DCT

1:25-cv-24887

Kitsch LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Corps

Log In

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-24887, S.D. Fla., 10/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendants are foreign individuals or entities based in China and/or Vietnam. The complaint alleges personal jurisdiction exists because Defendants operate interactive commercial Amazon storefronts that target and sell products to consumers in the United States, including Florida.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff, as exclusive licensee, alleges that a network of foreign e-commerce sellers operating on Amazon infringes a U.S. design patent for a hair towel.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer goods sector, specifically concerning the ornamental design of hair care accessories like absorbent hair towels.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies Plaintiff as the exclusive licensee with the right to sue under the patent-in-suit. The action is brought against a large, unidentified group of foreign entities, a common procedural posture in cases targeting counterfeit or infringing goods sold on online marketplaces.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-11-05 U.S. Patent No. D939,812 Application Filing Date
2022-01-04 U.S. Patent No. D939,812 Issue Date
2025-10-23 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D939,812 - "HAIR TOWEL"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D939,812, "HAIR TOWEL," issued January 4, 2022 (the "D'812 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the novel, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, rather than a technical problem. The D'812 Patent seeks to protect a specific visual design for a hair towel. (D'812 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The patented design is defined by the visual characteristics shown in the patent's figures. When laid flat, the towel has a distinctive, asymmetrical shape that is wide at one end and tapers toward the other, with a gathered or elasticized opening (D'812 Patent, FIG. 6). When worn, the design creates a specific turban-like appearance with a twisted front and a gathered portion covering the hair. (D'812 Patent, FIGS. 1-5).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's own hair towels embodying the patented design are "well-established on Amazon and enjoy quality customer reviews and high ratings," suggesting the design may have achieved market recognition. (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a hair towel, as shown and described." (D'812 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings, which depict the following key ornamental features:
    • A tapered, hood-like shape when viewed unfolded.
    • A gathered or elasticized edge along the opening.
    • A twisted, turban-style appearance when worn on the head.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are "Hair Towels" sold by the Defendants through various Amazon storefronts. (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendants sell infringing hair towels under different brand names and color schemes but with "identical shapes and features" and the same "overall design and appearance" as the patented design. (Compl. ¶9). These products are allegedly marketed to U.S. consumers through Amazon storefronts using similar product images and descriptions. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused products meet this standard. (Compl. ¶22). The infringement theory rests on the allegation that the accused "Infringing Products" are "substantially the same as the patented design." (Compl. ¶22). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. While the complaint references an "Exhibit 4" to show this similarity, the exhibit itself was not attached to the publicly filed document, precluding a direct visual comparison. (Compl. ¶22).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central legal question will be the application of the "ordinary observer" test. The dispute will hinge on whether the overall visual appearance of the accused towels is substantially similar to the ornamental design claimed in the D'812 Patent, considering the design as a whole.
    • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused hair towels, when viewed both unfolded and as worn, possess the specific combination of ornamental features shown in the D'812 Patent's figures, including the tapered shape and the twisted, turban-like wrap.

V. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to products that "indirectly" infringe and includes "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" in its prayer for relief. (Compl. ¶13; Prayer for Relief ¶1(b)). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful. (Compl. ¶19). This allegation appears to be based on the assertion that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" sell products that infringe the patent and engage in tactics to conceal their identities, such as operating numerous storefronts with similar product offerings. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 14, 18).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, is the ornamental design of the accused hair towels substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'812 Patent, such that the observer would be deceived?
  • A second key question will be evidentiary linkage: Can the Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to prove that the numerous, and as-yet unidentified, foreign entities operating disparate Amazon storefronts are in fact selling products that infringe the patented design, and can these entities be properly held accountable by the court?