DCT
1:25-cv-03716
PG Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Pickuls Gizmo Ltd. (United Kingdom)
- Defendant: dream_high (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Flener IP Law, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-03716, N.D. Ill., 04/24/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on the Defendant's operation of a commercial, interactive e-commerce store on DHgate.com that directly targets and sells products to consumers in Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Hairdresser's comb" product infringes a U.S. design patent covering the ornamental design for a guide for hair clippers.
- Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of hair styling tools, specifically guides intended to be used with hair clippers for home or professional use.
- Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is an Amended Complaint. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-10-29 | U.S. Patent No. D982,233 Priority Date (Hague Filing) |
| 2023-03-28 | U.S. Patent No. D982233 Issue Date |
| 2025-04-24 | Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D982,233 - "GUIDE FOR HAIR CLIPPERS"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests a market demand from "novice barbers and people at home" seeking to "recreate their professional haircuts at home" (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8). This indicates a need for tools that facilitate easier and more consistent hair blending and cutting for non-professionals.
- The Patented Solution: The patent does not claim a functional method but protects the specific ornamental appearance of a "guide for hair clippers" (D'233 Patent, (57) Claim). The patented design, depicted across seven figures, consists of a handle with a distinct textured pattern connected to a comb-like head with a specific arrangement of tines and a toothed edge (D'233 Patent, Figs. 1.1-1.7). The complaint reproduces several of these figures to illustrate the patented design (Compl. p. 3).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this particular design is associated with "quality and innovation" and that its "durable, easy-to-use" nature has become a signature of the Plaintiff's "BLEND FREND" brand (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a guide for hair clippers, as shown and described" (D'233 Patent, (57) Claim).
- The scope of the claim is defined by the visual representations in the patent's drawings. Key ornamental features include:
- The overall configuration and proportions of the handle and comb head.
- A flared handle featuring a surface ornamentation of a repeating, indented rectangular grid pattern.
- A comb head with a specific number and shape of tines.
- The profile view, showing the distinct angle and transition between the handle and the head.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentality is a "Hairdresser's comb" offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by the Defendant, dream_high, through an online store on the DHgate.com platform (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11, p. 5).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused product is a "knockoff" of Plaintiff's "BLEND FREND Products" and is an "imitation version" of Plaintiff's signature product (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 19). It is marketed to consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through e-commerce channels (Compl. ¶ 10). The complaint alleges that Defendant's sales are part of a broader pattern of online infringement that causes consumer confusion and harms Plaintiff's brand goodwill (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that in the eye of an ordinary observer, the accused product's design is "substantially the same, if not identical" to the patented design, such that it would deceive an observer into purchasing the infringing product (Compl. ¶ 27). The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of the patented design and the accused product (Compl. p. 5).
D'233 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the design "as shown") | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental configuration of a handle transitioning to a comb-like guide head. | The accused product is alleged to have an overall design and appearance that is "substantially the same" to the patented design. | ¶27 | Fig. 1.3 |
| The flared handle with a textured surface pattern composed of an indented rectangular grid. | The accused product features a similarly flared handle with what an image in the complaint calls a "Non-slip handle design." | p. 5 | Fig. 1.4 |
| The comb head with multiple parallel tines and a toothed edge. | The accused product's comb head incorporates visually similar features, which are highlighted with callouts for "Particulars" and a "Curved design." | p. 5 | Fig. 1.4 |
| The specific profile view showing the contours and angle between the handle and the head. | The accused product's profile view, as depicted in the complaint's visual evidence, appears to mimic that of the patented design. | p. 5 | Fig. 1.1 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question in design patent cases is the distinction between ornamental and functional features. A court may need to determine whether aspects of the design, such as the general shape of a comb or a textured handle, are dictated by function. If so, these functional elements would be excluded from the scope of the patent's protection, and the infringement analysis would focus only on the remaining, purely ornamental aspects.
- Technical Questions: The infringement test rests on the perception of an "ordinary observer." The complaint provides a side-by-side comparison that appears to show a high degree of visual similarity (Compl. p. 5). The key factual question for a jury will be whether the visual differences between the patented design and the accused product are significant enough to prevent an ordinary observer from being deceived, or whether the similarities in overall appearance are overwhelming.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, formal construction of specific claim terms is rare because the single claim refers to the design "as shown" in the drawings. The "construction" is typically a description of the ornamental features of the design as depicted.
- The Term: "The ornamental design... as shown and described"
- Context and Importance: The entire case hinges on the visual impression created by the patented design. The court's primary task will not be to define words, but to articulate the protectable ornamental features of the design shown in the D'233 patent's figures. Practitioners may focus on articulating which specific visual elements—such as the handle's grid pattern, the specific curvature of the neck, or the proportions of the tines—are ornamental and non-functional, as these will form the basis of the infringement comparison.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the protectable design is the overall visual impression and configuration of the tool, not merely a collection of individual features. The perspective views (e.g., Fig. 1.3, Fig. 1.6) could be cited to support an argument about the holistic appearance.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that the title, "GUIDE FOR HAIR CLIPPERS," limits the design to that specific article of manufacture (D'233 Patent, (54)). More significantly, a defendant could argue that many features are functional (e.g., tines for combing, a handle for gripping) and that protection should be limited to only the purely non-functional surface ornamentation, such as the specific rectangular grid pattern on the handle.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief includes a request to enjoin those "aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" (Prayer for Relief ¶ A.ii). However, the body of the complaint focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not plead specific facts to support the elements of induced or contributory infringement against the named defendant (Compl. ¶ 25).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was "knowing[] and willful[]" (Compl. ¶ 17). This allegation is based on the assertion that Defendant had "full knowledge of Plaintiff's ownership of the BLEND FREND Design" and that it "uses the same picture to advertise its infringing products that Plaintiff uses on its website and social media" (Compl. ¶ 12).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of infringement under the "ordinary observer" test: will a fact-finder, comparing the patented design with the accused product side-by-side, find them substantially the same such that an ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing the accused product? The visual evidence presented in the complaint suggests a high degree of similarity, making this a central factual dispute.
- A key legal question will be the scope of protection after filtering for functionality: to what extent are the features of the patented design ornamental versus dictated by the function of a hair clipper guide? The outcome of this analysis by the court will define the legally protectable "design" that is compared to the accused product for infringement.