1:25-cv-02845
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” (Jurisdictions Unknown, Allegedly China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02845, N.D. Ill., 03/18/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and sell products to consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of certain hairbrushes on various e-commerce platforms infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a hairbrush.
- Technical Context: The dispute is set in the consumer hair care and hairstyling product market, where distinctive product design is a key element of brand identity and market differentiation.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint frames the Defendants as a network of anonymous, foreign e--commerce operators who use aliases and common tactics to evade intellectual property enforcement, but it does not mention prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-07-28 | Patent Priority Date (D1,028,527) |
| 2024-05-28 | Issue Date (D1,028,527 Patent) |
| 2025-03-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 - "Hair Brush", Issued May 28, 2024 (’527 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In the market for consumer goods like hair care tools, establishing a unique and recognizable product appearance is a significant challenge. Design patents protect the novel, ornamental, and non-functional aspects of an article of manufacture, addressing the need for aesthetic differentiation.
- The Patented Solution: The ’527 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hairbrush as depicted in its seven figures (’527 Patent, p. 3, CLAIM). The design is characterized by a combination of features including a distinctively shaped head, a specific arrangement of bristles, a tapered handle, and unique ridged texturing along the sides of the brush head (’527 Patent, FIGS. 1, 6-7). The claim protects the overall visual impression created by these elements taken as a whole.
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's distinctive patented designs are widely recognized by consumers and have become associated with quality and innovation in the hairstyling industry (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for the hair brush, as shown and described." (’527 Patent, p. 3).
- The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
- An overall configuration comprising a brush head and an elongated, tapered handle.
- A specific bristle pattern on the front face of the brush head.
- A distinct, scalloped or ridged texture along the left and right sides of the brush head.
- The particular shapes and contours shown in the perspective, top, bottom, front, back, and side views.
- The complaint does not assert dependent claims, as design patents do not have them.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are hairbrushes, referred to as the "Infringing Products," allegedly made, used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by the Defendants (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these products are sold through e-commerce stores operating under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, Temu, and Walmart (Compl. ¶13). The complaint asserts these stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers to unknowing consumers (Compl. ¶16). The complaint includes several images from the ’527 Patent to represent the "Bounce Curl Design" that Defendants are accused of infringing (Compl. pp. 4-5, FIGS. 1-7). For instance, a perspective view shows the overall appearance of the patented brush design (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1). The core allegation is that the accused products are unauthorized copies of the patented design, sold to trade on the goodwill associated with Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶3).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. The analysis below summarizes the infringement theory for a design patent, where the "claim" is the entire visual design. The infringement test turns on whether an ordinary observer would find the design of the accused product to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the patent.
’527 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Visual Features from the ’527 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental appearance of the hair brush as shown in the patent figures. | Defendants are accused of making, using, selling, and/or importing hairbrushes that infringe the ornamental design claimed in the ’527 Patent. | ¶26 | p. 3, CLAIM |
| The combination of a uniquely contoured brush head, a specific bristle arrangement, and a tapered handle. | The accused products are alleged to be the "same product that infringes directly and/or indirectly the Bounce Curl Design." | ¶22 | FIGS. 1, 4 |
| The scalloped or ridged ornamental texture along the sides of the brush head. | The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products embody the patented "Bounce Curl Design," creating a visual appearance that is substantially similar to the design protected by the ’527 patent. | ¶¶3, 22 | FIGS. 6, 7 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the accused products are "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’527 Patent from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." This analysis will involve a direct visual comparison between the accused products and the figures in the ’527 Patent.
- Scope Questions: The scope of a design patent is limited to its ornamental aspects. A defense could arise if any similarities between the accused product and the patented design are dictated purely by the brush's function rather than its ornamental appearance.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For design patents, claim construction does not involve interpreting textual terms as it does for utility patents. Instead, the "claim" is defined by the drawings. The scope of the claim is the overall ornamental visual appearance of the article as depicted in the patent figures. The central analysis is a comparison of the accused design to the claimed design, not a dispute over the meaning of a specific word. Therefore, a traditional claim construction analysis is not applicable. The key legal determination will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the visual evidence.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint makes passing references to indirect infringement (Compl. ¶22, ¶26) and aiding and abetting (Prayer ¶1.b). However, the factual allegations primarily focus on direct infringement by the Defendants through their own sales and offers for sale. The complaint does not plead specific facts showing that Defendants knowingly induced or contributed to infringement by third parties.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants act "knowingly and willfully" (Compl. ¶22) and are part of a network of infringers who actively conceal their identities and participate in online forums discussing tactics for evading intellectual property enforcement (Compl. ¶¶12, 18-20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The case will fundamentally turn on a visual comparison. Will a fact-finder, acting as an ordinary observer, conclude that the design of Defendants' hairbrushes is substantially the same as the ornamental design depicted in the ’527 Patent, leading to a likelihood of confusion?
- Enforcement and Identity: A significant practical hurdle will be the procedural challenge of litigating against a group of anonymous "Schedule A" defendants. A key question is whether Plaintiff can effectively identify the operators of the accused e-commerce stores, establish jurisdiction, and enforce any resulting judgment against entities allegedly based in foreign jurisdictions with lax IP enforcement.
- Willfulness and Damages: If infringement is found, a central issue for damages will be willfulness. Can the Plaintiff substantiate its allegations that Defendants were not merely accidental infringers but part of a coordinated effort to copy patented designs and evade legal consequences, which could lead to enhanced damages or an award of Defendants' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289?