Kitsch LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Corps

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Kitsch LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Corporations Identified on Schedule “A” (China and Vietnam)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Siegfried Rivera, PA.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-23312, S.D. Fla., 07/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants being foreign entities who allegedly target and conduct business with consumers in Florida through interactive commercial websites, specifically Amazon storefronts.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff, an exclusive licensee, alleges that Hair Towels sold by Defendants on various Amazon storefronts infringe its U.S. design patent.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer personal care products sector, involving the specific ornamental appearance of a hair towel accessory.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff states it is the exclusive licensee with the right to sue under the patent-in-suit. The complaint is structured as an action against a group of allegedly interrelated foreign entities operating numerous online storefronts, a common procedural posture for enforcement against diffuse online sellers.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D939,812, "Hair Towel", issued January 4, 2022. (’812 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '812 Patent does not articulate a technical problem in a background section. Its purpose is to protect a novel, non-obvious, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, distinguishing it aesthetically from other products.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hair towel. The protected design, defined by the solid lines in the drawings, consists of the visual appearance of the towel both when worn and when laid flat. Key features include the twisted, turban-like shape when secured on a user's head (as shown in FIG. 1-5) and the particular tapered, pouch-like shape with a gathered opening when unworn (as shown in FIG. 6-7). The patent explicitly disclaims the human figure and a small tab feature, indicating they are not part of the protected design (’812 Patent, DESCRIPTION).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct visual identity for a hair towel in the consumer marketplace, allowing the product to be recognized by its appearance alone.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a hair towel, as shown and described." (’812 Patent, Claim).
• The scope of this claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's seven figures, limited to the features depicted in solid lines.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "Hair Towels" sold by Defendants through various Amazon storefronts (Compl. ¶2). The complaint collectively refers to these as the "Infringing Products" (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are microfiber hair towels (Compl. ¶9). The core accused feature is not their function but their ornamental design. The complaint alleges that the Defendants operate multiple storefronts selling products with "identical shapes and features" and use "similar product images" to market them, allegedly trading on the goodwill of the Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The infringement analysis for a design patent turns on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks 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 presents its allegations through a side-by-side visual comparison. The image on page 7 of the complaint shows a model wearing the accused product, presenting a view similar to the perspective in the patent's FIG. 1 (Compl. ¶22, p. 7). A second image on the same page shows the accused product unworn, highlighting its shape and microfiber texture (Compl. ¶22, p. 7).

’812 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The central legal and factual question is whether the overall visual impression of the accused towels is "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the '812 Patent from the perspective of an ordinary observer.
  • Technical Questions: The analysis will depend on a visual comparison of the products. A potential issue is whether any differences in proportion, texture, or specific contours between the accused towels and the patent drawings are significant enough to alter the overall ornamental appearance, or if they are minor variations that do not prevent a finding of infringement. The role of prior art, though not raised in the complaint, may become relevant in determining the scope of the patented design and the significance of any such differences.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The single claim of the '812 Patent is for the design "as shown and described." In design patent litigation, claim construction is typically not a central issue, as the "claim" is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. The analysis is visual rather than a construction of disputed textual terms. Therefore, this section is not applicable.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests an injunction against "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing upon the Patent" (Compl. p. 8, ¶1(b)). The factual allegations focus on the Defendants' own acts of offering for sale, selling, and importing the accused products (Compl. ¶22).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the infringement is willful (Compl. ¶19). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants are an "interrelated group of infringers working in active concert to willfully" sell the accused products and have "knowingly and willfully" done so without authorization (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 18).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court’s determination of the following questions:

1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendants' accused hair towels substantially the same as the design claimed in the '812 Patent, considering the design as a whole and in light of the relevant prior art?

2. A key procedural question will be one of entity identification: Can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to establish that the various foreign sellers, identified only in a schedule, are an "interrelated group" or otherwise sufficiently linked to be treated as a collective entity for purposes of liability and enforcement?

3. An evidentiary question regarding willfulness: Do the facts alleged—namely, the operation of multiple Amazon storefronts with similar products and images—provide sufficient grounds to support a finding of willful infringement, which would require showing that the Defendants acted with egregious disregard for the Plaintiff's patent rights?