DCT

1:25-cv-05892

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” (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-05892, N.D. Ill., 05/27/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that directly target and make sales to consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online retailers are selling hairbrushes that infringe its U.S. design patent.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the ornamental design of consumer products in the competitive haircare and hairstyling industry.
  • Key Procedural History: This action is structured as a "Schedule A" case, targeting a large number of often anonymous e-commerce operators, a common strategy for addressing widespread online sale of allegedly infringing goods. The patent-in-suit was issued on May 28, 2024.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-07-28 D1,028,527 Patent Priority Date
2024-05-28 D1,028,527 Patent Issue Date
2025-05-27 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 protect the ornamental appearance of an article, rather than solving a technical problem. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff is an innovator in creating "distinctive patented designs" for its hair care products, which are "widely recognized by consumers" (Compl. ¶6, ¶9).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific, non-functional, ornamental design for a hairbrush. The overall visual impression is defined by the combination of features depicted in the patent's drawings, including the perspective view in Figure 1 and the top view in Figure 2 (’527 Patent, p. 3, Figs. 1-2). Key visual characteristics include the shape of the brush head, the arrangement and configuration of the bristles, the scalloped, ribbed pattern along the sides of the brush head, and the smooth, tapering handle.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the distinctive design serves as a key brand identifier for consumers, symbolizing the quality and innovation associated with Bounce Curl Products (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" (’527 Patent, p. 3).
  • The "elements" of the claim are the visual features of the hairbrush as depicted in solid lines in the patent's seven figures, including:
    • A brush head with multiple, parallel rows of bristles.
    • A continuous, scalloped or corrugated texture along the left and right sides of the brush head.
    • A handle that tapers to a point.
    • The overall proportions and configuration of the brush head and handle.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are hairbrushes, referred to as "Infringing Products," allegedly sold by Defendants through various e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart, targeting consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶13). These stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers and sell unauthorized products that allegedly embody Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶16). The complaint further alleges that the Defendants are a network of interrelated foreign operators who use multiple aliases to conceal their identities and evade enforcement (Compl. ¶11, ¶19). The complaint includes an image of the patented design, which it alleges is being infringed. A perspective view of this design is shown in the complaint (Compl. p. 4, FIG. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement analysis for a design patent turns on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer would find the design of the accused product to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the patent. The complaint alleges that the "Infringing Products" are the "same product that infringes directly and/or indirectly the Bounce Curl Design" (Compl. ¶22).

D1,028,527 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the sole design claim) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for the hair brush, as shown and described. Defendants are alleged to be making, using, offering for sale, and/or importing "Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Bounce Curl Design" by selling products with the same appearance. ¶22, ¶26 ’527 Patent, p. 3, Figs. 1-7
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Question: The primary issue will be evidentiary. As the complaint is brought against a schedule of anonymous e-commerce aliases, Plaintiff will first need to establish that the specific products sold by each named Defendant are, in fact, the products alleged to be infringing.
    • Scope Questions: The core legal question for infringement will be whether the accused products sold by Defendants are "substantially the same" as the patented design from the perspective of an ordinary observer. Should any of the accused products contain visual differences from the design shown in the ’527 Patent's figures, a key point of contention will be whether those differences are sufficient to alter the overall ornamental appearance and avoid infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the claim is understood to be the design as depicted in the drawings, and detailed verbal construction of claim terms is uncommon. The analysis focuses on the visual impression of the patented design as a whole.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for the hair brush, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the entire scope of the patent's protection. The infringement determination will depend on a visual comparison between the accused products and the design depicted in the ’527 Patent's figures, rather than on the interpretation of specific words.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader scope may argue that the infringement test focuses on the overall visual effect and that minor variations between an accused product and the patent drawings do not defeat a finding of infringement so long as the overall impression remains substantially the same. The essence of the design could be argued to be the unique combination of the scalloped sides, bristle pattern, and handle shape (’527 Patent, Fig. 1).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower scope may argue that the specific details shown in solid lines in the patent drawings define the limits of the claim. For example, a defendant could contend that its product's handle has a different curvature, or the scalloped pattern on the sides has a different number of ribs, thereby creating a different overall visual impression than that shown in Figures 1-7 (’527 Patent, Figs. 1-7).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of direct "and/or indirectly" infringing conduct (Compl. ¶26). It also includes a prayer for relief seeking to enjoin "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement (Compl. p. 11, ¶1(b)). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement against the named seller Defendants, focusing instead on their direct acts of making, using, and selling.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was and is willful (Compl. ¶23). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendants act "knowingly and willfully" and engage in tactics to conceal their identities and evade enforcement, such as operating under multiple aliases, using false registration information, and participating in online forums discussing evasion tactics (Compl. ¶17, ¶18, ¶20, ¶22).

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

  • A primary issue in this case will be procedural and evidentiary: can the Plaintiff effectively identify the operators behind the "Seller Aliases," obtain discovery regarding the specific products each has sold, and ultimately enforce a judgment against entities that are allegedly foreign and operating through a deliberately obscured network?
  • The central substantive question is one of visual identity: assuming the accused products are identified, will their ornamental designs be "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the D'527 patent in the eyes of an ordinary consumer, or will any visual distinctions be sufficient to avoid infringement?