IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—D.N.J.: Pillow company sufficiently alleged trade dress and patent infringement claims against competitor, (Nov 17, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

District court rejects arguments that the plaintiff failed to state claims.

The federal district court in New Jersey has ruled that a pillow company alleged sufficient fact to support claims against a competitor and certain retailer defendants for patent infringement and trade dress infringement of its tablet stand pillow and related state law claims, including tortious interference with prospective economic benefit. The district court rejected the defendants’ argument that the trade dress at issue was functional at the motion to dismiss phase (Happy Products, Inc. v. Ontel Products Corporation, No. 24cv9819 (EP) (JRA) (D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2025)).

Background. In 2013, Juliette Fasset and her husband Bruce Cannon designed and co-invented a pillow called “Flippy,” that acts as a tablet stand, permitting viewers to rest the Flippy comfortably on their body while they view the tablet. In 2018, Juliette founded Happy Products, Inc. (Happy) and began investing in sales of the Flippy pillows to consumers through QVC, Amazon, Etsy, Grommet, and directly to consumers. Happy sought and received a trademark embodying the rounded ledge design of its Flippy product. Happy also sought and obtained patents covering aspects of the Flippy design. However, Happy, discovered that Ontel Products Corporation (Ontel), a competitor had begun selling its version of the Flippy pillow at lower prices to other outlets, such as Walmart, Fred Meyer, Kroger, Walgreens, Target, Big Lots, Joann's, and Meijer. Happy reached out to some of these outlets that sold Ontel's pillows but these outlets declined to pull their products and instead directed Happy to take up its intellectual property dispute directly with Ontel. Some of Happy's sales have also been returned because customers have found Ontel's cheaper version through other retailers.

Happy emailed Ontel to inform Ontel that it would need a license to sell versions of the Flippy pillow and corresponded with Ontel’s in-house counsel regarding Ontel’s need to obtain a license from Happy to sell its versions of Flippy pillows but Ontel did not agree. Happy then filed its original complaint against Boscov Department Store, LLC, BJ’s Wholesale Club Inc., Unbeatablesale.com (collectively, the retailer defendants), Telebrands Corporation (Telebrands), and Ontel. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement at the pre-motion conference, Happy filed its First Amended Complaint bringing ten counts against the retailer defendants, and Ontel. Happy brought claims for direct infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,242,479 (the '479 Patent) against Ontel (Count I) and against the retailer defendants (Count III); claims for induced infringement of the '479 Patent against Ontel (Count II); claims for trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act against all defendants (Counts V, VI, and VII); claims for unfair competition under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:4-1 against all defendants (Count VIII); claims for unfair competition under New Jersey common law against all defendants (Count IX); and claims for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage under New Jersey common law against Ontel (Count X). Ontel moved to dismiss Counts IV, VIII, IX, and X.

Claim for trade dress infringement. Ontel alleged that Happy’s trade dress allegations failed because the Flippy rounded ledges are functional. Ontel urged the district court to take judicial notice of the USPTO’s rejection of Happy’s trade dress claim on grounds that the rounded ledges possess functionality. However, Happy pleaded non-functionality. Happy alleged that functionality would remain the same if the ledges were not rounded and explained that Happy wanted a shape that mimicked waves rolling onto the beach. While the USPTO’s purported rejection of Happy’s trade dress claim may be relevant to the ultimate disposition of Happy’s claims, functionality is a question of fact. Ontel may very well be able to demonstrate functionality later in litigation, but at the pleading stage, Happy’s allegations relating to the rounded ledges’ functionality must be taken as true. Additionally, there is no indication, at this stage of the litigation, that Happy sought trade dress protection over features claimed by its patent. Accordingly, Ontel’s motion regarding Counts IV for trade dress infringement was denied because Happy adequately pleaded trade dress infringement as it relates to Flippy’s rounded ledges.

Unfair competition claims. Ontel’s argument that Happy’s unfair competition claims (Counts VIII and X) had to be dismissed depended on finding that Happy’s trade dress infringement pleadings were inadequate. Becuase Happy’s trade dress infringement claim survived, Ontel’s motion regarding Counts VIII and IX was denied.

Tortious interference. Under New Jersey law, tortious interference with prospective economic benefit requires proving four elements: (1) a protected interest; (2) malice-that is, defendant's intentional interference without justification; (3) a reasonable likelihood that the interference caused the loss of the prospective gain; and (4) resulting damages. Ontel challenged the sufficiency of Happy's pleadings with respect to prongs (1), (3), and (4) of the standard for showing tortious interference with prospective economic benefit. The district court noted that protected interests include a plaintiff's right to pursue business. As Happy pursued business by soliciting sales through QVC, through Amazon, by contacting other outlets, and by selling directly on its own website, Happy alleged an injury that is more concrete than lost business of unknown, unsolicited, or hypothetical customers. Happy also alleged that Ontel siphons off purchasers from Happy by misleading purchasers into thinking it is selling Flippy by using images of Flippy to market its own version of the pillow. Thus, Happy pleaded sufficient specificity and did not need to identify the pursuit of prospective customers with more granularity.

Happy also adequately pleaded a reasonable likelihood that Ontel’s interference caused a loss of Happy's prospective gains. Happy alleged that Ontel influenced retailers and direct purchasers not to deal with Happy and not to buy Flippy pillows because Ontel (1) advertised itself as the innovator; (2) represented that it could provide retailers with all necessary rights for importation, distribution, and sale; (3) infringed the Flippy trade dress; (4) flouted Happy’s patent rights; and (5) undercut Happy in price. Further, Happy alleged that the retailer Ollie's declined to purchase or license Flippy pillows because Ontel was offering prices “way below” even half of what Flippy’s price was. Lastly, the district court found Happy’s allegations regarding damages were adequate because by alleging that Happy suffered injury and explaining how, Happy has satisfied its pleading requirements. Accordingly, Ontel’s motion regarding Count X was denied.

Allegations regarding former defendant. Ontel argued the district court must strike various portions of Happy’s complaint that related to Telebrands, a former defendant to this case and third-party that competes with both Happy and Ontel. The district court noted that there is no current indication that a jury may determine Ontel’s intent to infringe based upon the actions of Telebrands. Therefore, although the district court has doubts that Telebrands’s actions are relevant to Ontel's intent, it declined to strike those allegations at this time. Accordingly, Ontel’s motion to strike Happy’s allegations regarding Telebrands was denied.

The Case is No. 2:24-cv-09819-EP-JRA.

Judge: Padin, E.

Attorneys: Cali Roth Spota (Fox Rothschild LLP) for Happy Products, Inc. Ariel S. Peikes (Arent Fox Shiff LLP) for Ontel Products Corp.

Companies: Happy Products, Inc.; Ontel Products Corporation; Telebrands Corp.; Boscov Department Store, LLC; BJ’s Wholesale Club Inc; Unbeatablesale.com

Cases: Patent Trademark NewJerseyNews