IGEL Beauty LLC v. Daily Nail Art Supply LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: iGel Beauty LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Daily Nail Art Supply, LLC (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fox Rothschild LLP
• Case Identification: iGel Beauty LLC v. Daily Nail Art Supply, LLC, 8:22-cv-02206, M.D. Fla., 09/23/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's principal place of business being located in the district and its alleged transaction of business and sales activities throughout Florida.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s UV/LED nail lamp infringes its design patent for a nail lamp.
• Technical Context: The case involves the ornamental design of electronic devices used for curing gel nail polish in the professional and consumer beauty market.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant on August 29, 2022, approximately one month prior to filing the complaint. The complaint contains apparent scrivener's errors, referencing a "D'737 Patent" in the heading for Count I and a "D'292 Patent" in the prayer for relief, while the substantive allegations of infringement throughout the complaint focus exclusively on U.S. Design Patent No. D914,291.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D914,291 - "NAIL LAMP"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D914,291, "NAIL LAMP," issued March 23, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that the inventor sought to create a "very unique look for the Nail Lamp" that was "unlike any competitive products" to serve as a source identifier (Compl. ¶9).
• The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific, non-functional, ornamental appearance of a nail lamp. The design is defined by the visual characteristics shown in the patent's drawings, including its overall housing shape with a curved top and trapezoidal side profile, a specific arrangement of a display screen and four circular buttons on the top surface, and ribbed textures on the side panels (D'291 Patent, Figs. 1-8). The complaint alleges the resulting design is "instantly recognizable" (Compl. ¶19).
• Technical Importance: The alleged importance of the design is commercial, intended to create a distinctive product appearance that would be associated with a single source (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a nail lamp, as shown and described" (D'291 Patent, col. 1:51-53).
• The claimed design is composed of the collective visual appearance of its ornamental features, including:
  • The overall configuration and shape of the lamp's housing.
  • The specific layout of the control panel, including a rectangular display flanked by four circular buttons.
  • The placement and appearance of ribbed side panels.
  • The shape of the arched opening into which a user places their hand.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "TT Power of Colors Hybrid Cordless Rechargeable UV/LED Lamp 90 W" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused product is a cordless, rechargeable UV/LED lamp used to cure gel nail polish (Compl. at p. 5). The complaint includes a screenshot from a commercial website depicting the accused product, its packaging, accessories, and a listed price of $135.00 (Compl. at p. 5). Plaintiff alleges the accused lamp features a design that is "confusingly similar" and "nearly identical" to the patented design, leading to potential customer confusion (Compl. ¶17, ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement test for a design patent is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product supposing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges the accused product's design is "substantially similar" to the claimed design (Compl. ¶28).

D'291 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The central infringement question will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. The court will need to determine if the overall visual impression of the accused product is substantially the same as the patented design. A potential issue is the effect of the "TT" branding prominently displayed on the top of the accused product (Compl. at p. 5), which is not a feature of the patented design and could be argued to differentiate the products.
• Technical Questions: The analysis may focus on the degree of similarity or difference in specific ornamental elements, such as the precise curvature of the housing, the proportions of the control panel, or any other subtle design variations not immediately apparent from the single, front-facing product image provided in the complaint. The complaint's visual evidence does not provide views of the side or rear of the accused product, which would be necessary to compare against features shown in Figures 2, 4, 6, and 7 of the '291 patent.

V. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was willful. This allegation is based on alleged pre-suit notice via a cease and desist letter sent on August 29, 2022 (Compl. ¶21), and on the assertion that Defendant knew or it was "so obvious" that its actions constituted infringement because its product is a "nearly identical copy" of Plaintiff's patented design (Compl. ¶31-33).

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

• A core issue will be one of visual comparison: when viewed as a whole, is the ornamental design of the accused "TT Power of Colors" lamp substantially the same as the design protected by the '291 patent in the eyes of an ordinary purchaser of such products? The outcome will depend on whether the shared characteristics create a nearly identical overall impression that outweighs any minor differences or the presence of Defendant's branding.
• A key evidentiary question will be the impact of unclaimed features: what weight, if any, will be given to the prominent "TT" logo on the accused product? Defendant may argue this branding is a significant visual difference that prevents an ordinary observer from being confused as to the source, while Plaintiff may argue it does not detract from the substantial similarity of the underlying product shape and appearance.