DCT

1:25-cv-02780

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(s) Unknown, Believed to be People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02780, N.D. Ill., 03/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' direct targeting of business activities toward consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores, including offering shipping to Illinois and accepting payment from U.S. bank accounts.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of certain hairbrushes via online marketplaces infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a hairbrush.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is situated in the consumer haircare and hairstyling industry, where distinctive product design can be a significant market differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is a "Schedule A" action filed against a group of unknown e-commerce operators, a common strategy to combat online counterfeiting and infringement from entities that use multiple aliases to conceal their identities. Plaintiff alleges its products embodying the patented design are marked in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-07-28 U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 Application Filed
2024-05-28 U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 Issued
2025-03-17 Complaint Filed

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

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

  • Issued: May 28, 2024

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel, non-obvious, and ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. The patent does not articulate a functional problem but instead provides a new ornamental design for a hairbrush.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a hairbrush as depicted in its seven figures (D’527 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). Key ornamental features include the overall profile of the brush head and handle, the specific configuration of bristle rows, a distinctive scalloped edge on the back of the brush head, and the pattern of the bristles themselves (D’527 Patent, FIGS. 1, 4, 5). The complaint alleges that these designs are distinctive and widely recognized by consumers (Compl. ¶9).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's products are known for their "distinctive patented designs," which have become "instantly recognizable" and "symbolize high quality" in the haircare industry (Compl. ¶7, ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a hair brush, as shown and described." (D’527 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's drawings, which depict:
    • A perspective view (FIG. 1)
    • A top view (FIG. 2)
    • A bottom view (FIG. 3)
    • A front view showing the bristle pattern (FIG. 4)
    • A back view showing a recessed channel and scalloped edges (FIG. 5)
    • Right and left side views (FIGS. 6-7)

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are hairbrushes, referred to in the complaint as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are unauthorized and unlicensed hairbrushes sold through e-commerce stores operating under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, Temu, and Walmart (Compl. ¶3, ¶13). These stores are alleged to target U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, and are designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" (Compl. ¶15, ¶16). The complaint states that an image of an infringing product is shown in Exhibit 1, but this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart. The infringement theory is based on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks 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 core allegation is 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 Bounce Curl Design" (Compl. ¶26). The complaint provides visual evidence of the patented design itself by embedding several of the patent's figures within the body of the document. For example, the complaint includes a perspective view of the patented design, which shows the overall configuration of the hairbrush (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1). The infringement allegation rests on the assertion that the ornamental design of the accused products is substantially the same as the design depicted in these figures.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: The central dispute will be a factual comparison between the design of the Defendants' products and the design claimed in the D'527 Patent. The outcome will depend on whether the two designs are "substantially the same" in the eyes of an ordinary observer.
    • Evidentiary Question: Since the complaint was filed without an exhibit showing the accused product, a threshold question will be what evidence Plaintiff proffers to demonstrate the appearance of the products sold by the Schedule A Defendants and how that appearance compares to the patent's drawings.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the claim's scope is defined by the drawings rather than by textual limitations. The single claim--"The ornamental design for a hair brush, as shown and described"--does not contain terms that are likely to require judicial construction (D'527 Patent, CLAIM). The analysis will instead focus on a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the patent's figures.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶26). The prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" infringement (Compl., Prayer ¶1(b)). The factual allegations primarily focus on the Defendants' own acts of making, selling, and importing, which constitute direct infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants "knowingly and willfully" importing, distributing, and selling the Infringing Products without authorization (Compl. ¶22, ¶23). The complaint further alleges that the Defendants are part of a network of infringers who communicate about evading detection and litigation, which may be used to argue knowledge of their infringing conduct (Compl. ¶19, ¶20).

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

  1. Infringement and Factual Comparison: The case's primary substantive question is one of visual identity: Would an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, find the design of the Defendants' hairbrushes to be substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the D'527 patent?
  2. Jurisdiction and Enforcement: A core procedural challenge will be identifying the anonymous "Schedule A" defendants and establishing that the court has personal jurisdiction over these foreign-based e-commerce operators. The effectiveness of any resulting injunction will depend on the cooperation of third-party marketplace platforms as requested by the Plaintiff (Compl., Prayer ¶2).
  3. Damages and Disgorgement: If infringement is found, a key question will be the calculation of damages. The complaint seeks Defendants' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a remedy unique to design patents that can be significantly larger than a reasonable royalty. Proving the amount of those profits from anonymous, foreign sellers may present a significant evidentiary challenge.