DCT

1:25-cv-14359

Bounce Curl LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-14359, N.D. Ill., 12/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant targets consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through an interactive e-commerce store, offers shipping to Illinois, and has allegedly sold infringing products to residents of Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of certain hairbrushes via an e-commerce store infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a hairbrush.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer hair care products sector, where distinctive product designs can be a significant market differentiator and source of brand identity.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other 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
2025-12-01 Complaint Filed

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 of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The '527 patent seeks to protect a novel, non-obvious ornamental design for a hairbrush, distinguishing it visually from other brushes on the market (D1,028,527 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a hairbrush as depicted in its seven figures (D1,028,527 Patent, DESCRIPTION). Key ornamental features include a brush head with wavy, scalloped longitudinal edges; multiple rows of bristles arranged in a specific pattern on the brush face; and a handle that tapers to a pointed end (D1,028,527 Patent, FIGS. 1, 4, 6). The combination of these elements creates the overall visual impression that is the subject of the patent's protection.
  • Technical Importance: In the consumer goods market, a unique and aesthetically pleasing product design can be a critical asset for brand recognition and commercial success (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" in the patent's figures (D1,028,527 Patent, Claim). This single claim covers the overall visual appearance of the article.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is a hairbrush identified as the "Infringing Product" (Compl. ¶3). The complaint states this product is shown in its Exhibit 1, which was not included in the provided court filing.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Infringing Product is sold through a "fully interactive, e-commerce store operating under the seller alias" (Compl. ¶2). This store allegedly targets consumers throughout the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶13).
  • Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is not an authorized retailer and that the e-commerce store is designed to appear as an authorized channel to unknowing consumers (Compl. ¶16). The complaint includes a table showing seven figures of the patented "Bounce Curl Design" which it alleges the Infringing Product embodies (Compl. pp. 4-5). This table contains FIG. 1, a perspective view of the patented hairbrush design (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused product is substantially the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶25). As the complaint does not contain a traditional claim chart, the following table maps the core ornamental features of the patented design to the general infringement allegations.

D1,028,527 Infringement Allegations

Ornamental Feature (from '527 Patent) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for a hair brush, as shown and described Defendant is making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States for subsequent sale or use "Infringing Products that infringe directly and/or indirectly the ornamental design claimed in the Bounce Curl Design." The complaint displays multiple views of the design, including FIG. 4, a front view (Compl. p. 4). ¶25 Claim; FIGS. 1-7
A brush head body having scalloped or wavy longitudinal side edges The complaint alleges that the Infringing Product embodies the patented design, which includes the distinctive side profile of the brush head. This profile is clearly depicted in the patent's side views, such as FIG. 6 (Compl. p. 5). ¶¶3, 9, 25 FIGS. 1, 4, 6, 7
A handle portion tapering to a pointed distal end The complaint alleges infringement of the entire ornamental design, which includes the shape of the handle. The tapered, pointed handle is a prominent feature visible in multiple patent figures provided in the complaint, such as the back view in FIG. 5 (Compl. p. 4). ¶¶3, 9, 25 FIGS. 1, 4, 5
A specific arrangement and configuration of bristle rows on the brush face The complaint alleges infringement of the overall design, which necessarily includes the pattern of bristles on the brush face. This arrangement is a key component of the design's appearance as shown in the top and perspective views of the patent (Compl. p. 4). ¶¶3, 9, 25 FIGS. 1, 2, 4

Identified Points of Contention

  • Visual Similarity: The central question will be whether the accused product's design and the patented design are "substantially the same." The court's analysis will focus on the overall visual impression of the two designs, not on a comparison of minor, isolated features.
  • Evidentiary Questions: The primary evidence will consist of a side-by-side comparison of the accused product and the figures of the '527 patent. The extent to which any minor differences between the products are sufficient to avoid a finding of infringement from the perspective of an ordinary observer will be a key point of dispute.

V. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant's product "infringes directly and/or indirectly" the patented design (Compl. ¶25). It further prays for an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in making or selling the Infringing Products (Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts detailing how Defendant might be inducing or contributing to infringement by third parties.

Willful Infringement

  • Plaintiff alleges that "Defendant's infringement...was willful" (Compl. ¶22). The complaint asserts that Defendant is "knowingly and willfully" importing, offering for sale, and selling the infringing products without authorization (Compl. ¶21). The complaint does not specify whether this allegation is based on pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual comparison: from the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the overall ornamental design of the accused hairbrush substantially the same as the design claimed in the '527 patent, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product?
  • A second key question will be evidentiary: assuming visual similarity is established, what is the scope of Defendant's sales and profits? The complaint alleges Defendant operates under aliases to conceal its identity and scope of operations, which may create challenges in discovery and damages assessment (Compl. ¶¶12, 18).
  • Finally, a procedural question may arise concerning personal jurisdiction and enforcement: given that Defendant is an entity of "unknown makeup" alleged to be operating from a foreign jurisdiction, establishing jurisdiction and enforcing any potential judgment may present significant practical hurdles for the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶11).