Rachel Adin LLC vs. H&M: Jewelry Design Patent Dispute Ends in Settlement
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Rachel Adin LLC v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP |
| Case Number | 1:23-cv-11167 (SDNY) |
| Court | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Duration | Dec 2023 – Apr 2024 115 days |
| Outcome | Settled — Voluntary Dismissal |
| Patent at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Necklaces, OX bracelets, OX earrings, OX hoops, OX pendants, OX rings, and OX rivières |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A jewelry brand whose OX collection represents a defined aesthetic identity protected, at least in part, through design patent registration.
🛡️ Defendant
One of the world’s largest fast-fashion retailers, operating thousands of stores globally and known for rapidly translating design trends into affordable products.
The Patent at Issue
This case involved a design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a distinctive jewelry line. Unlike utility patents, design patents protect the unique visual characteristics of a product — its shape, configuration, and aesthetic elements — rather than functional features.
- • US D0926617S — Ornamental design of OX jewelry line, including necklaces, bracelets, earrings, hoops, pendants, rings, and rivières.
Designing a similar product?
Check if your jewelry design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
Litigation Timeline & Procedural History
Timeline and Outcome
The complaint was filed on December 22, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case was resolved in just 115 days, closing on April 15, 2024. It was terminated by voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), following a settlement agreement between all parties.
Key Legal Issues
The action was premised on design patent infringement, alleging that H&M’s jewelry products infringed the ornamental design claimed in USD0926617S. Design patent infringement is assessed under the “ordinary observer” test established in *Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.* The swift settlement meant there was no judicial determination on the merits, reflecting a strategic decision by both parties to avoid costly litigation.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in jewelry design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View related patents in the jewelry design space
- See which companies are most active in design patents
- Understand design patent enforcement trends
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own jewelry or product line.
- Input your product description or design features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Fashion jewelry & accessories
1 Design Patent
At the core of the dispute
Early FTO Essential
To avoid costly settlements
✅ Key Takeaways
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) signals pre-answer settlement — monitor for licensing terms in confidential agreements.
Search related case law →SDNY remains a strategically favorable venue for fashion and accessories design patent enforcement.
Explore precedents →The 115-day resolution timeline suggests early mediation or direct settlement outreach was effective.
Analyze litigation timelines →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved design patent USD0926617S (application number US29/662600), covering the ornamental design of the OX jewelry collection, including necklaces, bracelets, earrings, rings, and rivières.
The dismissal with prejudice followed a private settlement agreement between the parties, filed under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This permanently bars re-filing of the same claims, suggesting meaningful settlement consideration was exchanged.
It reinforces that design patents are effective enforcement tools for independent designers against large retailers, with early settlement being a predictable outcome when commercial stakes and litigation costs are weighed pragmatically.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER — Case No. 1:23-cv-11167, SDNY
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database — US D0926617S
- Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.