DCT
1:25-cv-06151
Estores v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Self-Cut Systems, LLC.; Ryford Estores (New York/Delaware)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A; Does 1-X (Various, including People's Republic of China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: D&A|R.M. DeWitty, U.S. Pat. Atty., LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-06151, N.D. Ill., 10/23/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants conduct business in the district by targeting consumers in Illinois through interactive commercial internet stores.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' marketing and sale of "knock-off" foldable mirrors infringes Plaintiff's copyrighted product photograph and common law trade dress.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on personal grooming devices, specifically three-panel, foldable mirrors designed to facilitate self-haircutting by providing a 360-degree view.
- Key Procedural History: This filing is a Second Amended Complaint. The complaint mentions ownership of a registered trademark and a U.S. Design Patent, but does not assert claims for infringement of either. The claims are limited to copyright and common law trade dress infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009 | Plaintiff alleges inventor filed first provisional patent application |
| 2013 | Continuous use of "SELF-CUT SYSTEM" trademark began |
| 2014 | U.S. Registration No. 4583112 for "SELF-CUT SYSTEM" issued |
| 2018-09-14 | Application for U.S. Design Patent No. D877,520 filed |
| 2019 | Plaintiff began commercial use of its trade dress |
| 2019-07-01 | Copyrighted photograph first published |
| 2020-03-10 | U.S. Design Patent No. D877,520 issued |
| 2025-09-10 | Photograph registered with U.S. Copyright Office |
| 2025-10-23 | Second Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
The complaint mentions one design patent but does not assert it for infringement. The analysis below is provided for context.
U.S. Design Patent No. D877,520 S - "FOLDABLE MIRROR"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D877,520 S, "FOLDABLE MIRROR", issued March 10, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’520 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects the specific, non-functional, ornamental design of the article of manufacture shown in its figures (D'520 Patent, Figs. 1-14).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a foldable mirror. Key visual features shown in the drawings include a three-panel configuration, the relative proportions of the panels, rounded corners on the housing, a specific hinge appearance, and a pair of retractable, hooked arms on the back designed for hanging the mirror (D'520 Patent, Figs. 1, 10, 13). The design covers the aesthetic appearance of the mirror in both folded and unfolded states.
- Technical Importance: The patent protects the unique aesthetic appearance of the foldable mirror, which may serve to distinguish it from functionally similar but visually different products in the marketplace.
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a foldable mirror, as shown and described." (D'520 Patent, Claim).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "knock-off product packaging" and the associated foldable mirror products sold by Defendants through various online marketplace accounts (Compl. ¶12, ¶40).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Defendants market, sell, and distribute products that infringe Plaintiff's copyright and trade dress (Compl. ¶22). The central infringing activity alleged is the unauthorized use of Plaintiff's copyrighted photograph on Defendants' product packaging and marketing materials (Compl. ¶1, ¶9, ¶34). The complaint provides a photograph of Plaintiff's authentic product packaging, which displays the mirror in use by a model and is identified as the basis for Plaintiff's trade dress claim (Compl. ¶14, Image 1).
- The complaint characterizes the defendants as an "interrelated group of infringers" who reside in China or other foreign jurisdictions and use tactics to conceal their identities while targeting consumers in the United States through platforms like Amazon, TEMU, Walmart, and eBay (Compl. ¶23, ¶25, ¶31).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The Second Amended Complaint does not contain a count for patent infringement and does not allege that Defendants infringe U.S. Design Patent No. D877,520 S. The causes of action are limited to copyright infringement (Count I), common law trade dress infringement (Count II), and a related claim against insurers (Count III) (Compl. ¶¶32-48). Therefore, an analysis of patent infringement allegations is not applicable.
V. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that the "Partnerships defendants' conduct was willful and in disregard of Plaintiff's rights" with respect to copyright infringement (Compl. ¶10). It also alleges that Defendants' actions constitute "willful trade dress infringement under the common law" (Compl. ¶42). The basis for these allegations appears to be the direct copying of Plaintiff's copyrighted image and packaging design (Compl. ¶9, ¶21).
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central strategic question is why the design patent is mentioned but not asserted. The complaint establishes Plaintiff's ownership of the '520 patent (Compl. ¶18) but brings no corresponding infringement claim. This raises the question of whether this is a strategic choice to focus on clearer copyright/trade dress claims against difficult-to-reach foreign defendants, or if there are potential weaknesses in a patent infringement theory that are being avoided.
- A primary issue for the asserted claims will be the scope and validity of the intellectual property. For the copyright claim, the court will assess whether Defendants' materials are substantially similar to the protected elements of Plaintiff's photograph. For the trade dress claim, a key question will be whether Plaintiff's packaging design—defined as a "picture of a Hispanic male model utilizing Plaintiffs' Foldable Mirror"—has acquired the necessary secondary meaning to be protectable (Compl. ¶14-15).
- The case presents a significant procedural and enforcement challenge. The complaint targets numerous, allegedly foreign-based online sellers operating under fictitious names (Compl. ¶23, ¶28). Key questions will involve Plaintiff's ability to effectively identify, serve, and establish personal jurisdiction over the correct legal entities, and ultimately, to enforce any judgment that may be obtained.