DCT
1:25-cv-12514
Bounce Curl LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bounce Curl, LLC (Arizona)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A” (Jurisdiction Undetermined)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12514, N.D. Ill., 10/14/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants’ alleged targeting of business activities toward consumers in Illinois through interactive e-commerce stores.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous online retailers are selling hairbrushes that infringe its U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a hairbrush.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer hair care products sector, where unique and recognizable product designs can be a significant market differentiator.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as a consolidated action against numerous, largely anonymous e-commerce operators, a common strategy used by brand owners to combat the sale of allegedly infringing or counterfeit goods on online marketplaces.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-07-28 | U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 Application (Priority) Date |
| 2024-05-28 | U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527 Issued |
| 2025-10-14 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1,028,527, "Hair Brush," issued May 28, 2024 (the "'527 Patent").
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests the goal was to create "distinctive patented designs" for hair care products that would be "instantly recognizable" to consumers and associated with quality (Compl. ¶7, ¶9).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental, non-functional design of a hairbrush. The overall visual impression is created by a combination of features depicted in the patent's figures, including a tapered handle, an elongated brush head with curved bristle rows, and distinctive, repeating fin-like structures along the sides of the brush head (’527 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that such distinctive designs have become widely recognized by consumers and symbolize the quality and innovation of Plaintiff's brand (Compl. ¶7, ¶9).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for the hair brush, as shown and described" (’527 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the visual appearance of the brush as illustrated in Figures 1-7, including the following key ornamental features:
- The overall shape and proportion of the handle and head.
- The specific arrangement and curvature of the bristle rows on the face of the brush head.
- The series of parallel, fin-like structures extending along both sides of the brush head.
- The tapered, pointed shape of the handle's end.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are hairbrushes, referred to as the "Infringing Products," sold by Defendants through various online e-commerce stores (Compl. ¶3).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Defendants operate e-commerce stores on platforms such as Amazon, Temu, and Walmart, using various seller aliases to offer for sale and sell the Infringing Products to consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). These stores are allegedly designed to appear as though they are authorized retailers to "unknowing consumers" (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Defendants' hairbrushes infringe the ornamental design claimed in the ’527 Patent (Compl. ¶26). As is typical for design patent complaints, a formal claim chart is not provided. The infringement theory rests on the allegation that the accused products have an overall visual appearance that is substantially the same as the design shown in the patent's figures. The complaint includes a table displaying Figures 1-4 from the ’527 Patent, illustrating the perspective, top, bottom, and front views of the patented hairbrush design (Compl. p. 4).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Visual Similarity: The central question for the court will be a factual one: would an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art hairbrush designs, be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design? The analysis will involve a side-by-side comparison of the accused products and the design claimed in the ’527 Patent.
- Scope Questions: The analysis may also raise the question of which specific features of the patented design are ornamental and which are purely functional, as design patents only protect non-functional aspects of a design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Claim construction is generally not a central issue in design patent litigation. The claim is defined by the drawings as a whole, not by textual limitations. The scope of the ’527 Patent's single claim, "The ornamental design for the hair brush, as shown and described," will be determined by reference to Figures 1-7 (’527 Patent, Claim; FIGS. 1-7). Therefore, a dispute over the meaning of specific terms is not anticipated.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general allegation that Defendants are "directly and/or indirectly" infringing the ’527 Patent (Compl. ¶26). However, the pleading does not set forth specific facts to support a distinct claim for either induced or contributory infringement against the named e-commerce operators.
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ infringement was "willful" (Compl. ¶23). The complaint asserts that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" in offering for sale and selling the accused products without authorization from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core factual issue will be one of visual comparison: Does the overall ornamental design of the accused hairbrushes appear "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’527 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer? The outcome will depend on a direct comparison between the accused products and the patent’s drawings.
- A primary procedural question will be one of enforcement and remedy: Given that the defendants are alleged to be numerous, anonymous, and potentially foreign-based e-commerce operators, can the Plaintiff effectively obtain and enforce injunctive relief against both the sellers and the third-party marketplace platforms on which they operate?