DCT
2:24-cv-00187
Cozy Comfort Co LLC v. Star Marketing Intl Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cozy Comfort Company LLC (Arizona)
- Defendant: Star Marketing International, Inc. dba Go Mushy and/or Apollo USA (Delaware); H&C Headwear Inc. (California); et al.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Messner Reeves LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00187, D. Ariz., 01/26/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants having advertised and derived revenue from sales of products to citizens within the District of Arizona, engaging in systematic and continuous business contacts within the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ wearable blanket products infringe two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of an oversized, hooded garment.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the consumer apparel market, specifically for oversized wearable blankets, a product category Plaintiff alleges it created and popularized with its "THE COMFY" product.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that certain Defendants were involved in prior litigation styled [Top Brand LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/top-brand-llc) v. [Cozy Comfort Co. LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/cozy-comfort-co-llc) since February 2020, which Plaintiff asserts put Defendants on notice of its intellectual property rights. The complaint also highlights Plaintiff's 2017 appearance on the television show Shark Tank as a key event in establishing the product's public recognition.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-04-01 | Plaintiff's "THE COMFY" product invented |
| 2017-05-01 | Plaintiff auditioned for "Shark Tank" television show |
| 2017-09-13 | Earliest Priority Date for '788 and '458 Patents |
| 2017-12-03 | "Shark Tank" episode featuring "THE COMFY" premiered |
| 2019-09-17 | U.S. Design Patent No. D859,788 issued |
| 2020-02-01 | Related litigation allegedly put Defendants on notice |
| 2022-11-15 | U.S. Design Patent No. D969,458 issued |
| 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, "Enlarged over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket," issued September 17, 2019. (Compl. ¶¶22, 34).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents do not solve technical problems but protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture. This patent protects the specific visual appearance of a wearable blanket. (Compl. ¶¶18, 34).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for an "enlarged over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket," as depicted in the patent's figures (’788 Patent, Claim). The drawings show a garment with a very large, oversized body, a prominent hood, wide sleeves, and a large, centered front pocket, creating a distinct overall visual impression. (’788 Patent, Figs. 1, 4).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the product embodying this design was an "innovator" that established a new market for wearable blankets and became the "industry standard." (Compl. ¶¶29, 33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim asserted is for: "The ornamental design for an enlarged over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket, as shown and described." (’788 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of a design patent claim is defined by the solid lines in the drawings. Key visual elements of the claimed design include:
- An oversized, A-line silhouette extending below the waist.
- An integrated, voluminous hood.
- Wide, elongated sleeves.
- A large, rectangular, centrally-located "marsupial" pocket on the front torso.
U.S. Design Patent No. D969,458 - Whole body blanket
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D969458, "Whole body blanket," issued November 15, 2022. (Compl. ¶36).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the '788 Patent, this patent protects the specific ornamental appearance of a wearable garment.
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a "whole body blanket," as depicted in the drawings (’458 Patent, Claim). The visual appearance is similar to the ’788 Patent, but notably includes broken (dotted) lines in its figures, which illustrate environmental structure or optional features that are not part of the claimed design. (Compl. ¶37; ’458 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The filing of this patent, which claims priority back to the original 2017 application, suggests a continued effort by Plaintiff to protect variations of its core product design. (Compl. ¶27; ’458 Patent, p. 1).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim asserted is for: "The ornamental design for a whole body blanket, as shown and described." (’458 Patent, Claim).
- The claim's scope is defined by the solid lines in the drawings. Key visual elements include:
- An oversized garment body with a hood and sleeves.
- A large front pocket.
- The complaint notes that the dotted lines indicate optional features, which may broaden the scope of the design compared to one where all features are claimed in solid lines. (Compl. ¶37).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are the "Go Mushy ‘BLANKET HOODIE’" and the "Apollo USA ‘HOODIE BLANKET’" (Compl. ¶52).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as "oversized hoodie blanket[s]" and "ultra-soft plush wearable blanket[s]" sold in a variety of colors and patterns via Defendants' websites. (Compl. ¶¶52, 55, 57). The complaint alleges these products are "substantially the same" as Plaintiff's THE COMFY product and that Defendants did not sell them prior to the December 2017 airing of the Shark Tank episode featuring THE COMFY. (Compl. ¶¶53, 58). The complaint includes an image from the Apollo USA website showing the accused "HOODIE BLANKET." (Compl. p. 14).
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 is the patented design. The complaint alleges infringement based on the "overwhelming sameness" between the accused products and the patented designs. (Compl. ¶58).
D859,788 Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the visual appearance of Defendants' products is substantially the same as the claimed design. A side-by-side visual provided in the complaint juxtaposes the patented design with images of the accused products. (Compl. p. 16).
| Ornamental Feature (from '788 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design of an enlarged over-garment | The accused products are "oversized hoodie blanket[s]" with a design "substantially the same" as the patented design. | ¶¶55, 58 | ’788 Patent, Fig. 1 |
| A large, voluminous hood | The accused products are alleged to feature a large hood. Advertising for the accused products highlights an "Oversized hood." | ¶72; p. 24 | ’788 Patent, Fig. 1 |
| Wide, elongated sleeves with cuffs | The accused products are alleged to feature large arm coverings and elastic cuffs. Advertising highlights "elastic wrists [that] keep the sleeves up." | ¶72; p. 24 | ’788 Patent, Fig. 1 |
| A large, elevated, centered marsupial pocket | The accused products are alleged to feature an oversized front pouch. | ¶72 | ’788 Patent, Fig. 4 |
D969,458 Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that a sample of the accused product purchased by Plaintiff shows similarities to the design claimed in the '458 Patent. The complaint provides a photographic comparison of the purchased product and a figure from the '458 Patent to show the alleged similarity. (Compl. ¶59, p. 17).
| Ornamental Feature (from '458 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a whole body blanket | The design of the purchased sample product is alleged to be substantially similar to the patented design. | ¶59 | ’458 Patent, Fig. 3 |
| An oversized body and silhouette | The photograph of the purchased sample product shows a similarly oversized garment. | ¶59; p. 17 | ’458 Patent, Fig. 3 |
| A large, centered front pocket | The photograph of the purchased sample product shows a large, centered front pocket. | ¶59; p. 17 | ’458 Patent, Fig. 3 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Since design patent scope is defined by the drawings, a key question for the court will be how the "ordinary observer" perceives the overall visual impression of the patented designs compared to the accused products. The analysis will not turn on the meaning of words, but on a holistic visual comparison.
- Prior Art: A dispositive issue, not detailed in the complaint, will be the scope of the relevant prior art. Defendants may argue that the patented designs are not substantially different from prior art oversized garments, thus narrowing the scope of patent protection and requiring a near-identical copy for a finding of infringement.
- Technical Questions: A factual question will be whether the specific proportions, seam lines, and overall configuration of the accused products are close enough to the patented designs to cause an ordinary observer to be deceived. The complaint uses a photograph of a purchased sample product to support its allegations, suggesting that minor differences in appearance will be a focus. (Compl. p. 17).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
As this is a design patent case, the "claim" is a reference to the ornamental design depicted in the drawings, and traditional claim construction of disputed terms is not the central issue. The legal analysis focuses on comparing the overall ornamental appearance of the claimed design with the accused product from the perspective of an ordinary observer, taking into account the prior art. The scope of the claimed design is defined by the solid lines in the patent figures.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of induced and contributory infringement for both patents, asserting that Defendants acted in concert to market and sell the accused products. (Compl. ¶¶11, 81, 89). However, the complaint focuses primarily on allegations of direct infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful. (Compl. ¶¶82, 90). The allegations are based on Defendants’ purported knowledge of Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights, allegedly obtained through prior litigation involving related entities that began in February 2020, as well as general awareness of Plaintiff's "pre-existing U.S. patents." (Compl. ¶¶75, 78).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, are the accused "BLANKET HOODIE" products "substantially the same" as the ornamental designs claimed in the '788 and '458 patents? The outcome may depend heavily on the visual evidence and side-by-side comparisons presented to the finder of fact.
- A second central question will concern the impact of prior art: The scope of protection afforded to the patented designs will be determined in light of wearable garments that existed before September 2017. The degree of novelty and ornamentality of the patented designs over this prior art will dictate how similar an accused product must be to infringe.
- Finally, a key evidentiary question will be willfulness: Did Defendants have pre-suit knowledge of the patents or engage in conduct that was objectively reckless, particularly in light of the prior litigation alleged in the complaint? A finding of willfulness could expose Defendants to enhanced damages and attorneys' fees.