DCT

1:25-cv-14574

Bounce Curl LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In
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(s) unknown, believed to be People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
    • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-14574, N.D. Ill., 12/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target business activities and sales toward consumers in Illinois.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sale of certain hairbrushes via online marketplaces infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a hairbrush.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer hair care and hairstyling products industry, where distinctive product design can be a significant market differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2023-07-28 U.S. Design Patent No. D1,028,527 Priority Date
2024-05-28 U.S. Design 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: As a design patent, the ’527 Patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead protects a "new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture" (’527 Patent, p. 1).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual and ornamental characteristics of a hairbrush. The design features a brush head with distinct, scalloped or ridged side edges, a particular arrangement and pattern of bristles, and a smoothly tapered handle that ends in a point (’527 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The overall configuration creates a unique aesthetic appearance for the article.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's products embodying the patented design are "instantly recognizable" and have become "enormously popular," suggesting the design's importance lies in its contribution to brand identity and consumer recognition in the haircare market (Compl. ¶7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for the hair brush, as shown and described" (’527 Patent, p. 3).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's drawings. Key ornamental elements depicted include:
    • The overall shape and proportion of the brush head relative to the handle.
    • The specific scalloped texture along the left and right sides of the brush head.
    • The pattern of bristles arranged in rows on the brush face.
    • The sleek, pointed shape of the handle's distal end.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are hairbrushes (the "Infringing Products") allegedly sold by Defendants through various e-commerce stores operating under the "Seller Aliases" identified in Schedule A (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges Defendants operate "fully interactive, e-commerce stores" on platforms such as Amazon, Temu, and Walmart to sell the Infringing Products directly to consumers in the United States, including Illinois (Compl. ¶13, ¶15).

The complaint further alleges that these e-commerce stores are designed to appear as if they are authorized retailers, using content and images that make it difficult for consumers to distinguish them from legitimate channels (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for infringement of a design patent is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks 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 direct infringement by asserting that Defendants are "making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing" products that embody the patented "Bounce Curl Design" (Compl. ¶26). The complaint provides several figures from the ’527 Patent to illustrate the claimed design that is allegedly infringed (Compl. pp. 4-5).

D1,028,527 Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed element-by-element comparison. Instead, it makes a holistic allegation that the accused products are the "same unauthorized and unlicensed product" that infringes the patented design (Compl. ¶3). The core of the infringement claim rests on the assertion that the overall ornamental appearance of the accused hairbrushes is substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’527 Patent.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary legal and factual question will be whether the accused products' designs are "substantially the same" as the design depicted in the ’527 Patent's figures, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived. The outcome will depend on a visual comparison between the accused products and the patent drawings.
    • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be what the accused products actually look like. Since the complaint relies on a general allegation and does not include photographs of the accused products themselves, discovery will be required to establish the specific ornamental features of the products sold by Defendants.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, the claim is defined by the drawings rather than words. Consequently, claim construction, as it is understood in utility patent cases, is generally not a central issue. The analysis focuses on a visual comparison of the claimed design with the accused product. The complaint offers no basis for a dispute over the meaning of any particular term. The dispositive analysis will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the overall visual appearance of the hairbrush as depicted in the figures of the ’527 Patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a boilerplate allegation that Defendants' products "infringe directly and/or indirectly" the patented design (Compl. ¶26). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants "knowingly and willfully" importing, offering for sale, and selling the Infringing Products (Compl. ¶22). The complaint asserts this knowledge is evidenced by Defendants' alleged use of tactics to conceal their identities and operate through multiple seller aliases to evade enforcement (Compl. ¶12, ¶17-18, ¶21).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: Are the ornamental designs of the hairbrushes sold by Defendants "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the ’527 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with other hairbrush designs?
  • A key procedural question will be one of enforcement and identity: Can Plaintiff successfully identify the anonymous e-commerce operators behind the "Seller Aliases" and prove they are engaging in coordinated conduct, as alleged, to hold them accountable for the alleged infringement?
  • An evidentiary question will be one of causation and damages: Assuming infringement is found, what is the proper measure of damages, and can Plaintiff establish a sufficient evidentiary basis to either calculate its damages or disgorge Defendants' profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289?