DCT
2:24-cv-04525
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/California); H&C Headwear Inc. (California); et al.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Messner Reeves LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-04525, D. Ariz., 01/26/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants allegedly advertising and deriving revenue from sales to citizens within the District of Arizona, and engaging in systematic and continuous business contacts within the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ oversized, hooded “Blanket Hoodie” products infringe two of its design patents covering the ornamental appearance of its flagship “THE COMFY” wearable blanket.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer apparel market for wearable blankets, a category that the Plaintiff claims to have innovated and popularized.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that certain defendants were involved in separate litigation with the Plaintiff since February 2020, 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), which Plaintiff asserts put Defendants on notice of its intellectual property rights, forming a basis for the willfulness allegations in the current case.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-04-01 | Plaintiff's "THE COMFY" product invented |
| 2017-05-01 | Plaintiff auditions for the television show Shark Tank |
| 2017-09-13 | Earliest Priority Date for '788 and '458 Patents |
| 2017-12-03 | Shark Tank episode featuring "THE COMFY" premieres |
| 2019-09-17 | U.S. Patent No. D859,788 Issues |
| 2020-02-01 | Prior litigation involving Defendants allegedly begins |
| 2022-11-15 | U.S. Patent No. D969,458 Issues |
| 2024-01-26 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D859,788
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D859,788, "Enlarged over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket," issued September 17, 2019.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not articulate a technical problem but instead claims a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (Compl. ¶34; ’788 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of a wearable garment, not its function or construction (Compl. ¶34). The protected design, shown in the patent’s figures, consists of an oversized, hooded garment with wide, long sleeves and a large, elevated front pocket, creating a distinct overall aesthetic (’788 Patent, FIG. 1, 4). The broken lines in the drawings, such as the depiction of a person, indicate environmental structure that is not part of the claimed design (’788 Patent, Description).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- Design patents contain a single claim, which is for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings. The claim of the ’788 Patent is for: “The ornamental design for an enlarged over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket, as shown and described” (’788 Patent, Claim).
- The key ornamental features that constitute the claimed design include:
- The overall enlarged, wide proportions of the garment body.
- An integrated, oversized hood.
- Wide, elongated sleeves.
- A large, rectangular-shaped marsupial pocket positioned on the upper portion of the garment’s front.
U.S. Design Patent No. D969,458
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D969,458, "Whole body blanket," issued November 15, 2022.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’788 Patent, this patent claims a new, original, and ornamental design for a garment (Compl. ¶36; ’458 Patent, Claim).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the ornamental design for what is titled a "whole body blanket" (’458 Patent, Title). The design, illustrated in the patent’s figures, depicts an oversized, hooded, sleeved garment with a front pocket, visually similar to the design of the ’788 Patent (Compl. ¶37; ’458 Patent, FIG. 1, 3). Some figures in the patent use broken lines to disclaim portions of the garment, such as the bottom hem, which can create different scopes of protection within the same patent (’458 Patent, FIG. 9, 11).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The patent’s single claim is for: “The ornamental design for a whole body blanket, as shown and described” (’458 Patent, Claim).
- The key ornamental features are visually congruent with those of the ’788 Patent, including the overall enlarged proportions, an oversized hood, wide sleeves, and a large front pocket.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Go Mushy ‘BLANKET HOODIE’" and the "Apollo USA ‘HOODIE BLANKET’" (Compl. ¶52).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products are "oversized hoodie blanket[s]" marketed as "cozy with a soft feel" and made from "ultra-soft plush wearable" material, sold through Defendants' websites (Compl. ¶52, 56-57). Plaintiff alleges that the construction and design of these products are "substantially the same" as its "THE COMFY" product and that they directly replicate the intellectual property protected by its patents (Compl. ¶55, 58). The complaint includes an image from the Apollo USA website showing a dark gray, oversized hooded blanket with a prominent front pocket, worn by a model (Compl. p. 14, ¶52).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which 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 supports its allegations with side-by-side visual comparisons.
D859,788 Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products have a design that infringes the ’788 Patent (Compl. ¶80). A side-by-side image comparison in the complaint places a patent figure next to images of the accused products to highlight their alleged "overwhelming sameness" (Compl. p. 16, ¶58).
| Claimed Design Feature (from Figures) | Alleged Corresponding Feature in Accused Product | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for an enlarged over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket, as depicted in the patent figures. | The overall visual appearance of the Go Mushy and Apollo USA "Hoodie Blanket" products, which allegedly feature the same oversized proportions, large hood, wide sleeves, and elevated front pocket. | ¶58, 80 | '788 Patent, Claim, FIG. 1, 4 |
D969,458 Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of the ’458 Patent based on a visual comparison between photographs of a purchased sample of an accused product and figures from the patent (Compl. ¶59, 88). A photograph in the complaint shows a person wearing a green patterned version of the accused product, juxtaposed with line drawings from the patent (Compl. pp. 17-18).
| Claimed Design Feature (from Figures) | Alleged Corresponding Feature in Accused Product | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a whole body blanket, as depicted in the patent figures. | The overall visual appearance of the purchased sample product, which allegedly embodies the same combination of an oversized body, large hood, and front pocket shown in the patent drawings. | ¶59, 88 | '458 Patent, Claim, FIG. 3, 6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be how broadly the claimed designs are interpreted in light of the prior art for hooded sweatshirts, robes, and blankets. Defendants may argue that the patents only cover the exact proportions and shapes shown and that any similarities in the accused products relate to functional or unprotectable elements common in the field.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on a visual comparison. The key question for the fact-finder will be whether the specific aesthetic choices in the accused products (e.g., pocket shape and placement, hood size, sleeve width) are so similar to the patented designs as to be legally indistinguishable to an ordinary observer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent cases, the claim is understood to be the visual design itself as depicted in the drawings, and formal claim construction is rare. However, the descriptive titles of the patents may be subject to argument regarding the overall scope of the design.
- The Term: "enlarged over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket" (’788 Patent) / "whole body blanket" (’458 Patent).
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on these phrases to frame the scope of the design. The definition of what constitutes an "enlarged" garment or a "whole body blanket" in the context of the drawings will be critical to distinguishing the patented design from conventional, non-infringing garments like standard hoodies or robes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent figures depict the design in a stylized, two-dimensional manner without specifying materials, specific dimensions, or textures. This could support an interpretation that the claim covers any garment embodying the same general visual proportions and arrangement of features, regardless of minor variations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The precise curvature of the pocket, the specific shape of the hood opening, and the relative proportions between the sleeves, body, and pocket as shown in the drawings (’788 Patent, FIG. 4; ’458 Patent, FIG. 3) could be argued to confine the design's scope to the exact aesthetic shown, suggesting that any noticeable deviation in these elements would place an accused product outside the claim.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of induced and contributory infringement for both patents (Compl. ¶81, 89). The factual basis appears to be the same as for direct infringement—that Defendants market and sell the products to U.S. customers (Compl. ¶70).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was and is "knowing, intentional and willful" (Compl. ¶82, 90). The primary factual basis for this allegation is Defendants' alleged knowledge of Plaintiff's intellectual property rights stemming from prior litigation involving the Ngan defendants that has been active "since February 2020" (Compl. ¶75-76). The complaint also alleges Defendants entered the market only after observing the success of "THE COMFY" (Compl. ¶69).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of visual identity: will an ordinary observer, considering the prior art of oversized garments, find the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' "Hoodie Blanket" products to be substantially the same as the specific designs claimed in the '788 and '458 patents, or are the differences sufficient to avoid infringement?
- A key question for damages will be one of willfulness: do the allegations regarding the prior Top Brand LLC litigation provide sufficient evidence of pre-suit knowledge to support a finding that Defendants' alleged infringement was deliberate, which could lead to enhanced damages?
- The case may also present a question of design scope: how will the court treat the subtle differences and use of broken lines in the figures of the '458 patent, and can the descriptive titles "enlarged over-garment" and "whole body blanket" be used to either broaden or narrow the scope of the protected visual designs?