DCT
1:24-cv-00684
iBeauty Brands Inc v. Bondi Boost US LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: iBEAUTY BRANDS, INC. (California)
- Defendant: Bondi Boost US, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris James LLP
- Case Identification: [iBEAUTY BRANDS, INC.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/ibeauty-brands-inc) v. [Bondi Boost US, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/bondi-boost-us-llc), 1:24-cv-00684, D. Del., 06/10/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant being a Delaware limited liability company and conducting regular business, including sales of the accused products, within the District of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the ornamental design of Defendant’s "Infrared Bounce Brush – Heated Round Brush" infringes Plaintiff's design patent for an infrared thermal brush.
- Technical Context: This dispute concerns the intellectual property protecting the specific aesthetic appearance of products in the competitive consumer market for heated hair styling appliances.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of infringement on February 14, 2024. It further alleges that Defendant may have been aware of the design earlier and contracted with the same third-party manufacturer used by Plaintiff to copy the product.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-06-30 | '829 Patent Application Filing Date (Priority Date) |
| 2023-08-29 | U.S. Design Patent No. D996,829 Issues |
| 2024-02-14 | Plaintiff provides written notice of infringement to Defendant |
| 2024-06-10 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D996,829, "Infrared Thermal Brush," issued August 29, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The objective of a design patent is to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, distinguishing it aesthetically from other products in the market.
- The Patented Solution: The ’829 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a heated brush. The design's overall visual impression is defined by the combination of its shape and appearance, including a tapered handle, a cylindrical barrel, the layout of the bristles, and a prominent internal red glow that is visible through the barrel’s surface ('829 Patent, FIGs. 1-6). The patent explicitly states that it was filed in color, making the color red an element of the claimed design ('829 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
- Technical Importance: The complaint asserts Plaintiff is a "national leader in the research and development of innovative hair and beauty products devices," suggesting the protected design is a key aspect of its product's identity and market position (Compl. ¶9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent asserts a single claim for "The ornamental design for an infrared thermal brush, as shown and described" ('829 Patent, CLAIM). The scope of this claim is defined by the visual characteristics depicted in the patent’s figures.
- The core ornamental features of the design include:
- The overall shape and configuration of the brush, including its handle and cylindrical head.
- The specific pattern and density of bristles arrayed on the barrel.
- The appearance of a glowing red interior visible through a honeycomb-like pattern on the barrel surface.
- The dark color of the brush body contrasted with the red glowing interior.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: Defendant’s "Infrared Bounce Brush – Heated Round Brush" (Compl. ¶13).
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused product is a heated round hairbrush marketed for its ability to create "sleek and bouncy hairstyles" using infrared technology that "gently heats the hair from within" (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that the brush is designed to produce a "red glow when plugged in" (Compl. ¶13). The product is sold for $98.00 through Defendant's website and major retailers such as Sephora and Ulta Beauty (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint supports its infringement allegations with side-by-side photographic comparisons of the patented design and the accused product. A representative comparison shows the patented design (left) and the accused product (right), both with the glowing barrel feature activated (Compl. p. 5).
'829 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Patented Design Feature (from Figures) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for an infrared thermal brush | The complaint alleges that the accused product's design is substantially the same as the patented design and that this resemblance would deceive an ordinary observer. | ¶14 | FIGs. 1-6 |
| A cylindrical brush barrel with a specific bristle pattern | The accused product is depicted with a cylindrical barrel and a bristle pattern that Plaintiff alleges is substantially similar to the patented design. | p. 5 | FIG. 1 |
| A visible internal red glow through the barrel surface | The complaint states the accused product "achieves the red glow when plugged in," and alleges this red is an "arbitrary nonfunctional and ornamental color choice." | ¶¶12-13 | FIG. 2 |
| The overall configuration including handle and head shape | The complaint's visual evidence shows an accused product with an overall shape and proportions that are alleged to be substantially the same as the patented design. | p. 5 | FIG. 3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The primary infringement question in a design patent case is whether, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the two designs are substantially the same, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing one thinking it was the other. A potential point of contention is the difference in the primary body color—the patented design shows a dark-colored body, while the accused product has a white body. The court may need to weigh whether this difference is sufficient to create a distinct overall visual impression.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be the degree to which the "red glow" feature dominates the overall aesthetic. The complaint argues that since infrared light is not inherently red, the color choice is purely ornamental and arbitrary (Compl. ¶12). The analysis will likely focus on whether the alleged similarity of this distinctive glowing feature, combined with the overall shape, is enough to establish infringement despite the difference in the handle's color.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction focuses on the overall visual impression of the design as depicted in the figures, rather than on defining specific textual terms. The claim is for the design "as shown and described" ('829 Patent, CLAIM). However, the scope of certain prominent features will be central to the infringement analysis.
- The Feature: The "Red Glow" visible through the brush barrel.
- Context and Importance: This is arguably the most distinctive ornamental feature of the patented design. The complaint highlights it, alleging the color is a "nonfunctional and ornamental" choice (Compl. ¶12). The extent to which this feature is considered to drive the overall appearance of the design will be critical to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's description explicitly states, "The patent or application file contains a least one drawing executed in color," and that color copies will be provided by the USPTO, signaling that color is an integral part of the claimed design ('829 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The red glow is consistently depicted across multiple views, reinforcing its importance to the design as a whole (e.g., '829 Patent, FIGs. 1, 2, 5).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim covers the design "as a whole," and that the "red glow" cannot be isolated from other elements. The claim is for the design "as shown," which includes a dark-colored body. It may be argued that the combination of a white body with a red glow in the accused product creates a different overall visual impression than the patented combination of a dark body with a red glow.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement claim is based on Defendant allegedly encouraging users to operate the brush with its "red glow" feature activated (Compl. ¶19). The contributory infringement claim asserts that Defendant supplies a material component—the "red glow on the shaped brush"—that was especially adapted for this infringing use and is not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶19).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges Plaintiff sent a written notice of infringement on February 14, 2024, after which Defendant allegedly continued its infringing conduct (Compl. ¶21). The complaint also makes a significant allegation of pre-suit knowledge, claiming Defendant "went directly to the very third-party factory manufacturer of the Plaintiff's product and had that third party entity literally copy and manufacture the product at scale" (Compl. ¶22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of overall visual impression: would an ordinary observer, comparing the patented design (with its dark body and red glow) to the accused product (with its white body and red glow), find the two designs to be substantially the same, or does the difference in body color create a distinct overall appearance that would prevent purchaser confusion?
- A related question concerns the ornamental weight of key features: in assessing the design as a whole, how much significance should be given to the similarity of the unique "red glow" feature versus the dissimilarity of the products' primary body colors?
- A key evidentiary question for willfulness will be whether Plaintiff can substantiate its claim that Defendant engaged its own manufacturer to deliberately copy the patented design. Proof of such direct copying could significantly influence the determination of willfulness and potential damages.