DCT

1:23-cv-04409

Walker v. Monica Rich Kosann

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-04409, S.D.N.Y., 06/03/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants conduct business and have sold allegedly infringing products via internet commerce within the Southern District of New York.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ jewelry, stencils, and other products featuring a "genie bottle" design infringe a U.S. design patent for a "Fragrant Oil Burning Lamp."
  • Technical Context: The dispute concerns the scope of ornamental design protection for consumer goods, specifically products embodying a "genie bottle" aesthetic within the jewelry and home goods markets.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff provided pre-suit notice of infringement to multiple Defendants through emails and cease and desist letters between December 2021 and January 2023, which allegedly did not halt the accused activities.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-12-15 Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D593,191
2009-05-26 U.S. Design Patent No. D593,191 Issues
2017-01-01 Approximate Start of Alleged Infringing Occurrence
2021-12-28 Plaintiff allegedly emails a Defendant regarding infringement
2022-06-30 Plaintiff allegedly emails Fisher-Price a Cease and Desist letter
2023-01-23 Plaintiff allegedly sends a Cease and Desist letter to a Defendant
2023-01-26 Plaintiff allegedly sends a Cease and Desist letter to Woodrow Jewelers
2023-01-29 Plaintiff allegedly sends a Cease and Desist letter to Provenance Gems
2023-06-03 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D593,191 - "Fragrant Oil Burning Lamp"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’191 Patent does not articulate a technical problem. Its purpose is to protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (D593,191 Patent, Claim). The complaint suggests the design is for "unique aroma fragrant products." (Compl. ¶6).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a lamp resembling a "genie bottle." ('191 Patent, Claim). The design, as shown in the patent's figures, features a bulbous, fluted base; a long, slender neck with a spiral element wrapped around it; and a decorative, finial-like stopper. ('191 Patent, FIGS. 1-8). An exploded view clarifies that the design comprises a removable top portion, a base, and an internal "fragrant oil reservoir tube." ('191 Patent, FIG. 1, Description).
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "genie bottle structure" is a "common feature" of the Plaintiff's product line. (Compl. ¶6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim, which is defined by the drawings rather than a series of text-based limitations.
  • The sole claim of the ’191 Patent is for "The ornamental design for a fragrant oil burning lamp, as shown and described." ('191 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses a range of products, collectively referred to as "Infringing Products," that are marketed with "Genie Bottle" or "Jeannie Bottle" branding. (Compl. ¶8). Specific accused products include the "Monica Rich Kosann 'WISH' GENIE BOTTLE NECKLICE," "Provenance GEMS... 'Genie In the Bottle necklets and earrings'," the "Fisher-Price Nickelodeon Shimmer & Shine, Wish and Wear Genie Necklace," and an "I Dream of Jeannie Bottle Reusable Sturdy Stencil." (Compl. ¶¶ 10e, 10G, 10k, 10L).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentalities are primarily jewelry items (necklaces, charms, earrings) and a craft stencil that allegedly incorporate the patented design. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10d-10m). The complaint asserts that these products are sold through online platforms and in retail markets, placing them in "direct competition with Andrew Walker." (Compl. ¶8).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart. The infringement theory for a design patent rests on the "ordinary observer" test, which assesses whether an ordinary purchaser, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

The complaint's narrative theory alleges that the various accused "genie bottle" products are visually substantially the same as the ornamental design claimed in the ’191 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10). The infringement claim is based on the allegation that the overall visual impression of products like the "WISH' GENIE BOTTLE NECKLICE" is confusingly similar to the drawings in the ’191 Patent. (Compl. ¶10G).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The case raises the question of whether a design patent for a specific "article of manufacture," in this case a "fragrant oil burning lamp," can be infringed by products that are different articles, such as jewelry or stencils. The analysis may turn on whether the claimed design is considered inseparable from the lamp or is surface ornamentation that can be applied to and infringed by other types of products.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual dispute will be the visual comparison under the "ordinary observer" test. The court will need to compare the overall appearance of each accused product with the patented design, considering similarities and differences in shape, configuration, and surface ornamentation to determine if a purchaser would be deceived.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, claim construction focuses on the visual meaning of the drawings rather than textual terms. However, the language of the claim's title can be pivotal.

"fragrant oil burning lamp"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase from the patent's title and claim defines the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied. ('191 Patent, Title; Claim). The construction of this phrase is critical to the scope of protection. A narrow reading may limit infringement to other lamps, while a broader reading could allow the design to cover any product with a similar appearance. Practitioners may focus on this term because the applicability of a design patent to different articles of manufacture is a frequently litigated issue.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term "lamp" is merely illustrative and that the patent's core protection is for the "genie bottle" shape itself, which is purely ornamental and separable from the function of a lamp. The patent's figures depict a distinct ornamental shape that could be viewed as having aesthetic value independent of the article to which it is attached. ('191 Patent, FIGS. 1-8).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the design is inextricably linked to the specified article. The claim explicitly recites a design "for a fragrant oil burning lamp." ('191 Patent, Claim). The specification's description and exploded view of a "fragrant oil reservoir tube" could be used as evidence that the design is defined by and integrated with the functional aspects of a lamp, not merely as surface ornamentation. ('191 Patent, FIG. 1, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement, stating that a Defendant "encourage[s] it's vendor to sell, distribute, and market the 'Genie Bottle Necklace.'" (Compl. ¶10c). The pleading also alleges that Defendants have "induced others to infringe and/or contributed to the infringement of the Patent" through their general manufacturing, use, and sale activities. (Compl. ¶10).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’191 Patent. The complaint pleads that Plaintiff provided multiple defendants with actual notice of infringement via cease and desist letters and emails, citing communications on dates including June 30, 2022, and January 29, 2023. (Compl. ¶¶ 10i, 10n). The allegation of willfulness is grounded in the claim that Defendants continued their infringing activities after receiving these notices. (Compl. ¶11).

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

  • A core issue will be one of article of manufacture: Can the ornamental design claimed "for a fragrant oil burning lamp" be legally infringed by the sale of different articles, such as jewelry charms, earrings, and stencils, or is the patent's protective scope limited to lamps?
  • A central evidentiary question will be the application of the ordinary observer test: Does a side-by-side comparison reveal the accused products to be "substantially the same" in overall visual appearance as the patented design, to the degree that it would deceive an ordinary purchaser?
  • A key question regarding damages and willfulness will be one of intent: Does the evidence of pre-suit communications establish the specific intent required for induced infringement and the deliberate or reckless conduct necessary to support a finding of willful infringement?