Craft Smith LLC v. EC Design LLC

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2020 · Property

969 F.3d 1092 (2020)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyCopyrightTrade Dresscopyright infringementcompilation copyrightsubstantial similarityprotected expressionidea-expression distinction

Facts

EC Design sold the LifePlanner, a spiral-bound personal organizer containing calendars, quotations, artwork, tabs, notes pages, stickers, and other features, and held a copyright registration covering 2-D artwork, graphics, and a compilation of introductory and section phrases, but excluding calendar arrangement and calendar text. Craft Smith sought to develop a competing planner for Michaels and used the LifePlanner as a model for aspects such as size, spiral quality, laminated cover type, and pagination. Michaels asked Craft Smith to ensure the new Recollections Planner was not too similar, particularly in artwork and quotations, and Craft Smith concluded those elements differed. EC Design later claimed that the Recollections Planner infringed both the LifePlanner's compilation copyright and its unregistered product-design trade dress.

Issue

Whether EC Design raised a genuine issue of material fact that the Recollections Planner infringed the LifePlanner's compilation copyright by being substantially similar to protected expression in the compilation. Whether EC Design also raised a genuine issue of material fact that the LifePlanner's product-design trade dress had acquired secondary meaning sufficient to support an unregistered trade-dress claim.

Rule

For copyright infringement, ownership of a valid compilation copyright is satisfied if the work as a whole is copyrightable, but infringement requires substantial similarity between the accused work and the compilation's legally protected expression. A compilation copyright protects only the original selection, coordination, and arrangement of the specific literary and graphic content used, not the general format or layout idea. For unregistered product-design trade dress, distinctiveness exists only upon proof of secondary meaning, and the plaintiff must produce evidence creating a genuine issue that the design's primary significance to consumers is source identification rather than the product itself.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Seattle, Willow Harbor Paper Co. sells a recipe journal and holds a registration covering its 2-D illustrations, decorative graphics, and a compilation of section headings, while excluding the journal's blank line format. A rival in Portland releases a journal with different illustrations and wording but a similar sequence of sections and page counts.

If Willow Harbor sues for copyright infringement, which is the best analysis of the validity issue?

Explanation. The majority separates ownership of a valid compilation copyright from the scope of what that copyright protects. A registration can satisfy the validity element for the work as a whole, even if the plaintiff later fails on infringement because the accused similarities concern unprotectable format or layout ideas rather than protected expression.