Conair LLC v. Tehrani Corp et al.

Case Overview and Background

In a recent escalation of its brand protection strategy, personal care appliance giant Conair LLC has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against a wide array of competitors, including U.S. distributors and several Chinese manufacturers. The case, filed on April 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, targets eight defendants allegedly selling knockoffs of Conair's successful BaBylissPRO line of professional hair trimmers. This legal action underscores the ongoing battle major brands face against the proliferation of imitation products, often sold through online marketplaces.

The plaintiff, Conair LLC, is a major American operating company known for its extensive range of personal care and small kitchen appliances sold under brands like Conair, Cuisinart, and the professional-focused BaBylissPRO. The defendants are a mix of U.S.-based distributors, such as Tehrani Corp and Cocco Hair Professional LLC, and several Chinese electronics manufacturers, including Yiwu Caitong Electric Co Ltd and Guangdong Huida Electric Appliance Co Ltd. Conair alleges that the defendants are manufacturing, importing, and selling hair trimmers that copy the patented ornamental designs of its popular and distinctive BaBylissPRO FX787 collection of professional outlining trimmers. While the specific patents-in-suit for this case (1:26-cv-04576) are not yet confirmed from available public documents, Conair's past litigation for this product line has frequently asserted a family of design patents covering the overall appearance, shape, and configuration of the metallic-housed, exposed T-blade trimmers.

The choice of the Northern District of Illinois is strategically significant. The court has become a favored venue for intellectual property holders, particularly in cases involving numerous foreign defendants and online sales. It is known for its efficiency in handling "Schedule A" cases, where plaintiffs can sue a large list of defendants, often online sellers, under a single complaint. This approach is common in design patent and trademark enforcement against waves of alleged counterfeiters. The case is notable as it represents a continuation of Conair's aggressive, multi-forum legal strategy to protect the market share and design language of its high-end barbering tools. The outcome will be watched by others in the consumer and professional appliance industry who face similar challenges from a globalized market where design imitation is rampant. As of May 1, 2026, the case is in its earliest stages, with no judge yet assigned and no responsive pleadings filed by the defendants, according to available docket information.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

As of May 1, 2026, the patent infringement litigation Conair LLC v. Tehrani Corp et al. is in its nascent stages. Having been filed only nine days prior, on April 22, 2026, the court docket shows only the initial procedural filings. Substantive legal proceedings, such as responsive pleadings from defendants, motions, and claim construction, have not yet occurred.

A chronological summary of developments and the current posture of the case is as follows:

• 2026-04-22: Filing & Initial Pleadings

  • Complaint Filed: Conair LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement against eight defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case was assigned Case Number 1:26-cv-04576. The cause of action is listed as "Patent Infringement" under 28 U.S.C. § 1338. The suit alleges that the defendants are selling products that infringe upon the design patents for Conair's BaBylissPRO FX787 line of professional hair trimmers.
  • Summons Issued: On the same day, summons were issued for all named defendants: Tehrani Corp; Cocco Hair Professional LLC; Yiwu Caitong Electric Co Ltd; Caliber PRO Inc; Guangdong Huida Electric Appliance Co Ltd; Guangzhou Sway Technology Co Ltd; Yiwu Kemei Electric Appliance Co Ltd; and Dongguan Xiaoti Electric Technology Co.
  • Answers and Counterclaims: No defendant has yet filed an answer or any counterclaims. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant typically has 21 days to respond after being served with the summons and complaint, so these filings are not yet due.

• Pre-trial Motions, Claim Construction, and Discovery

  • As of May 1, 2026, no substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss or transfer, have been filed.
  • The case has not progressed to claim construction (Markman hearing), discovery, or summary judgment phases. These events typically occur many months, or even years, into a patent litigation lifecycle.

• Trial, Verdict, and Final Disposition

  • The case is not scheduled for trial. No settlement, dismissal, or judgment has been reached. The case status remains open.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings

  • A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records shows no inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) petitions have been filed by any of the named defendants against patents owned by Conair LLC. It is extremely early in the litigation for such a filing to have occurred.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

As the case is still in its earliest days, having been filed on April 22, 2026, formal appearances by all counsel may not yet be entered on the public docket. However, based on the initial complaint filing and the firm's extensive history in similar litigation, Conair LLC is being represented by the intellectual property law firm Greer, Burns & Crain Ltd.

The Chicago-based firm is well-known for handling high-volume patent, trademark, and anti-counterfeiting litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, frequently representing brand owners in "Schedule A" style cases against numerous online sellers of infringing goods.

While the specific attorneys on the complaint are not yet available through public records searches, the following partners at the firm are anticipated to be involved based on their leadership roles and direct experience in patent litigation and brand protection:

• Lawrence J. Crain

  • Role: Lead Counsel (anticipated).
  • Firm: Greer, Burns & Crain Ltd., Chicago, IL.
  • Relevant Experience: A founding shareholder of the firm, Crain has over 25 years of experience in patent litigation and prosecution, with his firm biography specifically noting experience with "Hair Clippers and Trimmers."

• Justin R. Gaudio

  • Role: Counsel (anticipated).
  • Firm: Greer, Burns & Crain Ltd., Chicago, IL.
  • Relevant Experience: Gaudio's practice emphasizes online trademark enforcement and anti-counterfeiting programs, and he has significant experience in patent litigation and internet-related IP disputes.

• James K. Folker

  • Role: Counsel (anticipated).
  • Firm: Greer, Burns & Crain Ltd., Chicago, IL.
  • Relevant Experience: A former USPTO Patent Examiner, Folker's practice focuses on patent prosecution and litigation, and he has handled cases across numerous mechanical and electrical fields.

• Kevin W. Guynn

  • Role: Counsel (anticipated).
  • Firm: Greer, Burns & Crain Ltd., Chicago, IL.
  • Relevant Experience: Guynn has deep experience in patent and trademark litigation in federal courts, including the Northern District of Illinois and the Federal Circuit.

It should be noted that a definitive list of attorneys of record will become clear as they file initial notices of appearance and other documents on the official court docket for Case 1:26-cv-04576.

Defendant Representatives

As of May 1, 2026, just nine days after the complaint was filed, no attorneys have formally appeared on the public docket to represent any of the eight defendants in Conair LLC v. Tehrani Corp et al., Case 1:26-cv-04576 (N.D. Ill.).

The current status for each defendant is as follows:

• Tehrani Corp: No counsel of record has appeared.
• Cocco Hair Professional LLC: No counsel of record has appeared.
• Yiwu Caitong Electric Co Ltd: No counsel of record has appeared.
• Caliber PRO Inc: No counsel of record has appeared.
• Guangdong Huida Electric Appliance Co Ltd: No counsel of record has appeared.
• Guangzhou Sway Technology Co Ltd: No counsel of record has appeared.
• Yiwu Kemei Electric Appliance Co Ltd: No counsel of record has appeared.
• Dongguan Xiaoti Electric Technology Co: No counsel of record has appeared.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants generally have 21 days to file a responsive pleading after being served with the summons and complaint. However, serving international defendants, which comprise the majority of the parties in this case, often takes significantly longer under international agreements such as the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents.

It is therefore anticipated that appearances by defense counsel will be filed in the coming weeks and months. Until such notices of appearance are filed on the court docket, the identity of their legal representatives remains unknown.