The court did more than acknowledge that the products looked alike.
After reviewing the patents, accused products, photographs and testimony, the judge concluded that Komuso had shown a reasonable likelihood of proving infringement if the case proceeded to trial.
The court also credited evidence concerning:
Yes.
The federal case includes allegations and evidence that some sellers copied:
- Komuso product photographs
- Product videos
- Educational content
- Customer testimonials
- Product language
- Founder imagery
- Todd’s likeness
- Elements of the Komuso origin story
The complaint includes an image showing the same photo of Todd using the breathing necklace appearing across multiple competing listings.
During the hearing, Todd testified that some sellers used his own videos and images while telling a different story about who created the product.
A copied origin story can make an imitation look more established than it is.
When a seller claims to have invented or developed a breathing necklace, look for:
- Patent filing dates
- Named inventors
- Archived product pages
- Verifiable founders
- Original educational content
- A consistent company history
- Evidence of genuine product development
A polished website does not necessarily prove originality.Market confusion
- Customers mistaking competing products for Komuso
- Negative reviews of inferior products affecting Komuso’s reputation
- Competing sellers using Komuso’s photos and videos
- Products using Todd’s likeness
- The loss of patent exclusivity
- Damage to Komuso’s market position
The court found that monetary damages alone would not fully address the harm and that the balance of the equities supported an injunction.
For buyers, the practical takeaway is simple:
The similarities are not merely something Komuso has claimed in advertising. They have been examined through formal patent-enforcement proceedings and federal litigation.