Intervest Construction, Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc.

554 F.3d 914 (11th Cir. 2008)

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

The floor plan for The Westminster was created in 1992 as a work-made-for-hire by P. The Kensington, floor plan was created in 2002 by D. Each floor plan depicts a four-bedroom house, with one bedroom being denominated as a 'master' bedroom or suite. Each floor plan includes a: two-car garage; living room; dining room; 'family' room; foyer; 'master' bathroom; kitchen; second bathroom; nook; and porch/patio. Each floor plan also reflects certain 'elements' common to most houses: doors; windows; walls; bathroom fixtures (toilet, tub, shower, and sink); kitchen fixtures (sink, counter, refrigerator, stovetop, and pantry/cabinets); utility rooms and fixtures (washer, dryer, and sink); and closets. The square footage of both is approximately the same. Also, as is common in houses, there are placements of entrances, exits, hallways, openings, and utilities (furnace, air conditioner, hot water heater, and telephone hardware). The district court undertook a careful comparative analysis of the selection, coordination, and arrangement of these common components and elements. The district court focused on the dissimilarities in such coordination and arrangement. Given the number of dissimilarities in the respective coordination and arrangement of these non-original, commonplace elements and components, the district court ruled that no reasonable observer could conclude that the copyrightable elements of the two-floor plans were substantially similar. P appealed. P contends that the district court erred in focusing its comparison of common architectural elements in the copyrighted design and D’s design on the dissimilarities between the two-floor plans.