629 F. App'x 658
6th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Tomaydo group and Carroll) ran Tomaydo-Tomahhdo restaurant; Moore developed recipes and Carroll later compiled a "Tomaydo-Tomahhdo Recipe Book."
- After Carroll bought Moore's interest (2007 SPA required Moore to return menu files and recipes), Moore started a catering business, Caterology, in 2011.
- Carroll registered the recipe book for copyright in February 2014 and sued defendants (Vozary, Moore, Caterology) for copyright infringement and various state-law claims.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants on the copyright claim, finding (1) even if the book were copyrightable, plaintiffs failed to show defendants copied any protectable expression, and (2) material differences existed between Tomaydo dishes and Caterology menu items. Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- On appeal, plaintiffs argued the recipe book is a copyrightable compilation (selection/arrangement originality) and Caterology created a substantially similar menu; the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the recipe book is a copyrightable compilation | Carroll/Tomaydo: the book reflects original selection, coordination, and arrangement of Moore's developed recipes | Defendants: recipes and functional instructions are unprotectable facts and methods; no original selection/arrangement shown | Held: Not copyrightable — plaintiffs failed to show any minimal creativity in selection/arrangement |
| Whether defendants copied protectable elements | Carroll/Tomaydo: Caterology used Tomaydo recipes/menu items derived from Moore's work | Defendants: even assuming protectable elements, Caterology's offerings differ materially; no substantial similarity | Held: No actionable copying — plaintiffs did not show defendants copied protectable expression |
| Proper scope of protection for recipes and recipe books | Carroll/Tomaydo: recipe book as compilation merits protection | Defendants: ingredient lists and functional instructions are factual/functional and excluded from copyright | Held: Facts and functional directions unprotected; only original selection/arrangement could be protected, which was not shown |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment in copyright case | Carroll/Tomaydo: disputed factual issues preclude summary judgment | Defendants: record lacks evidence of protectable originality or copying | Held: Summary judgment affirmed — as a matter of law no protectable compilation and no infringement shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Blige, 558 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Wickham v. Knoxville Int’l Energy Exposition, Inc., 739 F.2d 1094 (6th Cir. 1984) (summary judgment for defendants in copyright suits should be used sparingly)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (originality requirement; compilations protect original selection and arrangement but not facts)
- Kohus v. Mariol, 328 F.3d 848 (6th Cir. 2003) (analysis: remove unprotectable elements before assessing substantial similarity)
- Lambing v. Wiley Publishing, Inc., 142 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 1998) (ingredient lists and factual elements unprotectable)
- Publications Int’l, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., 88 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 1996) (recipe books may be protected only where directions include original, expressive material)