753 F. Supp. 2d 753
N.D. Ind.2010Background
- Forest River owns RP-176 travel trailer floor plan; Heartland copied the RP-176 Floor Plan into its MPG travel trailer and advertising.
- Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement and unfair competition based on copying the Floor Plan and using it in dealer materials to sell MPG.
- Court addressed Heartland’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.
- AWCPA excludes RVs from architectural protection; Floor Plan is treated as a technical drawing under §102(a)(5).
- Court analyzes whether copying to manufacture the MPG trailer, and use of the Floor Plan in comparative advertising, state claims while applying fair use and merger/scenes a faire considerations.
- Proceedings include evaluating four fair-use factors and whether unfair competition claims survive the pleading stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RP-176 Floor Plan is protected as a technical drawing rather than an architectural work. | Forest River asserts Floor Plan is protectable under §102(a)(5) as a technical drawing; AWCPA excludes RVs. | Heartland argues Floor Plan is not protectable as an architectural work and that RVs are excluded from AWCPA protections. | Floor Plan is protected as a technical drawing; RVs are excluded from architectural protection under AWCPA. |
| Whether manufacturing the MPG trailer from copies of the Floor Plan constitutes copyright infringement. | Infringement occurs when a copied drawing is used to manufacture a competing trailer (derivative Floor Plan). | Manufacture of the non-architectural useful article from a copyrighted drawing is not infringement; only copying the drawing itself is actionable. | Manufacture of the trailer from copies is not per se infringement; however, copying the Floor Plan to create derivative Floor Plans states a claim for infringement. |
| Whether Heartland's use of the Floor Plan in comparative advertising is a fair use. | The use unfairly copies the Floor Plan to mislead and compete; not transformative fair use. | Comparative advertising may be transformative and informative, weighing in favor of fair use. | Fair-use defense cannot be resolved on motion to dismiss; record insufficient to determine transformative nature and factor weights. |
| Whether plaintiff's unfair competition claim survives Dismissal. | Advertising intended to confuse consumers constitutes unfair competition. | Advertisement clearly compares two products; no plausible basis for misrepresentation or source confusion. | Lanham Act claim dismissed; common law unfair competition claim dismissed for failure to plead sufficient facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (copyrightability requires original material; protectable works include graphics and technical drawings)
- Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2004) (courtbedrock on copyrightability of works; law decisions applied by court)
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (fair use factors; transformative use assessment)
- Harper & Row Publ. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (four-factor fair use test; nature of work and market impact considerations)
- A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (non-exhaustive fair use factors; commercial context considerations)
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 2008) (pleading standards under Twombly/Iqbal; notice pleading)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) (multifactor inquiry; moot where not a simple per se rule)
- Nunez v. Caribbean Intl. News Corp., 235 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2000) (transformative use; news context analysis for fair use)