DCT
1:25-cv-00365
Cheveux Corp v. Gideon
Key Events
Complaint
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-00365, E.D. Cal., 03/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendant being an individual who resides and conducts substantial business within the Eastern District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s headwear, featuring a criss-cross design on the rear opening, infringes Plaintiff's design patent for an ornamental hat design.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the fashion apparel industry, specifically concerning the ornamental design of baseball-style caps that accommodate ponytails.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement on July 9, 2024. Despite Defendant’s representation on July 25, 2024, that sales had ceased, Plaintiff alleges it confirmed that infringing sales were ongoing as of August 23, 2024. This history may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-03-23 | Patent Priority Date (D'645 Patent) |
| 2021-03-23 | D'645 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-07-01 | Plaintiff allegedly became aware of Defendant's products |
| 2024-07-09 | Plaintiff allegedly provided notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2024-07-25 | Defendant allegedly represented a cessation of sales |
| 2024-08-23 | Plaintiff allegedly confirmed continued sales by Defendant |
| 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: While a design patent does not contain a traditional "problem/solution" narrative, the complaint frames the context as creating a "novel and innovative" criss-cross design for the rear portion of a hat that achieved "considerable success" (Compl. ¶4-5). The underlying issue is one of creating a distinct and commercially valuable ornamental appearance in the competitive headwear market.
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design for a "hat with an X patchwork design" (’645 Patent, Claim). The visual appearance is defined by the patent’s figures, which depict a series of interlocking, criss-crossing bands located at the rear opening of a cap, as shown, for example, in the back view of Figure 3 ('645 Patent, Fig. 3, col. 2:15-18). The claimed design is limited to the features shown in solid lines, with the hat's bill, crown, and top button being explicitly disclaimed as part of the protected design ('645 Patent, col. 2:29-35).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that hats incorporating this design have generated "sales in the millions," suggesting the design's aesthetic appeal and commercial significance in the market (Compl. ¶5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is:
- The ornamental design for a hat with an X patchwork design, as shown and described.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are headwear sold by Defendant on her website (Compl. ¶16). Specific examples provided in the complaint include hats marketed as "Milfin Aint Easy," "Mama," and "Somebody's Fine Ass Ex Wife" (Compl. ¶23).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are baseball-style caps that incorporate a criss-cross strap design on the rear opening (Compl. p. 6-8). The complaint alleges these products are sold directly to consumers and advertised on social media platforms including Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok (Compl. ¶16). The complaint includes a visual comparison between the patent figures and photographs of the accused "Milfin Aint Easy" hat, showing the latter's criss-cross rear design (Compl. p. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement test for a design patent 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 that the accused products and the patented design are "so similar, as to be nearly identical" (Compl. ¶24).
D'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. | The Accused Products embody an ornamental design that is "substantially the same" as the design claimed in the '645 Patent, creating a visual resemblance that would deceive an ordinary observer. | ¶28 | col. 2:5-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. The test requires the fact-finder to compare the accused product to the claimed design, filtering out the unclaimed portions of the hat (the crown, bill, and button) shown in broken lines in the patent figures ('645 Patent, col. 2:29-35). The question will be whether any differences in the criss-cross pattern itself, or the addition of surface ornamentation on the accused product's fabric (e.g., leopard print), are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression once the unclaimed elements are properly disregarded.
- Technical Questions: Since this is a design patent, the key question is not technical but visual. The court will need to determine whether the overall visual effect of the accused hats' rear opening is substantially the same as that depicted in the solid lines of the '645 Patent's figures. The complaint alleges the resemblance is strong enough to "induce" a purchase by a deceived observer (Compl. ¶28).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patents, claim construction focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole, rather than on discrete text-based terms. The phrase "as shown and described" is critical.
- The Term: "as shown and described"
- Context and Importance: This phrase directly links the single claim to the seven figures in the patent. The interpretation of the visual scope of these figures is the central issue of the case. Practitioners may focus on this "term" because the entire infringement analysis depends on what visual features are included within the scope of the claim versus what is disclaimed as environment.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "as shown and described" protects the overall visual concept of the criss-cross "X" pattern on the back of a cap, and that minor variations in strap width, angle, or material in an accused product do not change the substantially similar overall impression. The complaint's allegation of "substantial similarity" supports this view (Compl. ¶24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party would likely counter that "as shown and described" limits the claim's scope to the precise visual details depicted in solid lines in the figures. The patent’s specification explicitly states: "The broken lines that define the hat bill, the hat crown, and the hat snap-button define portions of the hat with an X patchwork design that form no part of the claimed design" ('645 Patent, col. 2:29-35). This disclaimer provides strong intrinsic evidence for a narrow construction focused only on the specific arrangement and proportions of the criss-crossing straps.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks an injunction against inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. p. 10, ¶B). However, the complaint's factual allegations focus on direct infringement by Defendant's own making, using, selling, and offering for sale, and do not provide sufficient detail for analysis of an indirect infringement theory.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. It alleges Defendant "intentionally copied" the patented features (Compl. ¶18). It further alleges that Plaintiff provided actual notice of infringement to Defendant on or about July 9, 2024, and that Defendant continued to sell the Accused Products despite this notice and a representation that sales had stopped (Compl. ¶19-22, ¶29).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual comparison: applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the accused hats' rear opening substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the '645 patent, after properly filtering out the unclaimed hat body and any non-claimed surface patterns on the accused products?
- A second key issue will be one of culpability and damages: does the evidence of alleged copying and, more significantly, the alleged continuation of sales after receiving a notice of infringement, rise to the level of willful infringement? A finding of willfulness could expose the Defendant to enhanced damages, and the case will also raise the question of disgorging Defendant's total profits, a remedy available for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 289.