M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. and Ass v. Jay Strabala
764 F.3d 735
7th Cir.2014Background
- Gensler architect Strabala left the firm and started Define Architecture.
- Strabala claimed on web and social media that he designed five projects for which Gensler was architect of record.
- Gensler alleged these statements falsely designated Strabala as the designer, violating 15 U.S.C. §1125(a).
- District court dismissed the federal claim under 12(b)(6), relying on Dastar to limit §43(a) to goods origins.
- Court reasoned copyright does not apply to Strabala’s statements about services, and thus Lanham Act claim failed.
- On appeal, the court vacated and remanded, noting tenable but not clearly implausible pleadings and considering Rule 9(b) standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can §43(a) reach false designation of origin for services by an architect? | Gensler argues false origin of service claim is viable. | Strabala contends Dastar confines §43(a) to goods origin only. | Liability can lie for false service designation under §43(a). |
| Is the complaint sufficiently pleaded under Rule 9(b) for fraud claims? | Gensler asserts precise falsity and misrepresentation about Strabala’s role. | Strabala argues pleadings are too vague and fail to meet 9(b) specificity. | Court finds the pleading tenable; not dismissed on Rule 9(b) grounds at this stage. |
| Does the case fail because the district court relied on Dastar to limit §43(a) to goods? | Gensler contends Dastar does not foreclose false service-origin claims. | Strabala asserts Dastar applies to goods and not to services. | Dastar does not foreclose a false service-origin claim under §43(a). |
| Are large-team project dynamics and lack of single designer fatal to Gensler's claim? | Gensler argues that big projects involve teams and credit must reflect that. | Strabala emphasizes individual contributions and client sophistication; no single designer is sole author. | Allegations remain plausible; not dismissed as implausible at this stage. |
| Should the judgment be affirmed or vacated and remanded for further proceedings? | Gensler seeks review of the district court’s reasoning. | Strabala defends district court’s dismissal but does not urge alternate grounds on appeal. | Judgment vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (U.S. 2003) (copyright cannot be extended by Lanham Act when the origin is properly designated)
- Societe des Hotels Meridien v. LaSalle Hotel Operating Partnership, L.P., 380 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2004) (false designation of origin may extend to services in Lanham Act analysis)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards require plausibility, not mere possibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requires factual allegations to state a claim plausibly)