The complaint

The case is Dreamwear Inc. v. JD Fine & Company, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-12585 (N.D. Cal.), a 21-page complaint for design-patent infringement filed October 27, 2026, as Document 1. The plaintiff is Dreamwear Inc., a New York corporation the complaint places in New York, New York. The defendant is JD Fine & Company, Inc., a California corporation the complaint places in Concord, California, which it says does business as Tart Collections and sells clothing under the TART and TART COLLECTIONS brands. The complaint demands a jury.

Jurisdiction and venue

The complaint pleads subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). It alleges personal jurisdiction because JD Fine is incorporated in California and has its principal place of business in the district, and venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) because JD Fine resides in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.

The patents and claims

The complaint asserts two design patents, each titled Hanger: U.S. Patent D1,136,624, issued July 28, 2026, and U.S. Patent D1,081,161, issued July 1, 2025. Dreamwear alleges it is the named assignee and owner of both. Each patent's single claim is to "the ornamental design for a hanger, as shown and described." Dreamwear alleges it manufactures and distributes products embodying the D624 design through Juicy Couture, Bliss, Danskin, Danskin Foundations, Laura Ashley, and Nicole Miller, and the D161 design through Juicy Couture Girls and Laura Ashley Girls, and that it has licensed the D161 design to third-party distributors.

The accused products

The complaint accuses JD Fine's three-piece hanger, labeled with RN No. 97884 and used to display and sell its TART-branded clothing. Side-by-side charts set the accused hanger against the figures of each patent, and the complaint alleges the hanger is a virtually identical copy of each claimed design.

The infringement allegations

The first cause of action alleges willful infringement of the D624 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271; the second alleges willful infringement of the D161 patent. Both plead ordinary-observer substantial similarity and, alternatively, doctrine-of-equivalents infringement. The complaint alleges actual notice no later than August 17, 2026, by a demand letter identifying both patents and the accused hangers; a second letter dated September 3, 2026, requesting a response by September 11; no response from JD Fine to either letter; and, on information and belief, continued sales after notice.

The relief sought

The prayer asks for judgment on all causes of action; a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; a permanent injunction against making, using, offering, selling, or importing articles to which the claimed designs or colorable imitations have been applied; a willfulness finding; an injunction directing removal and destruction of unauthorized articles; compensatory damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 with interest and costs; total profit under 35 U.S.C. 289 or, alternatively, 284 damages; enhanced damages under section 284; attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285 and costs; and other relief.

What to watch next

Watch for JD Fine's answer or Rule 12 motion and any early TRO or preliminary-injunction practice.