DCT
2:24-cv-00184
Cozy Comfort Co LLC v. ABC Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cozy Comfort Company LLC (Arizona)
- Defendant: ABC Company dba Blanket Hoodies (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Messner Reeves LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00184, D. Ariz., 01/26/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Arizona because Defendant advertises and sells products to residents of the district, thereby engaging in systematic and continuous business contacts and purposefully availing itself of the state's laws.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "THE BLANKET HOODIE" product infringes two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of an oversized, hooded wearable blanket.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on the market for oversized wearable blankets, a consumer apparel product combining the features of a blanket and a hooded sweatshirt.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s product, THE COMFY, gained significant market recognition following a successful appearance on the television show Shark Tank in 2017. Plaintiff alleges it sent a letter to Defendant on January 3, 2023, providing notice of the asserted patents and alleged infringement, to which Defendant did not respond.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-09-13 | Earliest Priority Date for '788 and '458 Patents |
| 2019-09-17 | U.S. Patent No. D859,788 Issues |
| 2021-09-07 | Defendant's website theblankethoodies.com created |
| 2021-Q3/Q4 | Accused Product sales allegedly began |
| 2022-11-15 | U.S. Patent No. D969,458 Issues |
| 2023-01-03 | Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice letter to Defendant |
| 2024-01-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D859,788 - Enlarged over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D859788, issued September 17, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead claims a specific ornamental design for an article of apparel (Compl. ¶27).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of an "enlarged over-garment" as depicted in its figures ('788 Patent, CLAIM). The claimed design, shown in solid lines, consists of a garment with a very wide, oversized body, a large attached hood, wide sleeves, and a large, rectangular front pocket positioned relatively high on the torso ('788 Patent, FIG. 1, DESCRIPTION). Features shown in broken lines, such as the person wearing the garment, are for illustrative purposes and do not form part of the claimed design ('788 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the commercial embodiment of this design, THE COMFY, established a new market category and became the "industry standard in hooded wearable blankets" (Compl. ¶¶22, 26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for an enlarged over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket, as shown and described" ('788 Patent, CLAIM).
- The essential ornamental features of the claimed design include:
- An oversized silhouette with a wide torso and a straight bottom hem.
- A large, voluminous hood.
- Wide, tapered sleeves with cuffs.
- A prominent, front-mounted "marsupial" pocket with a generally rectangular shape and an upper edge positioned high on the garment's torso.
U.S. Design Patent No. D969,458 - Whole body blanket
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D969458, issued November 15, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: This patent, like the '788 patent, claims a particular ornamental design for a wearable garment (Compl. ¶29).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a "whole body blanket" as depicted in the figures ('458 Patent, CLAIM). The design is visually similar to the '788 Patent, featuring an oversized body, large hood, and wide sleeves ('458 Patent, FIG. 3). The figures in this patent use broken lines to indicate that features like stitching on the pocket and hem are not part of the claimed design, which could allow for broader coverage of visually similar products with different seam patterns (Compl. ¶30; '458 Patent, FIG. 1, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The complaint presents this patent as one of several protecting the designs related to its COMFY product line (Compl. ¶20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a whole body blanket, as shown and described" ('458 Patent, CLAIM).
- The essential ornamental features of the claimed design include:
- An oversized, wide-bodied garment silhouette.
- A large, attached hood.
- Wide, tapered sleeves.
- A large, front-mounted pocket.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- "THE BLANKET HOODIE" (Compl. ¶32).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is marketed as a "super soft ONE SIZE FITS ALL hooded blanket" (Compl. ¶37). It is constructed with "soft flannel fleece on the outside and warm sherpa fleece on the inside" (Compl. ¶34). The complaint includes an image from Defendant's website showing the product on a model and highlighting its oversized dimensions (Compl. p. 10).
- Plaintiff alleges the accused product is sold and offered for sale to U.S.-based customers through Defendant's website, theblankethoodies.com (Compl. ¶¶34-35). The complaint alleges the "construction and design of THE BLANKET HOODIE is substantially the same" as Plaintiff's product and its patented designs (Compl. ¶36).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement test for a design patent 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 infringement through side-by-side visual comparisons.
D859,788 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison of a model wearing the accused product and Figure 1 of the '788 Patent, alleging they exhibit "overwhelming sameness" (Compl. ¶38, p. 11).
| Claim Element (Overall Ornamental Design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall visual impression of an enlarged over-garment | The accused product is described as a "ONE SIZE FITS ALL hooded blanket" with a substantially similar oversized shape. | ¶37 | ’788 Patent, FIG. 1 |
| A large, voluminous hood | The accused product incorporates a large hood. | ¶52 | ’788 Patent, FIG. 1 |
| Wide, tapered sleeves | The accused product features wide sleeves that taper to a cuff. | ¶41 | ’788 Patent, FIG. 1 |
| An elevated, front-mounted marsupial pocket | The accused product features an "oversized front pouch" that the complaint alleges is substantially the same in appearance and placement. | ¶52 | ’788 Patent, FIG. 1 |
D969,458 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides visual comparisons between a photograph of a purchased sample of the accused product and Figures 3 and 6 of the '458 Patent (Compl. ¶39, pp. 12-13).
| Claim Element (Overall Ornamental Design) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall visual impression of a whole body blanket | A photograph of the accused product laid flat is alleged to show a substantially identical silhouette to the patented design. | ¶39, p. 12 | ’458 Patent, FIG. 3 |
| The specific shape of the torso, hood, and sleeves when viewed from the front | The front view of the accused product is alleged to replicate the proportions and contours of the claimed design. | ¶39, p. 12 | ’458 Patent, FIG. 3 |
| The rear appearance of the garment, excluding the pocket | A photograph of the back of the accused product is compared to the patent's rear view drawing. | ¶39, p. 13 | ’458 Patent, FIG. 6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused product is "substantially the same" as the claimed designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer. A defense may focus on any perceived differences in proportions, pocket shape and placement, or seam details to argue the designs are not substantially similar.
- Technical Questions: While design patents protect ornament, not function, the analysis will question whether any visual differences between the accused product and the patent figures are significant enough to be noticed by an ordinary consumer. For example, does the precise ratio of the pocket's height to its width, or its exact placement on the torso of the accused product, differ materially from what is shown in the patent drawings?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the claim is understood to be the design itself as shown in the drawings. Formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, but the scope of the patent's title may be relevant.
The Term: "enlarged over-garment" ('788 Patent, Title)
Context and Importance: The degree of "enlargement" is a defining characteristic of the product's appearance. Practitioners may focus on this term because a defendant could argue its product's proportions differ from the specific "enlarged" look depicted in the patent figures.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The general term "enlarged," combined with figures showing a very loose and voluminous fit, could support an interpretation covering a wide range of oversized garments ('788 Patent, FIG. 1).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific visual proportions shown in the patent figures—such as the ratio of the garment's width to its length—could be argued to define the scope of the claimed "enlarged" design ('788 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 4).
The Term: "elevated marsupial pocket" ('788 Patent, Title)
Context and Importance: The placement of the pocket is a key visual feature. Its "elevated" nature is critical to the overall look, and its interpretation will be central to the infringement analysis.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself suggests any pocket placed higher on the torso than a conventional sweatshirt pocket falls within the scope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures show a pocket at a specific vertical position relative to the sleeves and neckline. A court may find that the scope of "elevated" is limited to the placement and proportions explicitly shown in the drawings ('788 Patent, FIG. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate allegations of contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶¶61, 69). However, it does not plead specific facts supporting these theories, such as alleging Defendant instructed third parties on how to infringe. The core allegations focus on direct infringement by making, using, selling, and importing the accused product (Compl. ¶¶60, 68).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. It alleges Defendant was aware of Plaintiff's product and its market success from the time Defendant began its business (Compl. ¶58). It further alleges that Defendant acquired, at the latest, actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit via a notice letter dated January 3, 2023, and continued to infringe despite this notice (Compl. ¶¶55, 57-58).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Is the overall ornamental design of the accused "THE BLANKET HOODIE" substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’788 and ’458 patents in the eye of an ordinary observer, or are there sufficient visual differences in proportion, pocket shape, or other features to create a distinct commercial impression?
- A key factual question will be one of intent: Does the evidence of Defendant's alleged entry into the market after Plaintiff's publicized success, combined with Defendant's alleged failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter identifying the specific patents, support a finding of willful infringement that could justify enhanced damages?
- Finally, the case raises an underlying question regarding the interplay between patent and trade dress rights: As the litigation proceeds, a central challenge will be to delineate the purely ornamental features protected by the design patents from the product features alleged to be non-functional and to have acquired secondary meaning as protectable trade dress, particularly where the asserted rights appear to cover the same product configuration.