DCT

1:26-cv-11758

Colorful Days Co v. Ningboyirilaiwujinzhipinyouxiangongsi

Key Events

Complaint

complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Colorful Days Co. (Florida)
- Defendant: Ningboyirilaiwujinzhipinyouxiangongsi d/b/a Get-Easily (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: BISHOP & DIEHL, LTD.
Case Identification: 1:26-cv-11758, N.D. Ill., 09/24/2026
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's business activities targeting consumers in the United States and Illinois through an interactive e-commerce store, including offering shipping to Illinois and accepting U.S. currency. The complaint also asserts jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) based on Defendant's status as a foreign entity with contacts in the United States as a whole.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s bird cage covers, sold through online marketplaces, infringe a U.S. design patent for an ornamental bird cage cover.
Technical Context: The dispute is in the consumer pet accessories market and concerns the ornamental, or aesthetic, design of a product rather than its utilitarian function.
Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation or administrative proceedings. It does, however, allege that Defendant is a foreign entity of unknown incorporation that operates under seller aliases and provides an address that is allegedly inaccurate, which may pose challenges for service, jurisdiction, and enforcement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-03-25	D'146 Patent Priority Date
2024-09-24	D'146 Patent Issue Date
2026-09-24	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,044,146 - "BIRD CAGE COVER"

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Design Patent No. D1,044,146 (the “D’146 Patent”), issued September 24, 2024.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: Design patents protect aesthetics rather than function. The D’146 Patent is directed toward providing a new, original, and ornamental design for a bird cage cover D’146 Patent, abstract
The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific visual appearance of a bird cage cover as depicted in its figures D’146 Patent, CLAIM The design consists of a generally rectangular cover with squared edges, shown with a symbolic break in the middle, which indicates that the vertical length of the cover is not part of the claimed design D’146 Patent, DESCRIPTION D’146 Patent, FIG. 1 The portions of the drawings shown in broken lines, such as the bird cage and stand, depict the environment and are not part of the claimed design D’146 Patent, FIG. 1
Technical Importance: The design provides a distinct aesthetic in the market for pet accessories, which is a basis for intellectual property protection Compl. ¶¶21-22

Key Claims at a Glance

Design patents typically have a single claim. The asserted claim is for "The ornamental design for a bird cage cover, as shown and described" D’146 Patent, CLAIM
The scope of this claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent's drawings. Key visual elements include:
- An overall rectangular, prism-like shape.
- Squared edges and corners.
- A specific top surface configuration, as depicted in the plan view of Figure 6.
- A symbolic break indicating the design applies to covers of indeterminate length.
There are no dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are multiple variations of a "bird cage cover" sold by Defendant under the seller name "Get-Easily" on the Amazon.com marketplace Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶14 The complaint identifies specific products by Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs), including B0D7B9F7FN and B0D7B1VNXV Compl. ¶15

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are fabric covers designed to fit over bird cages and are sold in various dimensions, such as an "18"x18"x61" cover" and a "24"x24"x68" cover" Compl. ¶18 The complaint alleges that these variations are substantially identical in all material ornamental aspects Compl. ¶18
The complaint characterizes Defendant as a "bazaar-style online seller" whose storefront primarily lists automotive repair products, suggesting the accused bird cage covers are a tangential part of Defendant's business Compl. ¶¶41-42 This allegation may be used to argue that an injunction would not substantially disrupt Defendant's overall business Compl. ¶42

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined by 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 presents its infringement theory using side-by-side visual comparisons. The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison of the patent's perspective view and the accused product to show their overall similarity Compl. p. 7

D'146 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Feature (from D'146 Patent Figures)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation
The overall ornamental visual impression created by the design as a whole.	The complaint alleges the accused products are "substantially the same as the claimed design such that an ordinary observer... would be deceived into believing that the accused design is the patented design" Compl. ¶25	¶25
An overall rectangular shape.	The accused product is alleged to share an "overall rectangular shape" with the patented design. A visual provided in the complaint shows the accused product with annotations highlighting its rectangular dimensions Compl. p. 8	¶26
Squared edges.	The infringing product is alleged to have "squared edges" that contribute to an overall visual impression that is substantially similar to the claimed design Compl. ¶26	¶26
A transition region toward the top edge of the cover.	The complaint alleges the infringing product shares a "transition region toward the top edge of the cover," a feature asserted to contribute to the overall visual similarity Compl. ¶26	¶26

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: The central issue will be whether the accused design and the patented design are "substantially the same" in the eyes of an ordinary observer. This holistic comparison will be the focal point of the infringement analysis.
Technical Questions: A potential question for the court is what weight, if any, to give the prominent "Easily" logo visible on the accused product Compl. p. 8 A defendant may argue that such branding distinguishes its product and prevents the "deception" required for a finding of infringement. Conversely, a plaintiff may argue the logo is insufficient to overcome the substantial similarity of the underlying designs.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, formal claim construction of specific terms is less common than in utility patent cases, as the claim is defined by the drawings. The primary issue is discerning the scope of the claimed design from the figures and their description.

The Term: "The ornamental design for a bird cage cover, as shown and described" D’146 Patent, CLAIM
Context and Importance: The critical determination is the scope of the visual elements protected by the patent. Practitioners may focus on the patent's use of a symbolic break, as this directly impacts the range of accused products that the design can cover.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification states, "The bird cage cover is shown with a symbolic break in its length. The appearance of any portion of the bird cage cover between the break lines form no part of the claimed design" D’146 Patent, DESCRIPTION This language explicitly disclaims a specific length, which could support the argument that the patent's scope covers products of varying dimensions, such as the 61-inch and 68-inch accused products Compl. ¶15 Compl. ¶18
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the design is limited to the exact proportions and contours shown in the solid-line drawings, aside from the indeterminate length. Any perceived differences in the top structure, seam placement, or overall proportions between the accused product and the patent figures could be argued as placing the accused product outside the scope of the claimed design. The patent also disclaims the bird cage and stand by rendering them in broken lines, narrowing the protected design to the cover itself D’146 Patent, FIG. 1

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not plead specific facts to support a claim for indirect infringement, such as inducement or contributory infringement. The prayer for relief includes a request to enjoin those "aiding, abetting, [or] contributing to" infringement, but the factual allegations focus on Defendant's direct infringement through its own manufacturing, importing, and sales activities Compl. ¶36 Compl. p. 13

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement "on information and belief" Compl. ¶28 Compl. ¶29 Plaintiff states that it "presently lacks access to information concerning Defendant's knowledge of the D'146 Patent" but intends to prove knowledge through discovery Compl. ¶29

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

The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The central question for the court is one of visual comparison: is the overall ornamental appearance of Defendant's "Get-Easily" bird cage cover substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'146 Patent, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The outcome will depend on a holistic assessment of the designs, not a simple tallying of similarities and differences.
Impact of Product Branding: A key evidentiary question will be whether the prominent "Easily" logo on the accused product is sufficient to differentiate it from the patented design in the mind of an ordinary observer, or if the underlying product shape is so similar that the branding does not prevent likely deception.
Jurisdiction and Enforceability: A significant procedural hurdle will be establishing personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant that allegedly uses online aliases and provides unverifiable physical addresses Compl. ¶¶9, 12-13, 20 Should the plaintiff prevail, enforcing an injunction or monetary judgment against such an entity may present substantial practical challenges.