DCT

1:22-cv-02677

Guangzhou Caizhi E Commerce Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Guangzhou Caizhi E-Commerce Co., Ltd. v. Framar International, Inc., 1:22-cv-02677, N.D. Ill., 05/20/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants conduct substantial business in Illinois through interactive commercial online marketplaces, targeting consumers within the state and district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ hair clips infringe a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a hair clip.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the market for consumer hair accessories, where the ornamental and aesthetic appearance of a product is a significant factor in purchasing decisions.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-08-31 U.S. **D918,473** Patent Application Filing Date
2021-05-04 U.S. D918,473 Patent Issued
2022-05-20 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D918,473 - "Hair Clip"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. **D918473** (the “**’473** Patent”), "Hair Clip," issued May 4, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that consumers desire a hair clip that is both "comfortable and aesthetically appealing" (Compl. ¶4). Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional solutions.
  • The Patented Solution: The ’473 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a hair clip as depicted in its nine figures (’473 Patent, CLAIM; DESCRIPTION). The design features two opposing, curved rows of interlocking tines connected by a central hinge. The overall visual impression is characterized by the specific curvature of the tines, the shape and proportion of the handles used to open the clip, and its profile from various perspectives, including front, side, and top views (’473 Patent, Figs. 1-9).
  • Technical Importance: Plaintiff alleges that it established its products embodying the patented design as "first to market" and has an "established reputation and quality reviews" (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim for: "The ornamental design for a hair clip, as shown and described" (’473 Patent, CLAIM).
  • In a design patent, the "claim" is not composed of text-based elements but is defined by the visual representations in the drawings as a whole. The scope of protection is the overall ornamental appearance of the hair clip depicted in Figures 1-9 of the patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "Infringing Products," specifically hair clips offered for sale and sold by Defendant Framar and the Schedule A Defendants (Compl. ¶1, ¶8).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are hair clips sold to hair salons, stylists, and consumers within the United States, including through Defendant Framar's own website and its Amazon.com store (Compl. ¶8). The complaint alleges these products are sold online "in a way to resemble Plaintiff's genuine products" (Compl. ¶1). The complaint provides photographic evidence of what it identifies as "Framar's Representative Infringing Product" (Compl. ¶25, p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The central allegation is that the accused hair clips are "substantially the same" in appearance as the design claimed in the ’473 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived. The complaint presents its infringement theory through a detailed, side-by-side visual comparison chart.

The chart on page 7 of the complaint compares the patent's FIG. 1 (a front perspective view) with a photograph of the accused product to show similarity in overall form and the arrangement of the curved tines (Compl. ¶25, p. 7). A comparison of the patent's FIG. 4 (a rear elevation view) with the accused product on the same page highlights the alleged similarity of the exposed hinge mechanism and handle shapes (Compl. ¶25, p. 7). Further, the chart on page 8 compares the patent's top-down view from FIG. 7 with the accused product, alleging a nearly identical silhouette and tine layout from that perspective (Compl. ¶25, p. 8).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Overall Visual Impression: The primary legal and factual question will be whether an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would find the overall ornamental design of the accused Framar clip to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’473 Patent.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute will likely focus on the holistic comparison of the designs. The defense may point to any perceived minor differences in proportion, surface finish, or specific contours of the hinge or tines to argue that the designs are not substantially similar and would not confuse an ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As a design patent case, the "claim" is defined by the drawings and is not subject to claim construction in the same manner as a utility patent. The central analysis will instead be a comparison of the accused product's design to the patented design as a whole, from the perspective of an ordinary observer.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants infringe "directly and/or indirectly" and seeks to enjoin any "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting" infringement (Compl. ¶23; Prayer for Relief, ¶A(b)). The complaint does not plead specific facts detailing the basis for indirect infringement beyond the general acts of offering the products for sale.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "knowingly and willfully" infringed the ’473 Patent (Compl. ¶14, ¶15). It does not, however, allege specific facts supporting pre-suit knowledge, such as prior notice of the patent.

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual similarity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer familiar with hair clip designs, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Framar product substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’473 Patent, such that the observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented one?
  • A key evidentiary question will relate to damages and willfulness: Should infringement be found, what evidence will Plaintiff present to support its claim for Defendants' total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289? Furthermore, can Plaintiff establish the "egregious" conduct necessary to support its claim for willful infringement, particularly given the absence of explicit allegations of pre-suit notice?