their infringing activity (Compl. ¶¶17-19).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A primary issue will be one of evidence and identity: can Plaintiff successfully identify the anonymous Defendants, establish jurisdiction, and obtain evidence showing that the products they actually sell are "substantially the same" in overall visual appearance as the design claimed in the ’527 Patent?
  • The core legal question will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test: assuming evidence of the accused products is presented, would a typical consumer be deceived into purchasing a Defendant's product, believing it to be the product embodying the patented design? This will involve a visual comparison of the products to the design shown in the patent's figures.
  • A potential question may concern the scope of the design: the court will have to determine the protectable ornamental scope of the ’527 Patent, considering the overall visual impression and potentially distinguishing it from any features that might be argued to be purely functional.