Clean Crawl, Inc. v. Crawl Space Cleaning Pros, Inc., 2:17-cv-01340

Background

CCI (Clean Crawl, Inc.) and CSCP (Crawl Space Cleaning Pros, Inc.) are competing Western Washington businesses offering crawlspace/attic cleaning and pest exclusion services; CCI alleges CSCP copied copyrighted forms and text.
CCI registered (or applied to register) five works; earlier summary judgment resolved two; remaining disputed works: Project Graph, Project Bid Sheet, Venting Calculator (first page claimed; CCI disclaimed second page of Venting Calculator).
CSCP moved for summary judgment arguing the works are uncopyrightable blank/functional forms and, alternatively, not infringed; CCI argues the forms contain original compilations, instructional material, and creative selection/arrangement.
The Court evaluated copyrightability (including Ninth Circuit ‘blank forms’ line of cases), substantial similarity/access issues, and whether particular elements are protectable vs. functional/factual.
Ruling: summary judgment granted only as to the second page of the Venting Calculator (CCI disclaimed authorship); summary judgment denied as to the Project Graph, Project Bid Sheet, and first page of the Venting Calculator. Court also granted CCI leave to supplement the record and denied the parties’ motions to seal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Copyrightability of Project Graph (blank-forms rule)	Graph conveys instructional information to technicians/customers via images, terms, layout — an original compilation deserving protection	It is a blank/utilitarian form; any creativity is functional and falls within the blank forms exclusion	Denied summary judgment for D. Rebuttable presumption of copyright stands; factual dispute remains whether protection is thin but present
Copyrightability and infringement of Project Bid Sheet	Bid Sheet contains author-created text (notice language, color-coding, general conditions) and original selection/arrangement used in training and customer communication	Much is routine/functional language used across industry or required by law; any allegedly copied portions are not original or are licensed orally	Denied summary judgment for D. Material factual disputes (originality and alleged oral license) preclude judgment as a matter of law
Venting Calculator (first page) — protectable expression vs. uncopyrightable procedure/facts	Color-coding, layout, instructions and visual organization are expressive and guide users through calculations — protectable compilation/arrangement	Under Baker/Selden line, the underlying calculations and color-coded method are functional and not protectable; colors merely facilitate use	Denied summary judgment for D as to first page: combination of visual organization, color, and instruction may be protected; granted as to second page (CCI disclaimed authorship)
Procedural motions: supplement record and motions to seal	CCI sought leave to supplement; both parties moved to seal various filings	CSCP did not oppose supplementation; parties failed to provide required supplemental sealing justification	Grant leave to supplement; deny all motions to seal and order unsealing of specified docket entries

Key Cases Cited

Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1991) (originality requirement; facts and ideas not copyrightable)
Bibbero Sys., Inc. v. Colwell Sys., Inc., 893 F.2d 1104 (9th Cir. 1990) (Ninth Circuit interpretation of blank-forms exclusion)
Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003) (compilation/selection/arrangement of unprotectable elements can be protectable)
Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 616 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2010) (thin vs. broad copyright protection; similarity standards)
L.A. Printex Indus. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012) (substantial portion copying can support infringement even if not entire work copied)
Cash Dividend Check Corp. v. Davis, 247 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1957) (visual organization of calculations can create copyrightable integrated subject)