Craft Smith, Llc, v. Ec Design, Llc,

969 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Erin Condren, D's founder, designed the LifePlanner personal organizer to help users better plan their lives. The LifePlanner provides users with weekly and monthly calendars, which are [color-coded and laid out helpfully. The LifePlanner has colorful artwork, spaces for the user to write notes, inspirational quotations, and various other textual elements, all of which are interspersed throughout the entire planner. All these features are bound together by a single metal coil and enclosed between plastic-laminated front and back covers. Users can select a LifePlanner from one of D's many color/art options. Some changes occur every year-new text/artwork and updated calendars. Additional changes are made occasionally to the organizer's fundamental layout and look. These new offerings often reflect customer surveys. D has registered trademarks in 'LifePlanner,' 'Erin Condren,' and the asterisk symbols adorning all its products. D has registered three copyrights in the 2016/2017 version. In October 2015, P took steps towards entering the personal-planner market. P reached out to Michaels-P's biggest customer-about creating a new spiral-bound organizer that would be 'like . . . the current Erin Condren Life Planner.' P sought to emulate P's product. P's manufacturer's quote was based on the LifePlanner's 'size,' 'quality of spiral,' and 'laminated type cover.' Michaels agreed to sell P's new organizer in its stores-called the Recollections Planner. Michaels sought assurance from P that the organizers had different artwork and quotations. Soon after the Recollections Planner went on sale, D notified P and Michaels that the Recollections Planner infringed the LifePlanner's copyright and trade dress. P sought a declaratory judgment. D counterclaimed, joining Michaels to the suit and asserting copyright and trade-dress infringement claims, along with related state-law claims. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment on the copyright and trade-dress claims. The court granted P's motion on the copyright and trade-dress claims. D appealed.