The Buffbunny Collection lawsuit is a trade dress dispute brought by activewear brand Vitality Apparel Holdings and its IP affiliate LoDo IP, LLC, which accuse Buffbunny of copying a signature Y-shaped stitching design on the rear of its leggings. Filed in Colorado federal court in May 2024, the case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, refiled in Texas in June 2025, and then stayed. It remains administratively closed, with no ruling on whether Buffbunny’s leggings actually infringe.1Justia Dockets. Vitality Apparel Holdings Inc. et al v. Buffbunny LLC
What the Lawsuit Claims
LoDo IP claims common law trademark rights in what it calls the “Vitality Trade Dress”: a glute seam on the back of leggings featuring a deep, curved, Y-shaped raised stitch. A central vertical line runs up the back of the garment and splits into two lines that curve outward toward the waist, forming a Y shape intended to lift and accentuate the glutes. The design is pending registration at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under Serial No. 90/332,530.2USPTO TTAB. Vitality Trade Dress Opposition Proceeding
The complaint singled out Buffbunny’s “Rebel” legging as an example of an infringing product. The claims rest on common law rights rather than a registered trademark. The Colorado court order noted that while the plaintiffs referred to “the Vitality Mark” and “the Infringing Mark,” they provided no specific identifying information or registration details for those marks.3Porter Hedges. Vitality Apparel Holdings v. Buffbunny, Order on Motion to Dismiss
Why Colorado Dismissed the Case
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.4CourtListener. Vitality Apparel Holdings Inc. v. Buffbunny, LLC Buffbunny, a Texas company, moved to dismiss on grounds that the Colorado court had no personal jurisdiction over it and that the complaint failed to state a claim.
On June 13, 2025, Judge Gordon P. Gallagher agreed on jurisdiction and did not reach the second argument. The court’s reasoning:
- Vitality failed to show that Buffbunny purposefully directed its activities toward Colorado. The court rejected a “generic stream of commerce theory,” holding that a website accessible from Colorado and products that eventually end up there do not establish jurisdiction.
- Vitality’s claims 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 the court noted those products were not alleged to be infringing and had nothing to do with the claims at issue.
The dismissal was without prejudice. The court denied leave to amend because the plaintiffs never filed a formal motion or submitted a proposed amended complaint, and Vitality did not ask for a transfer.3Porter Hedges. Vitality Apparel Holdings v. Buffbunny, Order on Motion to Dismiss
Where the Case Stands in Texas
Three days after the Colorado dismissal, Vitality refiled in Buffbunny’s home state. 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 and assigned to Judge Charles Eskridge. The cause of action is listed under 15 U.S.C. ยง 1121, the federal trademark infringement statute.1Justia Dockets. Vitality Apparel Holdings Inc. et al v. Buffbunny LLC
On September 30, 2025, Judge Eskridge granted a motion to stay. All deadlines were abated, and the court ordered that the case would return to the active docket only on a motion by the parties after resolution of a related proceeding. The parties must file joint status reports on February 28 and August 31 each year until the case is reinstated. The related proceeding appears to be an opposition proceeding before the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board involving Vitality’s pending trade dress application.2USPTO TTAB. Vitality Trade Dress Opposition Proceeding
What Has Not Been Decided
No court has ruled on whether Buffbunny’s leggings actually infringe Vitality’s Y-shaped glute seam design. There is no settlement, no verdict, and no consent decree. The Colorado ruling turned entirely on jurisdiction, and the Texas case is on hold. Until the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding resolves and one of the parties moves to reinstate the Texas case, the merits of the trade dress claim remain untested.