DCT

3:15-cv-00849

Lanard Toys Ltd v. Toys R US Delaware Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:15-cv-00849, D.N.J., 03/27/2014
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district, and Defendants conduct business there, including offering the accused products for sale.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' "Chalk Pencil" products, manufactured by Ja-Ru and sold by retailers Toys "R" Us and Dollar General, infringe its design patent for a distinctive, oversized, pencil-shaped chalk holder.
  • Technical Context: The case concerns the toy industry, where the unique ornamental appearance of a product, such as the accused chalk holder, can serve as a significant market differentiator and source of brand identity.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants Toys "R" Us and Dollar General were formerly customers who purchased and sold Plaintiff's authentic "Chalk Pencil" product for several years before switching to the accused, allegedly infringing versions. Plaintiff also alleges its product packaging was marked "Patent Pending" and later with the patent number, which may be relevant to the willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-11-01 Plaintiff Lanard first published its "Chalk Pencil" work.
2011-08-03 Priority date for U.S. Design Patent No. D671,167.
2012-11-20 U.S. Design Patent No. D671,167 ("the '167 Patent") issued.
Early 2014 Defendants allegedly began selling the accused products.
2014-03-27 Complaint filed.

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D671,167 - "Chalk Holder"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D671,167, titled "Chalk Holder," issued November 20, 2012 (the “’167 Patent”). (Compl. ¶15; ’167 Patent, p. 1).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint states that in 2010, Plaintiff’s designers sought to develop a "unique and original chalk holder" for children to use for drawing outdoors (Compl. ¶12). The implicit challenge was creating a commercially appealing and distinctive design for this type of product.
  • The Patented Solution: The patented invention is an ornamental design for a chalk holder fashioned in the "distinctive appearance of a pencil, evoking the hallmarks of a pencil found in school classrooms, although on a larger scale" (Compl. ¶12). The design, as depicted in the patent’s figures, consists of an elongated, multi-faceted body, a conical tip from which chalk would protrude, and a top portion resembling a traditional pencil’s eraser held in a ridged, metallic-style ferrule (’167 Patent, Figs. 1-5).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the distinctive design was a "success in the market," leading to substantial sales and goodwill, and causing the public to associate the design exclusively with the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶17, 19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents have a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a chalk holder, as shown and described" (’167 Patent, CLAIM).
  • The protected design consists of the specific visual characteristics depicted in the patent's figures, including:
    • The overall ornamental appearance of an oversized pencil.
    • An elongated body with multiple flat facets.
    • A sharpened, conical tip section.
    • A top section comprising an eraser-like element and a ferrule-like element with horizontal ridges.
    • The specific proportions and arrangement of these elements as a whole.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the "Chalk Pencil" product sold by Defendant Toys "R" Us under its "SIZZLIN' COOL" brand and the "Side Walk Chalk 'Chalk Pencil'" product sold by Defendant Dollar General (Compl. ¶¶22, 25). Defendant Ja-Ru, Inc. is alleged to be the manufacturer and supplier of both products (Compl. ¶¶24, 27).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are oversized, pencil-shaped holders for sidewalk chalk, targeted at the children's toy market (Compl. ¶¶22, 25). The complaint alleges that these products are direct copies of Plaintiff's design and are being sold by Plaintiff's former customers, creating direct market competition (Compl. ¶¶22, 25). The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison showing Plaintiff's product, a private label version it supplied to Toys "R" Us, and the two accused products, highlighting their visual similarities (Compl. ¶28). The image of the accused Toys "R" Us product shows a "Giant Chalk Pencil" in packaging that is also thematically similar to Plaintiff's (Compl. ¶23).

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 are "substantially similar" to the design shown in the ’167 Patent (Compl. ¶29).

  • ’167 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from '167 Patent, as shown in Figs. 1-5) Alleged Infringing Functionality (from Accused Products) Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for a chalk holder The overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' "Chalk Pencil" products, which are alleged to be "remarkably similar" and "substantially similar" to the patented design (Compl. ¶¶28-29). ¶¶28, 29, 44 Figs. 1-5
An elongated, multi-faceted body The accused products feature an elongated, multi-faceted body that mimics the shaft of a pencil, as depicted in the side-by-side photographic comparison provided in the complaint. This comparison includes the accused Toys "R" Us and Dollar General products. ¶28 Fig. 1
A conical tip section The accused products incorporate a conical tip section from which the chalk emerges, which the complaint alleges is visually similar to the patented design. ¶29 Fig. 1
A top section resembling an eraser and ridged ferrule The accused products feature a top section with an eraser-like element and a ridged, ferrule-like element, alleged to copy the distinctive top portion of the patented design. ¶28 Fig. 1
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central issue will be the scope of the patent's protection. A court will have to determine whether the claimed design covers any oversized pencil-shaped chalk holder or is limited to the specific proportions and ornamental details shown in the patent's figures. Defendants may argue that the general concept of a pencil-shaped object is functional or belongs in the public domain, and thus the scope of protection should be narrow.
    • Technical Questions: The primary factual question is one of visual similarity. Does an ordinary observer perceive the accused products to have the same overall visual appearance as the patented design? The complaint's side-by-side comparison alleges they do (Compl. ¶¶28-29), but a court will have to consider any differences in proportion, facet count, ferrule design, or other details that might distinguish the products in the eye of the consumer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, as the claim is defined by the drawings. However, a dispute may arise over the distinction between ornamental and functional features.

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a chalk holder"
  • Context and Importance: The core of the dispute rests on what aspects of the depicted pencil-shaped holder are purely "ornamental" and thus protected. Practitioners may focus on this distinction because any features deemed purely functional would be given less weight, or excluded entirely, from the infringement analysis. The plaintiff will likely argue that the entire aesthetic—the specific choice to make the holder look like a classic pencil on a large scale—is ornamental, while defendants may argue that elements like a cylindrical grip or a conical tip are dictated by function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design "as shown and described" (’167 Patent, CLAIM). This suggests the protected design is the overall visual impression created by the combination of all depicted features, not just isolated elements. Plaintiff may argue that the holistic appearance is what is protected.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly disclaims the subject matter shown in broken lines, stating it is "for illustrative purposes only and forms no part of the claimed design" (’167 Patent, DESCRIPTION). This refers to the chalk tip itself, which narrows the scope of the claim to the holder alone. A defendant could also argue that basic functional shapes, such as the elongated body for gripping, should be filtered out of the infringement analysis, limiting protection to only the most specific, non-functional details.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks to enjoin Defendants from "contributing to the infringement of, or actively inducing infringement of the '167 Patent" (Prayer ¶F). The factual allegations primarily focus on direct infringement by Ja-Ru (making/importing) and the retailers (selling), but these roles could support an indirect infringement theory as well (Compl. ¶¶24, 27, 44).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement has been and continues to be willful, based on "an objectively reckless disregard of the high likelihood of infringement" (Compl. ¶46). This allegation is supported by the claim that Defendants Toys "R" Us and Dollar General were former customers who sold Plaintiff's authentic product, which was marked with "Patent Pending" and later with the patent number, giving them notice of Plaintiff's rights (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 22, 25, 47).

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

  • A core issue will be one of design scope: To what extent are the features of the oversized pencil design ornamental versus functional? The case may turn on whether the patent protects the general idea of a large pencil-shaped chalk holder or is limited to the specific aesthetic details and proportions shown in the patent drawings, potentially allowing for non-infringing variations.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of visual comparison: Will a fact-finder, acting as an "ordinary observer," find the accused products to be substantially the same as the patented design? The side-by-side comparisons presented in the complaint (Compl. ¶¶28-29) will be central to this inquiry, which is the ultimate test for design patent infringement.
  • A critical question for damages will be willfulness: Does the alleged prior business relationship, where Defendants sold Plaintiff’s authentic, patent-marked product, prove that their subsequent sale of allegedly copying products was willful? A finding of willfulness could expose Defendants to a significant award of enhanced damages.