DCT

2:21-cv-01979

CAVERN Club LLC doing Business As LIVERPOOL Jeans LIVERPOOL Division Of CAVERN Club v. Haggar Clothing Co

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Cavern Club, LLC v. Haggar Clothing Co., 2:21-cv-01979, D. Nev., 10/27/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants maintaining regular and established places of business in the District of Nevada, and committing alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Icon Fit" line of women's pants infringes a design patent covering the ornamental design of pull-on pants.
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the specific aesthetic design of apparel in the competitive market for "jeggings," which combine the appearance of traditional denim jeans with the comfort of pull-on leggings.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The patent was issued less than three months prior to the filing of the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-07-17 Defendant's domain shoptribalfashion.com created
2019-03-18 '432 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2021-08-03 '432 Patent Issue Date
2021-10-02 Alleged import of accused products by Defendant
2021-10-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D926,432 - "Pants"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D926,432, "Pants", issued August 3, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests a desire to create an "innovative design for pull on lower body garments" in an effort to design "apparel that is revolutionary" (Compl. ¶¶1, 13). This points to the goal of creating a novel and distinct aesthetic in the women's pull-on pants category.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific, non-functional, ornamental appearance of a pair of pants, primarily focused on the "top block" area. The protected design, depicted in the patent’s figures, consists of the visual characteristics of the waistband, belt loops, front and rear pocket shapes, and the associated stitching patterns that give the garment the appearance of traditional five-pocket jeans ('432 Patent, Figs. 2-3, Description; Compl. ¶17). The patent explicitly disclaims the overall shape of the pant legs as part of the design, indicating the core of the invention is the specific arrangement of features at the waist and hip area ('432 Patent, Description).
  • Technical Importance: This design approach seeks to merge the comfort and ease of a pull-on garment with the established, commercially popular aesthetic of classic denim jeans, a significant product category in the apparel industry (Compl. ¶¶13, 25, Ex. B).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for pants, as shown and described" (’432 Patent, Claim).
  • As a design patent, the claim's scope is defined by the drawings. The essential visual elements of the claimed design include the combination of:
    • The shape, size, and placement of the front pockets and coin pocket.
    • The shape, size, and placement of the rear patch pockets.
    • The configuration of the waistband, including the number and placement of belt loops.
    • The specific pattern of stitching (shown in dotted lines) on the pockets, waistband, and seams, which is explicitly claimed as part of the design.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Defendants' "Icon Fit" line of pull-on pants, including products marketed as "Tribal's Audry Mid-Rise Icon Fit" and "Icon Fit Pull On Jeans" (Compl. ¶¶10, 20, p.6).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as "mid rise pull-on super soft stretchy jeggings with five pockets, real belt loops, and a fake front fly" (Compl. p.10). Plaintiff alleges that these products are sold through Defendants' direct-to-consumer website and imported for distribution within the United States (Compl. ¶¶23, 25, 26). The complaint alleges that Defendants began selling the accused products in competition with Plaintiff's commercially successful "Gia Glider" line (Compl. ¶20). The complaint includes a screenshot from the website shoptribalfashion.com showing the "Icon Fit Pull On Jeans" for sale (Compl. p.10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

  • The infringement test for a design patent is whether an ordinary observer would find the design of the accused product to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the patent. The complaint supports this allegation with side-by-side visual comparisons.
Key Design Feature (from Claim 1 of the '432 Patent) Alleged Infringing Functionality (from Accused "Icon Fit" Pant) Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design for the front of the pants, including the shape and stitching of the front pockets and waistband. The complaint provides a front-view photograph of the accused "Audry Mid-Rise Icon Fit" pant, alleging its design is "the same or substantially the same" as the design shown in Figure 2 of the patent. ¶21, p.6 '432 Patent, Fig. 2
The overall ornamental design for the rear of the pants, including the shape, placement, and stitching of the two rear pockets. A rear-view photograph of the accused pant is presented to show its alleged substantial similarity to the design in Figure 3 of the patent, highlighting the appearance of the back pockets. ¶21, p.7 '432 Patent, Fig. 3
The ornamental design of the side profile, focusing on the top block and seam details. A side-view photograph of the accused pant is included to allege similarity to the patented design's silhouette and construction at the hip and waist. ¶21, p.8 '432 Patent, Fig. 4
The ornamental design of the top waistband area, including the closure appearance and belt loops. A close-up photograph of the waistband of the accused product is shown to allege similarity to the top-down view of the patented design. ¶21, p.9 '432 Patent, Fig. 6

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The '432 patent's description states that broken lines, which depict the pant legs, "illustrate environment and form no part of the claimed design" ('432 Patent, Description). This may focus the infringement analysis narrowly on the "top block" of the pants—the waistband, fly area, and pockets. The question will be whether the overall ornamental appearance of this specific area on the accused product is substantially the same as what is claimed.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on a detailed visual comparison. A key question for the court will be whether any subtle differences in the curvature of the pocket openings, the precise pattern of the decorative stitching on the rear pockets, or the proportions of the waistband between the patented design and the accused product are sufficient to create a different overall visual impression for an ordinary observer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for pants, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: In a design patent case, the entire dispute is centered on the scope of this "term," which is defined by the patent's drawings. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's description creates a specific boundary between the claimed design and the unclaimed environment, which will be critical for the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that the claim protects the overall visual impression created by the combination of elements (five-pocket styling, belt loops, specific pocket shapes) on a pull-on garment. Under this view, minor variations that do not alter the gestalt appearance would not avoid infringement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s description explicitly states that the "dotted lines...designate stitching which is part of the claimed design" and that the "broken lines [depicting the pant legs]...form no part of the claimed design" ('432 Patent, Description). A party could argue that the claim is strictly limited to the exact visual features shown in solid and dotted lines, primarily the "top block" of the pants. Any deviation in the claimed stitching pattern or pocket shape could be argued to place an accused design outside the scope of the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint makes a boilerplate allegation of induced infringement, stating that Defendants cause, instruct, or encourage others to infringe by making and selling the accused products (Compl. ¶32). The complaint does not plead specific facts, such as references to instructional materials, to support this allegation beyond the act of sale itself.

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged on the basis that "Tribal has had notice of the '432 Patent at least as early as the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶33). This allegation appears to be based on post-suit knowledge, as no facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge of the patent are provided.

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

  • A core issue will be one of design scope: given that the '432 patent disclaims the shape of the pant legs as mere environment, can Plaintiff prove that the overall ornamental appearance of the more limited "top block" (waistband, pockets, and stitching) of the accused pants is substantially the same as the claimed design in the view of an ordinary observer?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of visual distinction: the case will likely devolve into a close comparison of the designs. The central question for the fact-finder will be whether the specific visual details of the accused "Icon Fit" pants create a recognizably different overall aesthetic impression from the '432 patent's drawings, or if the two designs are similar enough to cause market confusion.