DCT

1:25-cv-02925

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 foreign entities)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02925, N.D. Ill., 03/19/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants targeting business activities, including e-commerce sales, to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ unauthorized e-commerce sales of hairbrushes infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's hairbrush.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the ornamental design of a hairbrush, a consumer product in the competitive haircare and hairstyling market where distinctive appearance can be a significant market differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an action against a group of unidentified e-commerce sellers, a common procedural approach to address coordinated online infringement by parties who allegedly use aliases to conceal their identities. Plaintiff notes that its own products embodying the design are marked in compliance with patent law.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-07-28 D1,028,527 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing Date)
2024-05-28 U.S. Design Patent D1,028,527 Issued
2025-03-19 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: While a design patent does not address a technical problem in the same manner as a utility patent, the implicit goal is to create a unique and aesthetically distinct appearance for a consumer product to differentiate it in the marketplace (Compl. ¶9).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific, non-functional, ornamental appearance of a hairbrush as depicted in its figures ('527 Patent, Claim, Figs. 1-7). Key visual features of the design include the overall silhouette of the brush head and pointed "rat-tail" handle; a distinct pattern of bristles arranged in rows; and, notably, removable side rails holding rows of bristles which create a unique profile, along with a scalloped or wavy edge on the back of the brush head ('527 Patent, Figs. 1, 5).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that such "distinctive patented designs" are widely recognized by consumers and have come to "symbolize high quality" in the haircare industry, making the design commercially significant (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, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's seven figures, which collectively illustrate the design's overall shape and the specific configuration of its surface ornamentation from multiple perspectives.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are hairbrushes ("Infringing Products") allegedly sold by the Defendants through various e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶3).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendants operate a network of online stores on platforms such as Amazon, Temu, and Walmart, which target U.S. consumers (Compl. ¶13). These stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" (Compl. ¶16). The core of the allegation is that these unauthorized products are visually identical or nearly identical to Plaintiff's patented design, trading on the goodwill associated with that design (Compl. ¶3). The complaint provides visual evidence of the patented design itself, including a table with a perspective view of the hairbrush. This table on page 4 of the complaint displays FIG. 1, which illustrates the overall configuration of the brush head, bristle pattern, and handle (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or side-by-side visual comparison between the patented design and an accused product. The infringement theory is presented through narrative allegations that the Defendants are making, using, and selling products that embody the patented "Bounce Curl Design" (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 26). The central allegation is that the Defendants' products are "the same unauthorized and unlicensed product" shown in the patent (Compl. ¶3).

The legal test for design patent infringement 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 asserts that Defendants' products meet this standard, thereby infringing the '527 Patent (Compl. ¶26).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: The dispositive issue will be a factual comparison of the accused products' appearance to the drawings in the '527 Patent. As the complaint does not include images of the accused products, it is not possible to analyze the degree of visual similarity from the provided documents.
    • Scope Questions: The analysis may raise the question of which elements of the '527 Patent's design are ornamental and which, if any, are purely functional. The scope of protection only extends to the ornamental aspects of the design, and a court would need to filter out any functional elements before performing the "ordinary observer" comparison.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, there are no "terms" to construe in the manner of a utility patent. The claim is understood to be the design itself, as depicted in the patent's drawings. The primary analytical task for the court is not to define words, but to determine the overall visual impression of the patented design and compare it to the accused product.

  • The "Claim": The design as a whole, depicted in Figures 1-7.
  • Context and Importance: The central dispute will not be over the meaning of a word, but over the visual similarity between two physical objects. Practitioners may focus on identifying which specific visual elements of the design—such as the removable bristle rows, the scalloped back, or the specific handle shape—are considered ornamental and non-functional, as these will form the core of the infringement comparison against the accused products and the prior art.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the overall visual impression and unique combination of elements (handle, head shape, bristle pattern) should be protected broadly, even if individual elements exist in the prior art.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the scope is limited to the exact visual representation, focusing on specific details shown in the figures, such as the precise curvature of the scalloped edges or the dimensions of the bristle holders ('527 Patent, Figs. 2, 5).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing allegation of direct "and/or" indirect infringement, and the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" infringement (Compl. ¶26; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the factual allegations in the complaint focus exclusively on the Defendants' own alleged acts of making, offering for sale, and selling the accused products. The complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge of the patent and specific intent to encourage infringement by a third party.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" and that their infringement "was willful" (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 23). The factual basis for this allegation appears to be the alleged pattern of conduct, including the use of fictitious aliases and multiple storefronts, which Plaintiff characterizes as tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement (Compl. ¶¶ 17-21).

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

  1. A primary evidentiary question will be one of visual identity: As the complaint does not provide images of the accused products, the case will depend entirely on evidence establishing that the products sold by Defendants are, in fact, "substantially the same" in overall ornamental appearance as the '527 Patent design from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
  2. A critical procedural question will be one of joinder and jurisdiction: The case's viability hinges on Plaintiff's ability to identify the anonymous Defendants, establish personal jurisdiction over them, and demonstrate a sufficient "logical relationship" between their operations to justify joining them in a single action.
  3. A key legal question will be the scope of the design: The ultimate strength of the infringement claim will depend on a court's assessment of the '527 Patent's novelty and non-functionality in view of the relevant prior art, which will define the protectable ornamental scope to be used in the infringement comparison.