1:25-cv-10383
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” (China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10383, N.D. Ill., 08/29/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and make sales to consumers in the United States, including Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous unidentified e-commerce operators are infringing its design patent for a hairbrush by selling unauthorized products online.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of consumer hair care products, where the ornamental design of a tool like a hairbrush can be a significant brand identifier and driver of commercial success.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to 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 |
| 2025-08-29 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 - "HAIR BRUSH"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 ("the ’527 Patent"), "HAIR BRUSH," issued May 28, 2024.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’527 Patent does not address a technical problem but instead protects the purely ornamental, non-functional appearance of an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶26; ’527 Patent, CLAIM).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a hairbrush. The design is defined by the seven figures included in the patent, which depict its overall configuration from multiple perspectives (’527 Patent, DESCRIPTION, FIG. 1-7). Key ornamental features include the shape of the handle which tapers to a point, the distinct scalloped or ridged profile along the sides of the brush head, and the particular arrangement of the bristles on the brush face. The complaint includes a table presenting several of these figures to illustrate the patented design (Compl. p. 4).
- Technical Importance: In the consumer haircare market, a distinctive ornamental design can serve as a key brand identifier and is alleged to be widely recognized by consumers (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 a design patent claim is defined by its drawings. The essential visual elements of the ’527 Patent claim include:
- The overall shape and configuration of the hairbrush.
- The specific contours of the handle and its pointed tip.
- The ornamental ridged pattern along the sides of the brush head.
- The visual appearance of the bristle field, including the layout and density of the bristles.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are unauthorized and unlicensed hairbrushes, which the complaint collectively terms "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendants operate numerous e-commerce stores under various "Seller Aliases" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, Temu, and Walmart (Compl. ¶13). These online stores are allegedly designed to appear as authorized retailers to consumers and are used to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the Infringing Products into the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 16). The complaint provides a table showing figures from the patent, such as the perspective view in FIG. 1, and alleges that the Infringing Products embody this design (Compl. p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products are "the same unauthorized and unlicensed product" that infringes the patented design, suggesting an allegation of direct copying (Compl. ¶3).
’527 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Patented Design Feature (from Figures) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a hair brush | The Infringing Products embody the ornamental design claimed in the Bounce Curl Design. | ¶26 | CLAIM |
| The specific visual appearance as shown in the patent's figures | The Infringing Products are the "same... product that infringes Plaintiff's patented design." | ¶3 | FIG. 1-7 |
| The ornamental features of the hairbrush | The Infringing Products are "styled after these designs" and embody the "Bounce Curl Design." | ¶9 | DESCRIPTION |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Question: The complaint is filed against a schedule of unidentified entities. A central question will be whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to show that the specific products sold by each individual Defendant are, in fact, substantially the same in overall appearance as the design claimed in the ’527 Patent.
- Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether any functional aspects of the hairbrush design must be excluded from the infringement analysis, as design patents only protect non-functional, ornamental features. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings rather than textual limitations, and formal claim construction is typically not performed. The analysis instead focuses on a visual comparison of the patented design and the accused product from the perspective of an ordinary observer. Accordingly, there are no specific claim terms that are likely to be the subject of judicial construction.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint makes a general allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement (Compl. ¶26). The prayer for relief also seeks to enjoin "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing the patent (Prayer for Relief, ¶1(b)). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts detailing how any Defendant induced or contributed to infringement by a third party, focusing instead on allegations of direct infringement through sales.
Willful Infringement
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶¶ 22-23). The complaint alleges that Defendants operate in a concerted way to sell the Infringing Products, but it does not allege specific facts demonstrating pre-suit knowledge of the ’527 Patent itself.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central evidentiary issue will be whether the Plaintiff can successfully link specific "Infringing Products," which must be shown to be substantially similar to the patented design, to each of the numerous, anonymous "Seller Aliases" listed as Defendants.
- A foundational procedural question is whether the court will accept the grouping of numerous unidentified foreign entities as a single defendant class, and whether personal jurisdiction can be properly established over each entity based on its alleged operation of interactive e-commerce websites targeting the judicial district.