The Buffbunny Collection lawsuit is a trade dress dispute brought by activewear brand Vitality Apparel Holdings and its IP affiliate LoDo IP, which accuse Buffbunny of copying a signature Y-shaped stitching design on the back of its leggings. The original case was filed in Colorado in May 2024, dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in June 2025, and refiled days later in Texas, where it has since been stayed and administratively closed pending a related proceeding at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.1Porter Hedges. Vitality Apparel Holdings v. Buffbunny, Order on Motion to Dismiss2Justia Dockets. Vitality Apparel Holdings Inc. et al v. Buffbunny LLC
Who Is Suing Buffbunny and Why
Vitality Apparel Holdings is a Denver-founded athleisure brand launched in 2018. LoDo IP, LLC is a separate entity that holds Vitality’s trade dress rights and licenses them back to the company.1Porter Hedges. Vitality Apparel Holdings v. Buffbunny, Order on Motion to Dismiss Buffbunny Collection is a San Antonio, Texas-based women’s activewear brand founded in 2016 by fitness influencer Heidi Somers.3Buffbunny. About Us
The plaintiffs say Buffbunny is selling leggings that copy their proprietary stitching design. The complaint specifically identifies Buffbunny’s “Rebel” legging as an example of an infringing product.1Porter Hedges. Vitality Apparel Holdings v. Buffbunny, Order on Motion to Dismiss
The Disputed Stitching Design
LoDo IP claims common law trademark rights in what it calls the “Vitality Trade Dress”: a glute seam featuring a deep, curved, Y-shaped raised stitch on the rear of its leggings. A central vertical line runs up the back of the garment and splits into two lines curving outward toward the waist, forming a Y intended to lift and accentuate the glutes. The design is pending registration with the USPTO under Serial No. 90/332,530.4USPTO TTAB. Vitality Trade Dress Opposition Proceeding
The claims rest on common law rights rather than a registered trademark. The Colorado court noted that the plaintiffs referred to “the Vitality Mark” and “the Infringing Mark” without providing specific identifying information or registration details.1Porter Hedges. Vitality Apparel Holdings v. Buffbunny, Order on Motion to Dismiss
Why the Colorado Case Was Dismissed
The original suit, Vitality Apparel Holdings, Inc. v. Buffbunny, LLC (Case No. 1:24-cv-01395), was filed on May 17, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Buffbunny moved to dismiss on September 23, 2024, arguing that Colorado lacked personal jurisdiction over the Texas company and, separately, that the complaint failed to state a claim.5CourtListener. Vitality Apparel Holdings Inc. v. Buffbunny, LLC
On June 13, 2025, Judge Gordon P. Gallagher granted the motion on the jurisdictional ground and did not reach the failure-to-state-a-claim argument. The court’s reasoning:
- Vitality failed to show that Buffbunny purposefully directed activities at Colorado. A website accessible from the state and products that eventually end up there, under what the court called a “generic stream of commerce theory,” is not enough.
- Allegations of “substantial and regular sales” in Colorado were conclusory, with no evidence that Buffbunny itself made sales in or shipped products to the state.
- Vitality pointed to Buffbunny products with “Colorado” in their names, such as the “Colorado Zip Jacket” and “Colorado Pocket Legging,” but those items were not alleged to infringe and had nothing to do with the claims.
The dismissal was without prejudice, leaving Vitality free to refile elsewhere. The court denied leave to amend because Vitality never filed a formal motion or a proposed amended complaint, and Vitality did not seek a transfer.1Porter Hedges. Vitality Apparel Holdings v. Buffbunny, Order on Motion to Dismiss
Where the Case Stands Now
Three days after the Colorado dismissal, Vitality refiled in Buffbunny’s home jurisdiction. Vitality Apparel Holdings Inc. et al v. Buffbunny LLC (Case No. 4:2025cv02797) was filed on June 16, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas before Judge Charles Eskridge, with the cause of action listed under 15 U.S.C. ยง 1121, the federal trademark infringement statute.2Justia Dockets. Vitality Apparel Holdings Inc. et al v. Buffbunny LLC
On September 30, 2025, Judge Eskridge granted a motion to stay the case. All deadlines were abated, and the court ordered that the case would return to the active docket only on motion of the parties after resolution of a related proceeding. The parties must file joint status reports every February 28 and August 31 until the case is reinstated. The Texas case remains administratively closed.2Justia Dockets. Vitality Apparel Holdings Inc. et al v. Buffbunny LLC
The “related proceeding” referenced in the stay appears to be an opposition at the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board involving Vitality’s pending trade dress application.4USPTO TTAB. Vitality Trade Dress Opposition Proceeding The outcome of that proceeding is likely to shape what happens next in court, since the strength of Vitality’s trade dress rights is central to the infringement claim.
What Has and Hasn’t Been Decided
No court has ruled on whether Buffbunny’s leggings actually infringe Vitality’s Y-shaped glute seam design. The Colorado ruling addressed only where the case could be heard, not whether the claim has merit. No settlement, verdict, or consent decree has been entered in either the Colorado or the Texas case.