DCT
1:25-at-00246
Cheveux Corp v. Gideon
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Cheveux Corp. (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Kelsey Gideon (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ashby Law Firm P.C.; CM Law PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00246, E.D. Cal., 03/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the Defendant residing, committing alleged acts of infringement, and maintaining a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s headwear, which features a criss-cross design in the rear opening, infringes Plaintiff’s design patent.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of apparel and fashion accessories, specifically focusing on the ornamental design of consumer headwear.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement in July 2024. It further alleges that after Defendant represented that sales had ceased, Plaintiff confirmed the accused products were still being sold, a fact which may be material to the claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-03-23 | '645 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date) |
| 2021-03-23 | '645 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-07-09 | Defendant first notified of alleged infringement |
| 2025-03-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D913,645 - "Hat with an X Patchwork Design"
- Issued: March 23, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent does not explicitly state a problem, which is typical for a design patent. However, the design implicitly addresses the creation of a new, original, and ornamental appearance for the rear opening of a baseball-style cap, an area often adapted to accommodate ponytails. (D’913,645 Patent, Figs. 1, 3).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design of an "X patchwork" for a hat. (D’913,645 Patent, p. 14, CLAIM). The claimed design consists of the visual characteristics of the criss-crossing bands that form a lattice structure in the rear opening of the cap, as depicted in the patent's figures. (D’913,645 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The scope of the design is limited to the features shown in solid lines; the hat crown, bill, and other elements shown in broken lines are disclaimed and form no part of the patented design. (D’913,645 Patent, p. 14, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a visually distinct alternative to the common single, semi-circular opening found on the back of many caps. (Compl. ¶5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for a hat with an X patchwork design, as shown and described."
- The essential elements of the design are the visual characteristics of the features shown in solid lines in the patent drawings, including:
- A plurality of overlapping bands or straps.
- The arrangement of these bands into a criss-cross, 'X'-like, or lattice pattern.
- The specific proportions, angles, and overall visual impression created by this pattern as depicted in the patent figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are various headwear items sold by Defendant on the website simplygideon.com and advertised on social media. (Compl. ¶¶7, 16). The complaint specifically identifies hats named "Milfin Aint Easy," "Mama," and "Somebody's Fine Ass Ex Wife" as examples of the "Accused Products." (Compl. ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused hats are baseball-style caps that feature a rear opening filled with a pattern of criss-crossing elastic bands. (Compl. ¶¶23-24). The complaint presents visual evidence asserting that this feature is "so similar, as to be nearly identical" to the patented design. (Compl. ¶24). The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison of patent drawings and a photograph of the accused "Mama" hat, which features a leopard-print fabric and criss-crossing tan straps in the rear opening. (Compl. p. 7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement allegation for a design patent rests on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer would believe the accused design to be the same as the patented design. (Compl. ¶28). The complaint alleges infringement by presenting side-by-side visual comparisons.
'645 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a hat with an X patchwork design, as shown and described, which includes the overall visual impression of a plurality of overlapping bands arranged in a criss-cross pattern. | The Accused Products incorporate a criss-cross design in the rear opening that the complaint alleges is "substantially the same" and "nearly identical" to the patented design. A visual provided in the complaint shows the accused "Milfin Aint Easy" hat with a criss-cross strap design. | ¶23, ¶24, p. 6 | D’913,645 Patent, Figs. 1-3 |
| The specific configuration and relationship of the criss-crossing bands as depicted in the patent figures. | The complaint alleges that the arrangement, configuration, and appearance of the straps on the Accused Products would deceive an ordinary observer into believing they were purchasing a product embodying the patented design. A photograph of the accused "Somebody's Fine Ass Ex Wife" hat shows its specific strap pattern. | ¶24, p. 8 | D’913,645 Patent, Figs. 1-3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary legal question is whether the accused designs are "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the eye of an ordinary observer. A point of contention may arise from the patent’s disclaimers. Because the hat crown and bill are disclaimed via broken lines, the infringement analysis must focus solely on a comparison of the criss-cross strap patterns, not the overall appearance of the hats. (D’913,645 Patent, p. 14, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Questions: A key factual question is how similar the specific visual details of the accused strap patterns are to the patented design. The court may need to consider whether minor variations in the number of straps, their width, or their angle of intersection between different accused products (e.g., as shown on Compl. pp. 6-8) are significant enough to differentiate them from the patented design in the mind of an ordinary observer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of written terms is uncommon, as the claim's scope is defined by the drawings. However, the interpretation of the scope of the visual design itself is a central issue.
- The Term: "The ornamental design ... as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The outcome of the case hinges on the scope afforded to the patented design. Practitioners may focus on whether the design is limited to the exact visual representation in the figures or if it covers a broader range of similar criss-cross patterns.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader scope might argue that the "overall visual impression" of a lattice-work or criss-cross strap pattern in a hat's rear opening is the core of the design, and minor deviations should not avoid infringement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower scope would point to the specific details of the drawings (e.g., the number of straps, their precise overlap, and the angles of intersection) as defining the limits of the claim. The patent's express disclaimer of the surrounding hat structure reinforces that the claimed design is only the specific pattern shown in solid lines, potentially supporting a narrower interpretation focused on those details. (D’913,645 Patent, p. 14, DESCRIPTION).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief requests an injunction against "inducement of infringement, or contributory infringement." (Compl. p. 10, ¶B). However, the body of the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support these claims, focusing instead on Defendant's direct infringement through making, using, and selling the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶27).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of the '645 Patent and its alleged infringement "at least as early as July 2024." (Compl. ¶29). It further alleges that after Defendant represented that sales had ceased, Defendant "knowingly and willfully" continued to make, import, and sell the Accused Products, forming the basis for the willfulness claim. (Compl. ¶¶20-22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court’s findings on two central questions:
- A core issue will be one of visual scope: In the view of an ordinary observer, is the ornamental design of the criss-cross straps on the accused hats substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the '645 Patent, considering that the patent disclaims the surrounding hat structure?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of willfulness: Does the evidence support the allegation that the Defendant continued to sell the accused products after receiving actual notice of potential infringement in July 2024, and particularly after representing that such sales had stopped?