Craft Smith, LLC v. Ec Design, LLC
388 F. Supp. 3d 1385 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A compilation of common, uncopyrightable elements, such as the layout of a planner, is not an original work of authorship protected by copyright, but is rather an unprotectable idea, system, or process. Infringement of such a 'thin' copyright, if one existed, would require a showing of 'supersubstantial similarity,' meaning the accused work is virtually identical to the protected work.
Facts:
- In 2007, Erin Condren created the 'LifePlanner,' a personal organizer product sold by her company, EC Design.
- EC Design's LifePlanner evolved over the years to include features such as a spiral coil, laminated covers, customizable artwork, monthly tabs, and sticker pages.
- In January 2015, EC Design and a competitor, Craft Smith, discussed a potential business collaboration to sell planners in Michaels stores, but they failed to reach an agreement.
- Six months after discussions ended, Craft Smith began developing its own spiral-bound planner, the 'Recollections Planner,' with the stated internal concept of creating a 'like item to the current Erin Condren Life Planner.'
- In February 2016, Craft Smith sent an EC LifePlanner sample to its manufacturer in China with instructions to quote a price for a book with the 'same size and quality,' and 'everything the same.'
- Craft Smith later instructed its manufacturer to 'match [the new planner] exactly to sample' (the LifePlanner) and to size the sticker pages to match the LifePlanner's weekly layouts.
- During the design process, a Craft Smith employee noted that parts of EC Design's books were used in their mock-ups and needed to be photoshopped out 'to avoid any major problems.'
- Michaels Stores began selling the Craft Smith Recollections Planner in October 2016.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 29, 2016, Craft Smith received a letter from EC Design's counsel alleging copyright and trade dress infringement.
- Craft Smith filed a complaint against EC Design in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on December 8, 2016, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.
- On the same day Craft Smith filed suit, EC Design applied for copyright registrations for its LifePlanners, which were granted four days later.
- EC Design filed a counterclaim against Craft Smith and Michaels, asserting claims for copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, and other state law claims.
- Both parties filed motions for summary judgment with the district court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the selection, coordination, and arrangement of common and functional elements in a personal planner constitute a copyrightable compilation under the Copyright Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Dee Benson
No. The compilation of common planner elements does not constitute a copyrightable work of authorship because it is an unprotectable idea, system, or process under 17 U.S.C. § 102. Copyright law protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. The court reasoned that EC Design's arrangement of planner parts, templates, and blank forms is fundamentally a system for organizing one's life. Such a system, along with blank forms and standard calendars, is explicitly excluded from copyright protection. The court determined the compilation did not qualify as a 'literary work' because it lacked sufficient original expression in words, nor did it qualify as a 'pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work' because it is a 'useful article' whose utilitarian function is not separable from its design. As an alternative holding, the court found that even if the compilation had a 'thin' copyright, there was no infringement because the Recollections Planner was not 'supersubstantially similar' or virtually identical to the LifePlanner, citing numerous differences in their covers, tabs, page layouts, and features.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for claiming copyright protection over the functional arrangement of a 'useful article' like a planner, clarifying the distinction between a protectable creative expression and an unprotectable idea or system. It establishes that merely arranging common, functional elements in a familiar format does not create a copyrightable work. The ruling's application of the 'supersubstantial similarity' test for 'thin' copyrights means that competitors can legally create functionally similar products, provided they do not replicate the protected creative elements (like specific artwork) and their product is not a verbatim copy. This serves as a significant check on attempts to use copyright law to gain a monopoly over a product category or style.
