Bounce Curl LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bounce Curl, LLC (Arizona)
  • Defendant: kehandejixiezidongh1565612 (Jurisdiction unknown; alleged to be People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdiction)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01795, N.D. Ill., 02/19/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendant targets and conducts business with consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through an interactive e-commerce store.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce store sells a hairbrush that infringes a U.S. design patent owned by Plaintiff.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of personal care products, specifically hair care tools, where ornamental design can be a significant market differentiator and source of brand identity.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The allegations frame the Defendant as an e-commerce operator using an alias to conceal its identity, a common fact pattern in modern intellectual property enforcement actions against online sellers.

Case Timeline

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, titled "HAIR BRUSH", issued May 28, 2024 (the "'527 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '527 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. Instead, it addresses the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, in this case, a hairbrush.
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the hairbrush as depicted in its figures D'527 Patent, FIGS. 1-7 The claimed ornamental design consists of the overall configuration of the brush, characterized by a brush head with multiple rows of bristles, distinctive scalloped or ridged features along its longitudinal sides, and a slender handle that tapers to a point D'527 Patent, DESCRIPTION D'527 Patent, FIGS. 1, 4-5
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's products embodying its patented designs are "distinctive," "widely recognized by consumers," and have become "enormously popular" Compl. ¶¶7, 9

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for the hair brush, as shown and described" D'527 Patent, claim
• The elements of the claim are the visual features of the hairbrush design as a whole, including:
  • The overall configuration and shape of the brush head and handle.
  • The pattern of bristles extending from the brush head.
  • The ridged ornamental features along the sides of the brush head.
  • The slim, pointed profile of the handle.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are hairbrushes (the "Infringing Products") allegedly sold by Defendant through an e-commerce store operating under the seller alias "kehandejixiezidongh1565612" Compl. ¶¶2-3

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products are hairbrushes that embody Plaintiff's patented design Compl. ¶3 The complaint presents a table containing several figures from the '527 Patent to illustrate the "Bounce Curl Design" that is allegedly infringed Compl. p. 4, FIGS. 1-5
• Plaintiff alleges that Defendant operates an online store that targets U.S. consumers and is designed to appear to "unknowing consumers to be an authorized online retailer" Compl. ¶16 The complaint posits that Defendant is part of a larger network of online sellers who use aliases to conceal their identities and evade enforcement of intellectual property rights Compl. ¶¶18-20

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the accused product. The infringement theory is based on the allegation that the accused "Infringing Products" possess an ornamental design that is the same as the design claimed in the '527 Patent. The complaint asserts that 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" Compl. ¶25

Identified Points of Contention

• Visual Similarity: The central question for infringement will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused hairbrush is the same as the patented design. This is a factual inquiry that will depend on a visual comparison of the accused product and the figures of the '527 Patent.
• Scope of the Design: A potential point of contention may be the scope of the claimed design. A defendant could argue that the design's scope is limited by prior art hairbrush designs and that any similarities between the accused product and the patented design are attributable to features common in the art rather than the novel ornamental aspects of the '527 Patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Claim construction for a design patent focuses on the overall visual appearance of the design as shown in the patent's drawings, rather than on the interpretation of specific textual terms. The single claim of the '527 Patent—"The ornamental design for the hair brush, as shown and described"—does not contain textual limitations requiring construction in the manner of a utility patent. The analysis will holistically compare the accused product to the design depicted in the patent's figures. Therefore, a traditional term-by-term construction analysis is not applicable to this case.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement Compl. ¶25 and requests injunctive relief against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone" in infringing acts Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶1(b) However, the complaint does not plead specific facts detailing another party's direct infringement or Defendant's knowledge and specific intent to induce such infringement.

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is alleged on the basis that Defendant's infringement was committed knowingly Compl. ¶22 The complaint alleges that infringers like Defendant use tactics such as multiple aliases and offshore accounts to "conceal their identities and the full scope and interworking of its operation" and evade enforcement, which may be used to argue that the infringement was not accidental Compl. ¶¶18, 20

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

1. A Factual Question of Deceptive Similarity: The case will primarily turn on a factual comparison: is the ornamental design of the accused hairbrush substantially the same as the design claimed in the '527 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer? The outcome will depend on the visual evidence presented, specifically a side-by-side comparison of the accused product with the patent drawings.

2. The Role of Prior Art: A key legal and factual question will be the scope of protection afforded to the '527 Patent. The ultimate determination of infringement may depend on how the patented design is distinguished from prior art hairbrush designs, which will define the boundaries of the claimed ornamental features.

3. Enforcement and Jurisdiction: Given the allegations that the Defendant is an unknown entity operating under an alias and potentially located in a foreign jurisdiction Compl. ¶11, a central practical challenge will be establishing personal jurisdiction and, if Plaintiff prevails, enforcing any resulting judgment or injunction.