DCT
1:25-cv-10072
Bounce Curl LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bounce Curl, LLC (Arizona)
- Defendant: KEHAOHESHANGMAO and The Individuals and Entities Operating KEHAOHESHANGMAO (allegedly People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10072, N.D. Ill., 08/25/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants are said to target business activities toward U.S. consumers, including Illinois residents, through interactive e-commerce stores.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of certain hairbrushes through various online storefronts infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a hairbrush.
- Technical Context: This dispute resides within the consumer haircare and hairstyling tools industry, where distinctive product design can be a significant market differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint targets numerous, largely unidentified e-commerce operators through "Seller Aliases," a litigation strategy common in actions against diffuse online sellers alleged to be engaged in counterfeiting or infringement. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-07-28 | U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 Priority Date |
| 2024-05-28 | U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 Issued |
| 2025-08-25 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 - "HAIR BRUSH"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The ’527 Patent addresses the creation of a new, original, and ornamental design for a hairbrush ('527 Patent, Title).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a hairbrush as depicted in its seven figures ('527 Patent, CLAIM). Key ornamental features shown include a brush head with prominent scalloped ridges along its sides, multiple rows of bristles, and a slender, tapering handle ('527 Patent, FIGS. 1, 4, 5). The overall shape and configuration of these elements constitute the patented design ('527 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's designs are "distinctive" and "widely recognized by consumers," serving as an indicator of quality and source in the marketplace (Compl. ¶9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the single claim of the ’527 Patent (Compl. ¶25).
- The claim protects:
- The ornamental design for a hair brush, as shown and described ('527 Patent, CLAIM).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are hairbrushes, identified in the complaint as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import hairbrushes that embody the patented design (Compl. ¶3, ¶25). These products are allegedly sold to U.S. consumers through various e-commerce stores operating under "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon (Compl. ¶13). The complaint states that screenshots evidencing the infringing activity are attached as Exhibit 1, though this exhibit was not available for analysis (Compl. ¶15). The complaint further alleges that the online stores are designed to appear as authorized retailers, making it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from legitimate channels (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The central test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused "Infringing Products" are the "same unauthorized and unlicensed product" that infringes the ’527 Patent (Compl. ¶3). The complaint includes several figures from the patent to illustrate the claimed design, such as a perspective view in FIG. 1 (Compl. p. 4).
’527 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the single claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a hair brush, as shown and described. | The complaint alleges that Defendants sell "Infringing Products" that directly and/or indirectly infringe the ornamental design claimed in the ’527 Patent. The specific appearance of the patented design is illustrated within the complaint itself via figures from the patent (Compl. p. 4-5). | ¶3, ¶25 | '527 Patent, DESCRIPTION |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused products is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’527 Patent. The analysis will depend on the specific appearance of the accused products, which are referenced in an unprovided exhibit.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the products sold by the various anonymous "Seller Aliases" are, in fact, the accused "Infringing Products" and that these sales occurred within the United States.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a hair brush, as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: Claim construction for design patents differs significantly from that for utility patents. The "claim" is understood to cover the ornamental design shown in the patent's drawings, and its scope is defined by the solid lines in those drawings. Practitioners may note that disputes in design patent cases rarely center on construing textual claim language and instead focus on a visual comparison between the patent figures and the accused product. The inquiry is governed by the "ordinary observer" test, not by detailed textual analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The scope of the design claim is defined by the visual disclosure in Figures 1-7 of the ’527 Patent. The analysis is not a feature-by-feature comparison but a holistic assessment of the design's overall visual effect.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶25) and requests injunctive relief against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" infringement (Compl. p. 10, ¶1(b)). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts detailing a basis for indirect infringement beyond the general operation of e-commerce stores selling the allegedly infringing products.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶22) and that they "knowingly" offered for sale the accused products (Compl. ¶21). The basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that Defendants operate as part of a network of online counterfeiters who deliberately copy popular designs to sell to unsuspecting consumers.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of proof and attribution: can the plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to identify the operators behind the anonymous "Seller Aliases" and demonstrate that they are responsible for making, using, selling, or importing the specifically accused hairbrushes into the United States?
- The central infringement question will be one of visual identity: from the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused products substantially the same as the design depicted in the figures of the ’527 Patent? The outcome will hinge on a direct visual comparison of the products.