Cozy Comfort Co LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cozy Comfort Co LLC (Arizona)
  • Defendant: The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
• Case Identification: Cozy Comfort Co LLC v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 1:23-cv-16563, N.D. Ill., 12/06/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendants have purportedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district, offered to ship products to Illinois addresses, and conducted substantial business with consumers in the district through interactive e-commerce stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous e-commerce store operators are selling "counterfeit" wearable blankets that infringe its U.S. design patent covering an enlarged over-garment.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the ornamental design of wearable blankets, a consumer product category that combines features of a blanket and a hooded sweatshirt.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is structured as an action against a group of largely unidentified e-commerce operators, listed on a sealed Schedule A, who are alleged to be part of a widespread counterfeiting operation based primarily in foreign jurisdictions. This procedural posture is common in online anti-counterfeiting enforcement actions.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-09-13	D'788 Patent Priority Date (Application Filed)
2017-12-01	Plaintiff launched its COMFY Hoodie product
2019-09-17	D'788 Patent Issued
2023-12-06	Complaint Filed

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D859,788, "Enlarged Over-Garment with an Elevated Marsupial Pocket," issued September 17, 2019.
• The Invention Explained: As a design patent, the D'788 Patent protects the unique, non-functional, ornamental appearance of a garment rather than its utilitarian features.
  • Problem Addressed: The complaint frames the associated commercial product, the "COMFY Hoodie," as a "whole-body blanket" and "the world's first of its kind wearable blanket," designed to provide warmth and comfort (Compl. ¶15).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for the garment as depicted in the patent's figures (’788 Patent, Claim). The visual design is characterized by its oversized proportions, a large hood, wide sleeves, and a prominent, centrally-located "elevated marsupial pocket" on the front torso (’788 Patent, Figs. 1, 4, 10). The features shown in broken lines, such as the human form, are for illustrative purposes only and do not form part of the claimed design (’788 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this design was "game-changing" and "launched a world-wide craze," establishing a new and popular category of consumer product (Compl. ¶15, ¶19).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for an enlarged over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket, as shown and described." (’788 Patent, Claim).
  • The essential elements of the claim are the visual characteristics of the garment as a whole, including:
    • The overall shape, cut, and oversized proportions of the garment.
    • The specific size, shape, and placement of the front marsupial pocket.
    • The appearance and proportions of the hood.
    • The relationship between these elements, which creates a distinct visual impression.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "Counterfeit Products" sold by Defendants through various "Defendant Internet Stores" on platforms such as Amazon, eBay, and Walmart, as well as standalone e-commerce sites (Compl. ¶3).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are wearable blankets alleged to be "unauthorized and unlicensed" copies of Plaintiff's "COMFY Hoodie" (Compl. ¶1). The complaint alleges that Defendants' online stores are designed to appear as legitimate retailers to deceive consumers and trade on the goodwill of Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶26, ¶30). The complaint includes an image and diagram of an "Exemplary Counterfeit Product," depicting a gray, hooded, oversized garment with a large front pocket (Compl. p. 13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a formal claim chart. Instead, it asserts infringement based on a direct visual comparison between the patented design and the accused products. The legal test for design patent infringement is 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 alleges that Defendants have been "making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing" products that "infringe directly and/or indirectly the COMFY Patent" (Compl. ¶48). To support this, the complaint provides a visual comparison, juxtaposing figures from the D'788 Patent with an image and a diagram of an accused product (Compl. ¶49, pp. 12-13). The diagram of an "Exemplary Counterfeit Product" includes specific length, hem, and sleeve dimensions, which Plaintiff may use to argue that the accused products are substantially identical in proportion and appearance to the patented design (Compl. p. 13). The core of the infringement allegation is that the accused products create the same overall visual impression as the patented design, making them confusingly similar to an ordinary purchaser.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, formal claim construction is less common than in utility patent cases, as the claim's scope is defined by the drawings. However, the interpretation of the claim's scope remains a central issue.

• The Term: "The ornamental design for an enlarged over-garment with an elevated marsupial pocket, as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The construction of this phrase determines the scope of protection. The dispute will center on how closely an accused product must resemble the specific drawings in the D'788 patent to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this issue because the outcome of the "ordinary observer" test depends entirely on what visual features are considered part of the protected design and the level of detail required for a finding of substantial similarity.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim protects the overall visual impression of a very oversized, hooded garment with a large, high-set front pocket, and that minor variations in proportions or seam details are irrelevant. This view is supported by the patent's title, "Enlarged Over-Garment with an Elevated Marsupial Pocket," which emphasizes the general concept rather than minute details (’788 Patent, Title).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim is limited to the exact proportions and contours depicted in the solid lines of the patent figures. The patent's explicit disclaimer that broken lines are not part of the design implies that all features shown in solid lines—including specific curvatures of the hem and precise pocket dimensions relative to the garment's body—are limitations of the claim (’788 Patent, Description). The dimensional diagram of the accused product in the complaint could be used to argue for or against such a narrow comparison (Compl. p. 13).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶48) and references "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing" in its prayer for relief (Compl. p. 17, ¶1.e). However, the factual allegations primarily describe direct infringement by the Defendants (e.g., making, using, selling) and do not plead specific facts to support a standalone claim for either induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶50). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendants acted "knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard or willful blindness to Plaintiff's rights" as part of a deliberate counterfeiting scheme designed to trade on Plaintiff's reputation (Compl. ¶46). The alleged use of tactics to conceal identities and operate a "massive network of Defendant Internet Stores" is presented as evidence of bad faith (Compl. ¶33, ¶46).

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

Beyond the significant procedural challenge of serving and obtaining jurisdiction over the numerous, often foreign-based, online sellers, the substantive patent dispute will likely revolve around two key questions:

1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused wearable blankets substantially the same as the specific design claimed in the D'788 patent? The outcome will depend on whether the trier of fact focuses on the general impression of an oversized garment or on minor differences in proportion and detail between the accused products and the patent drawings.

2. A second key question will be one of intent and remedy: If infringement is found, do the facts alleged by Plaintiff—namely, that Defendants operate a coordinated and deceptive counterfeiting enterprise—suffice to prove willful infringement? A finding of willfulness could expose Defendants to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 or an award of their total profits under § 289, which is specifically available for design patent infringement.