DCT

2:24-cv-04387

Cozy Comfort Co LLC v. Top Brands LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00188, D. Ariz., 02/15/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Arizona based on Defendants' advertisement and sale of products to Arizona residents, generating revenue and establishing systematic and continuous business contacts within the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ wearable blanket products, sold under the "Tirrinia" and "Catalonia" brands, infringe its design patent for a "whole body blanket."
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of oversized, hooded wearable blankets, a popular consumer apparel and comfort item.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties have been involved in active litigation over other intellectual property rights since February 2020, a fact that may be relevant to the Plaintiff's claim of willful infringement. The asserted patent is a continuation-in-part of a series of applications with a priority date preceding the public launch of Plaintiff's product.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-04-XX Plaintiff's "THE COMFY" product line created
2017-04-21 Defendant Flying Star LLC organized
2017-05-XX Plaintiff auditions for the television show Shark Tank
2017-07-28 Defendants Top Brand LLC and E Star LLC organized
2017-09-13 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. D969,458
2017-12-03 Shark Tank episode featuring "THE COMFY" airs
2020-02-XX Prior litigation between Plaintiff and Defendants commences
2022-11-15 U.S. Patent No. D969,458 issues
2024-02-15 Amended Complaint filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D969,458 - "Whole body blanket"

  • Issued: November 15, 2022

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’458 Patent does not address a technical problem; it protects a product's unique, non-functional, ornamental appearance.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a wearable blanket as depicted in its figures ('458 Patent, Claim). The key visual characteristics of the design, shown in solid lines, include an oversized, roomy main body; a large, attached hood; wide, tapered sleeves; and a large, centrally-located, angular front pocket ('458 Patent, Figs. 1, 3). The patent's description notes that features shown in broken lines, such as the bottom hem and sleeve cuffs, form no part of the claimed design, suggesting a broader scope for those elements ('458 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the commercial embodiment of the design, "THE COMFY," was an innovative product that established a new market category for "wearable blankets" and achieved significant commercial success (Compl. ¶¶34, 37).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a whole body blanket, as shown and described" ('458 Patent, Claim).
  • The core elements comprising the claimed design are the visual characteristics of the garment as a whole, including:
    • The overall configuration of an oversized body, large hood, and wide sleeves.
    • The specific proportions and interrelationship of these elements.
    • The shape and placement of the large front pocket.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Tirrinia ‘Blanket Hoodie’" and the "Catalonia ‘Hoodie Blanket’" (Compl. ¶65).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are "substantially identical copies" of Plaintiff's "THE COMFY" product and directly compete in the wearable blanket market (Compl. ¶65). The complaint asserts that despite being sold under different brand names, the Tirrinia and Catalonia products are "virtually identical" to each other (Compl. ¶53). These products are allegedly sold through various online marketplaces, including Amazon, Walmart, and Sears, as well as websites operated by the Defendants (Compl. ¶65). The complaint provides a photograph showing two of the accused products, which appear to be oversized hooded blankets made of fleece-like material (Compl. p. 13). This photograph depicts two accused hooded blankets, one gray and one dark gray, laid flat to display their overall design (Compl. p. 13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is assessed from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." Infringement occurs if the designs are "substantially the same," such that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one.

'458 Patent Infringement Allegations

Patented Design Element ('458 Patent, Figs. 1, 3) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation
The overall ornamental design for a whole body blanket, as shown and described. The complaint alleges that the accused products have a design that directly replicates Plaintiff's intellectual property and is "substantially identical" to the patented design. ¶51, ¶65, ¶78
The specific configuration of an oversized body, large hood, wide tapered sleeves, and a large central front pocket. The complaint includes a photograph of the accused products and a patent figure to show their alleged similarity in appearance, noting that any differences are "inconsequential." ¶66, ¶67, p. 12-13

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The primary dispute will turn on the application of the ordinary observer test. A court will have to determine whether the overall visual impression of the accused Tirrinia and Catalonia products is substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the '458 Patent, when viewed in the context of the prior art for hooded garments.
  • Technical Questions: While not a utility patent, the analysis will involve a detailed visual comparison. The central question will be whether the specific proportions, contours, and arrangement of the hood, sleeves, pocket, and body of the accused products are close enough to the patented design to cause observer confusion. Defendants may argue that any similarities are dictated by function (e.g., a garment needs a head opening, arm holes) or are common in the prior art, and that visual differences in the accused products are sufficient to distinguish them from the claimed design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, the "claim" is the visual design depicted in the drawings, not a set of text-based limitations. Therefore, formal claim construction of terms is generally not performed. The analysis focuses on the overall visual appearance of the claimed design as a whole, as shown in the patent figures.

  • Focus Area: The overall visual appearance and configuration of the "whole body blanket."
  • Context and Importance: The infringement analysis will not focus on a single term, but on a comparison of the overall aesthetic of the accused products with the claimed design. Practitioners may focus on the specific shapes and proportions of the key features shown in solid lines—the hood, the body, the sleeves, and the front pocket—and their arrangement relative to one another. The outcome of this visual comparison will be determinative of infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the design should be viewed holistically and is not limited to the exact dimensions, but rather the overall aesthetic impression it creates. The use of broken lines for the bottom hem and sleeve cuffs explicitly disclaims those specific features, which may support an argument that the core claim is to the general configuration regardless of these minor details ('458 Patent, Description).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue that the claimed design is limited to the precise shapes and proportions depicted in the solid-line drawings of the '458 Patent. They may point to any subtle differences in the curvature of the pocket, the size of the hood, or the taper of the sleeves on their products as evidence that they do not appropriate the claimed design.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶79). It does not, however, plead specific facts detailing how Defendants allegedly induced or contributed to direct infringement by third parties, such as customers.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was "knowing, intentional and willful" (Compl. ¶80). This allegation is supported by the assertion that the parties have been engaged in litigation over other intellectual property since February 2020, which Plaintiff will argue put Defendants on notice of Plaintiff’s patent rights and their duty to avoid infringement (Compl. ¶¶68-69).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the Defendants' "Tirrinia" and "Catalonia" wearable blankets substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the '458 Patent, or are there sufficient visual differences to distinguish them?
  2. A second key question will relate to willfulness: Does the alleged history of litigation between the parties provide sufficient evidence that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of their infringing conduct, potentially justifying an award of enhanced damages?
  3. Finally, a significant procedural question will be one of corporate liability: The complaint dedicates substantial attention to alter ego allegations (Compl. ¶¶10-18, 49). A key question for the court will be whether Plaintiff can successfully pierce the corporate veil to hold the individual defendants and multiple corporate entities jointly and severally liable for any infringement found.