The Comfy Is a Pullover, Not a Blanket, Trade Court Rules

Specifically, the judge said the item fits under subheading 6110.30.30, dutiable at 32%.

The central issue in the case is whether The Comfy is a pullover classified under HTS heading 6110 or a blanket classified under heading 6301. After Vaden initially considered the parties' claims, the judge said there were disputes of material fact on whether The Comfy protects against extreme cold, how The Comfy compares to the Snuggie and the "use factors" identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a separate customs case (see 2501230059).

The court held a five-day bench trial in October 2024, where it heard from various witnesses on these questions. The importer, Cozy Comfort, offered the testimony of Michael Speciale, Cozy Comfort's co-founder; James Crumley, an outdoorsman and garment designer; and CBP employee Tatiana Matherne. The U.S. presented the testimony of Renee Orsat, an import specialist who classified The Comfy; Patricia Concannon, a marketing expert; Mary Ann Ferro, an expert witness and garment designer; and Speciale, testifying on behalf of Cozy Comfort.

Vaden was tasked with discerning whether The Comfy is a pullover, which the Federal Circuit in Rubies Costume Co. v. U.S. defined as a garment that covers the upper body; is worn over either undergarments or other clothing; and provides some warmth but doesn't protect against wind, rain or extreme cold. Given this definition and the parties' disagreement on whether the item shields against extreme cold, a large part of the trial, and the court's subsequent discussion, centered on whether The Comfy actually protects against extreme cold.

The court first sought to define "extreme cold," ultimately going with the Federal Circuit's construction of the term in Rubies Costume, which refers to a "range of temperatures at, near, or below freezing." The judge said no "bright line" separates ordinary and extreme cold, since what constitutes extreme cold varies across the country, per the National Weather Service. The range of "near freezing" to "well below zero" as a definition "aligns with both common sense and the context of Rubies Costume," the judge said.

In addition, for an item to protect against extreme cold, it must be conducive to "proper layering" and "insulate, or trap, air within the garment" and prevent outside cold from getting into the garment, the judge said, resting this conclusion on the experts' testimony.

Vaden concluded that The Comfy doesn't protect against extreme cold. The judge based this conclusion on three primary facts: the item "lacks several important features products designed for the extreme cold typically possess," it's not marketed like products that shield against extreme cold, and it was "designed primarily for indoor use."

The Comfy is created by attaching sherpa fabric to a "porous interior fabric," which renders it "unable to protect users against the extreme cold," the court said. Vaden rested many of his conclusions on Ferro's testimony, which emphasized the porous nature of the material and the large openings in the product at the bottom and at the hood. While Cozy Comfort sought to discredit Ferro's testimony based on one line during cross-examination where she said extreme cold, according to the National Weather Service, means minus 15 and below. Vaden dismissed this as one line of cross examination that stands in contrast to her "extensive" explanation of her view that extreme cold includes a range of temperatures that a "reasonable person may find 'extremely cold.'"

The judge also emphasized the fact that The Comfy lacks water resistance, lacks the common characteristics of clothing that does protect against extreme cold and isn't marketed or sold like items that shield against extreme cold. On the marketing point, Vaden emphasized that Cozy Comfort itself admitted The Comfy was primarily designed for indoor use.

Cozy Comfort emphasized the testimony of Crumley in claiming that The Comfy protects against extreme cold, though Crumley's testimony centered on the ability of one to "cocoon" inside the item. "Cocooning" refers to bringing one's limbs into the oversized item for extra warmth. Vaden said that after trying it himself, he found that the process restricts movement and isn't the primary use of the item. The judge said Crumley's testimony is undermined by Ferro's testimony, which provided a "detailed analysis of The Comfy’s porous, open design and physical characteristics."

Vaden then held that, as a matter of law, the product fits under HTS heading 6110 as a pullover. Since Cozy Comfort claimed The Comfy isn't wearing apparel, since it's not "ordinarily worn" in a common way like other pieces of clothing, the judge first sought to answer whether the item is "ordinarily worn." Vaden said an item is "ordinarily" worn if it's "worn like wearing apparel 'in the ordinary course of events: usually' or 'in a commonplace ... way.'" There's no bright-line rule governing this analysis, the judge said.

The court ultimately concluded that extensive evidence shows The Comfy is ordinarily worn, since "users wear it in a variety of everyday, commonplace situations," including "lounging on the couch, grabbing a drink, and adjusting the fire." When users wear the item, they do so by pulling it over their head like how they put on ordinary pullovers, Vaden noted. The item isn't used once or twice, or even seasonally, like the Federal Circuit found for Halloween costumes in Rubies Costume.

The item also shares common characteristics with other pullovers, the court held. Cozy Comfort claimed that The Comfy can't fall under HTS heading 6110, since it extends to the knees or below of a typical user and heading 6110 only applies to upper body garments. Vaden rejected this claim, finding that the "oversized nature" of the product is an "incidental part of the whole product."

Cozy Comfort argued that The Comfy should be classified as a blanket, since it's a "large piece of fabric" like a blanket, is "oblong" and is "designed and primarily used as a covering for warmth and protection from the cold like a blanket." Vaden rejected all three claims, finding that being made of fabric or being oblong aren't characteristics unique to blankets. The judge added that sewing the panels together turns The Comfy into something in character and function "significantly different from a blanket" by providing it with a "human-body-based design" and being "designed to be worn like an article of clothing."

Christopher Duncan, counsel for Cozy Comfort, said that after "a 5-day trial and extensive post-trial briefing, we are extremely disappointed. Cozy Comfort is considering its options.”

(Cozy Comfort v. United States, Slip Op. 25-75, CIT # 22-00173, dated 06/16/25; Judge: Stephen Vaden; Attorneys: Christopher Duncan of Stein Shostak for plaintiff Cozy Comfort Co.; Brandon Kennedy for defendant U.S. government)