United States: Furniture Legal Alert

Federal Court in North Carolina Applies Copyright Law to Furniture Design "Knock-offs"

A recent federal court decision from the Middle District of North Carolina has added federal copyright law to the list of concerns which furniture manufacturers should have in "knocking off" furniture designs originating outside their company. In Collezione Europa U.S.A., Inc. v. Hillsdale House, Ltd.,¹ the Court held that Collezione infringed Hillsdale’s copyright when Collezione made detailed copies of one of Hillsdale’s dining-room suit designs. Significantly, however, the court’s finding of infringement arose only from Collezione’s direct copying of a small part of the overall design: a sculpted "triple-leaf" figure that appears in the seat-backs of the Hillsdale/Bordeaux chairs and at the top of its baker’s rack.

Hillsdale’s copyright registration covered only the triple-leaf design. Prior to filing suit, Hillsdale attempted unsuccessfully to register a copyright in each piece in the Bordeaux collection. The Copyright Office refused this request, informing Hillsdale that the only part of the design that was copyrightable was the sculpted triple-leaf design. Thus, the only basis for Hillsdale’s infringement claim was Collezione’s copying of the triple-leaf design.

Collezione freely acknowledged to the court that it routinely copies designs originated by other companies, and attempts to produce similar lines at a lower cost and sell them under its own name. Collezione did not dispute that Hillsdale had originally created the Bordeaux design, and acknowledged specifically that it had directly copied the entire line with no modifications. Collezione’s only defense against the infringement claim was its argument that the triple-leaf design was not entitled to copyright protection. Collezione argued that because the triple-leaf design was embedded in the overall structure of the furniture, it was an uncopyrightable utilitarian object rather than a copyrightable aesthetic feature.

Judge William Osteen of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina rejected Collezione’s argument. Pivotal to his decision was his determination, upon reviewing the respective lines of furniture, that the triple-leaf design was an independent work of artistic expression that could be imagined (regardless of its artistic quality) as existing separately from the furniture on which it appeared. Judge Osteen found that because the triple-leaf design was "conceptually separable" in this way, it was copyrightable and Collezione’s actions amounted to copyright infringement.

While Judge Osteen’s ruling in this case does not appear to be either unique or unusual from a copyright perspective, it does appear to break new ground in definitively holding that at least a portion of an original furniture design is eligible for federal copyright protection. In this respect, it appears to be consistent with . those cases which afford similar protection to original fabric designs used on upholstered furniture. It also makes it clear that federal copyright law is part of the mix of other legal issues, including design patents and trade dress, which should be considered before "knocking off" furniture designs.

Design-around methods exist to avoid infringing furniture designs. The extent of differences required to avoid infringement will depend on the furniture and design at issue, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.