2:24-cv-00185
Cozy Comfort Co LLC v. Larger Than Average LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cozy Comfort Company LLC (Arizona)
- Defendant: Larger Than Average, LLC dba Big Blanket Co. (Missouri)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Messner Reeves LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00185, D. Ariz., 01/26/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants advertise and sell products to customers within the District of Arizona, engage in systematic and continuous business contacts within the state, and have purposefully availed themselves of Arizona's laws.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "HIDEOUT HOODIE" wearable blanket infringes two of its design patents and its associated trade dress.
- Technical Context: The case concerns the market for wearable blankets, a consumer apparel category that combines the features of an oversized hoodie with the materials and comfort of a blanket.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff’s product, "THE COMFY," gained significant public exposure following a feature on the television show Shark Tank in December 2017. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter on September 8, 2023, providing notice of alleged infringement of the patents-in-suit and trade dress, prior to filing this lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-09-13 | Priority Date for D859,788 Patent and D969,458 Patent |
| 2017-12-03 | Plaintiff's "THE COMFY" product featured on Shark Tank |
| 2019-09-17 | U.S. Patent No. D859,788 Issues |
| 2022-11-15 | U.S. Patent No. D969,458 Issues |
| 2022-12-27 | Alleged first use in commerce date for Defendant's "HIDEOUT HOODIE" |
| 2023-09-08 | Plaintiff sends 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," Issued Sep. 17, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint does not articulate a specific problem, which is typical for a design patent. The filing implicitly addresses a perceived gap in the market for a garment with a particular ornamental appearance (Compl. ¶4, ¶11).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual and ornamental characteristics of a wearable blanket. The design, as defined by the solid lines in the patent's figures, consists of an oversized, wide-bodied garment featuring a large hood, wide sleeves with cuffs, and a distinctively large, centrally-located front pocket positioned relatively high on the torso (’788 Patent, Figs. 1, 4; Compl. ¶27). The claim is for the overall ornamental appearance "as shown and described" (’788 Patent, Claim).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this design created a new product category and became an "industry standard in hooded wearable blankets" following extensive marketing and high-volume sales (Compl. ¶22, ¶26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single design claim: "The ornamental design for an enlarged over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket, as shown and described" (’788 Patent, Claim).
- The key ornamental features defined by the solid lines in the drawings include:
- The overall voluminous, wide, and elongated silhouette.
- The specific size, shape, and placement of the "elevated marsupial pocket."
- The proportions of the large hood and wide sleeves relative to the body of the garment.
U.S. Design Patent No. D969,458 - "Whole body blanket," Issued Nov. 15, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’788 Patent, this design patent protects a specific aesthetic rather than solving a technical problem.
- The Patented Solution: The ’458 Patent claims the ornamental design for a "whole body blanket" (’458 Patent, Claim). The figures illustrate a design with similar overall characteristics to the ’788 Patent, including an oversized body, large hood, and front pocket, but with potentially different proportions and contours (’458 Patent, Figs. 1, 3). The design shown in this patent also uses broken lines to disclaim certain features, such as stitching on the pocket and cuffs, potentially broadening the scope of the protected design elements (’458 Patent, Fig. 1; Compl. ¶30).
- Technical Importance: This patent represents a claimed variation on Plaintiff's core product design, which the complaint alleges has achieved "distinctiveness within the market based upon worldwide sales and exposure" (Compl. ¶26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single design claim: "The ornamental design for a whole body blanket, as shown and described" (’458 Patent, Claim).
- The key ornamental features defined by the solid lines in the drawings include:
- The overall shape and proportions of the garment.
- The visual appearance of the large hood and front pocket.
- The tapered shape of the sleeves.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the "HIDEOUT HOODIE" wearable blanket (Compl. ¶32).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the HIDEOUT HOODIE is marketed as a "blanket you can wear" and an "oversized hoodie" (Compl. ¶34). Its accused features include a "sherpa lining," a "kangaroo pouch," and a "cuffed sleeve," which are advertised as "cozy extras" (Compl. ¶34). A screenshot from Defendant's website shows the accused product being worn by a model, illustrating its overall appearance (Compl. p. 10). The complaint alleges that Defendant began selling this product in late 2022, after Plaintiff's "THE COMFY" had established a significant market presence (Compl. ¶31, ¶49).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The central test for design patent infringement is 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.
A side-by-side comparison provided in the complaint shows an image of Defendant's product next to a figure from the ’788 Patent to allege "overwhelming sameness" (Compl. p. 11, ¶38).
D859,788 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Ornamental Feature (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for an enlarged over-garment... as shown and described. | The accused HIDEOUT HOODIE is alleged to have the same overall visual impression, including an oversized body, large hood, wide sleeves, and a large front pocket, creating "overwhelming sameness." | ¶38, ¶59 | D’788 Patent, col. 2:1-3 |
| ...with an elevated marsupial pocket... | The accused product features a large, centrally located "kangaroo pouch" that the complaint alleges is visually identical in placement and proportion to the patented design's pocket. | ¶34, ¶38 | D’788 Patent, col. 2:2 |
D969,458 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a photographic comparison of a sample of the accused product laid flat against figures from the ’458 Patent (Compl. p. 12, ¶39).
| Claimed Ornamental Feature (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a whole body blanket, as shown and described. | The complaint alleges the HIDEOUT HOODIE is "substantially the same" as the design in the ’458 Patent, pointing to visual comparisons of the product with the patent figures. | ¶36, ¶39, ¶67 | D’458 Patent, col. 1:57-59 |
| The specific proportions and shapes of the hood, sleeves, and front pocket as shown in the figures. | A photograph of the purchased HIDEOUT HOODIE is presented alongside Figure 3 of the patent to show alleged similarities in the overall shape, pocket design, and sleeve configuration when laid flat. | ¶39 | D’458 Patent, col. 1:57-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the overall visual appearance of the accused HIDEOUT HOODIE is "substantially the same" as the patented designs in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The analysis will require comparing the designs as a whole.
- Technical Questions: A question for the court will be the extent to which the similarities between the products are dictated by function versus ornamental design. Defendant may argue that features like an oversized fit, a large hood, and a front pocket are functional elements of a wearable blanket and thus should be given less weight in the infringement analysis. The court will need to determine the scope of the claimed ornamental design in light of these functional aspects.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the claim is typically construed by reference to the figures. However, the scope of the claimed design is a key issue.
- The Term: "elevated marsupial pocket" (’788 Patent Title and Claim)
- Context and Importance: The size, shape, and placement of the front pocket are prominent features of the claimed design. The construction of this term—specifically, how much variation in proportion and position is allowed while still falling within the scope of the "elevated" design—will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this feature as a key point of visual comparison between the patent and the accused product.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the general term "marsupial pocket" could suggest that the claim covers a range of large, pouch-like front pockets, not just the exact shape depicted.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent claim explicitly states the design is "as shown and described" (’788 Patent, Claim), which points toward the specific visual depiction in the figures as the definitive scope. The term "elevated" suggests that the pocket's specific vertical placement high on the torso is a key, limiting feature of the claimed design.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of induced and contributory infringement for both patents but does not plead specific facts to support these claims beyond the general allegations of marketing and selling the accused products (Compl. ¶60, ¶68).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was willful. This allegation is based on two grounds: (1) alleged knowledge of Plaintiff's well-known "THE COMFY" product and its success prior to launching the accused product (Compl. ¶57); and (2) continued sales of the accused product after receiving a September 8, 2023 notice letter from Plaintiff that identified the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶55, ¶56).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on fundamental principles of design patent law applied to a popular consumer product. The key questions for the court will likely be:
The Ordinary Observer Test: From the perspective of an ordinary consumer of wearable blankets, is the overall ornamental design of the accused "HIDEOUT HOODIE" substantially the same as the designs protected by the ’788 and ’458 patents? This will involve a holistic comparison of the products' visual impressions, not a simple checklist of features.
Functionality vs. Ornamentality: A core issue will be whether the similarities in appearance between the products stem from protectable ornamental choices or from unprotectable functional requirements. The court will need to decide to what extent the oversized shape, large hood, and front pocket are functional elements common to all wearable blankets versus specific aesthetic choices that define Plaintiff’s patented designs.
Scope of Protection: How much weight should be given to the differences versus the similarities between the designs? The resolution will likely depend on the court's perception of the overall visual effect and the scope it accords to Plaintiff's design patents in the context of the wearable blanket market.