DCT

1:25-cv-02703

Bounce Curl LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02703, N.D. Ill., 03/14/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants targeting business activities toward consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores, offering shipping to the district, and accepting payment from U.S. sources.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators are infringing its design patent by making, using, selling, and importing hairbrushes that copy the patented ornamental design.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer haircare and hairstyling industry, where distinctive product design can be a significant driver of brand recognition and market value.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a "Schedule A" action, targeting numerous and often anonymous online sellers, who are alleged to be based in foreign jurisdictions like the People's Republic of China. This procedural posture is common in efforts to combat online counterfeiting and infringement at scale.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-07-28 U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 Priority Date (Filing Date)
2024-05-28 U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 Issue Date
2025-03-14 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 - "HAIR BRUSH"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527, "HAIR BRUSH", issued May 28, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests that in the competitive haircare market, creating a visually unique and "instantly recognizable" product design is a key challenge (Compl. ¶7). The patent aims to protect a specific ornamental design that distinguishes Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶9).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a hairbrush. Key visual features include a handle that tapers to a point, a brush head with multiple rows of bristles, and distinctive, repeating scalloped or ridged edges along the sides of the brush head (’527 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The design as a whole creates a particular aesthetic impression (’527 Patent, CLAIM).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the design is associated with "quality and innovation" and has become "enormously popular," making it a valuable asset for the brand (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for the hair brush, as shown and described" (’527 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The claim's scope is defined by the seven figures provided in the patent, which depict the design from perspective, top, bottom, front, back, right, and left side views (’527 Patent, DESCRIPTION).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are hairbrushes, referred to as the "Infringing Products," allegedly made, used, offered for sale, and sold by the Defendants listed in Schedule A (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants operate "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, Temu, and TikTok, among others (Compl. ¶13). These stores allegedly target U.S. consumers and use content and images that make it difficult for consumers to distinguish the accused products from Plaintiff's genuine "Bounce Curl Products" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges these products are unauthorized and unlicensed copies that are sold to "unknowing consumers" (Compl. ¶3). The complaint refers to an image of an infringing product in "Exhibit 1," but this exhibit was not included with the complaint filing (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart, which is typical for design patent cases where the infringement analysis rests on a visual comparison rather than a mapping of textual limitations. The infringement allegation is based on the "ordinary observer" test.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are making, using, and selling "Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Bounce Curl Design" (Compl. ¶26). The complaint asserts that the accused products are the "same product that infringes" the design (Compl. ¶22). To support this, the complaint provides several figures from the ’527 Patent to establish the patented design's appearance (Compl. ¶9, pp. 4-5). For example, the complaint includes a perspective view of the brush, which shows its overall shape, bristle pattern, and distinctive ridged sides (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1). The core of the infringement claim is that the visual appearance of the Defendants' products is substantially the same as the design depicted in these figures, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Visual Similarity: A central question will be whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the accused products are substantially the same as the patented design. This analysis will require a side-by-side comparison of the accused products with the drawings in the ’527 Patent, taking into account the overall visual impression rather than minor differences.
    • Scope Questions: The analysis may raise the question of which features of the design are ornamental and protected versus which, if any, are purely functional. The scope of a design patent does not extend to functional aspects of an article.
    • Evidentiary Questions: As Exhibit 1 showing an accused product is not provided, a key question for the court will be what evidence Plaintiff produces to demonstrate the actual appearance of the products sold by each of the numerous, anonymous Defendants.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood to be the design itself as shown in the patent's drawings. Formal construction of specific text-based terms is rare. The central analysis is the application of the infringement test, not the definition of words.

  • The Term: "ornamental design for a hair brush"
  • Context and Importance: While not a term for construction in the traditional sense, the scope of what is "ornamental" is the crux of any design patent case. The dispute will turn on the overall visual appearance claimed in the drawings. Practitioners may focus on identifying the specific visual elements that create the overall aesthetic impression and distinguishing them from any potentially functional elements.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design "as shown and described" (’527 Patent, CLAIM). A party could argue this protects the overall visual impression created by the combination of all depicted features, not just one specific element. The seven different views provided in the patent define the design comprehensively from all angles (Compl. pp. 4-5, FIGS. 1-7).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the design is limited to the exact proportions and specific features shown in the solid lines of the drawings. Any significant deviation in an accused product, or any features dictated purely by function, might place it outside the scope of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' acts constitute direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶26). The prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). The factual basis appears to rest on allegations that the Defendants are interrelated and operate as a network (Compl. ¶19, ¶20).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was and is willful (Compl. ¶23). This is based on allegations that Defendants are "working to knowingly and willfully import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Infringing Products" without authorization from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶22).

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

  1. Procedural Efficacy: A primary issue, common to "Schedule A" cases, will be jurisdictional and logistical: can the Plaintiff successfully establish personal jurisdiction over, serve, and enforce a judgment against a large number of potentially anonymous foreign entities operating through shifting online aliases?
  2. Infringement under the Ordinary Observer Test: The core substantive question will be one of visual comparison: will the evidence show that the accused products sold by Defendants are "substantially the same" as the patented design in the eyes of an ordinary purchaser of hairbrushes? The outcome will depend entirely on the visual evidence of the accused products, which is not yet in the record.
  3. Damages and Enforcement: Assuming infringement is found, a key question will be one of remedy: can the Plaintiff effectively identify and freeze Defendants' assets to recover damages or profits, given the allegation that Defendants utilize offshore accounts to evade judgments (Compl. ¶21)?