Rolwes Company v. Barnes et al

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Rolwes Company's Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction Order 56 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/2/14. (JWD)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ROLWES COMPANY,

)
)
)

Plaintiff,

)
vs.

Case No. 4:14cv1045

)
)
)
)
)

LARRY G. BARNES, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction
(ECF No. 49) and Plaintiff Rolwes Company's Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction Order
(ECF No. 56). These matters are fully briefed and ready for disposition.
BACKGROUND
On July 25, 2014, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 43), granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary lnjunction. 1 The Preliminary
Injunction Order prohibited Defendants "[f]rom marketing for sale, contracting to sell, or
constructing any three bedroom, one story, two bath house with a design that would infringe on
Plaintiffs copyrighted 'Rockport' architectural work."
DISCUSSION
I.

Defendants' Motion to Modify

In Defendants' Motion to Modify, they seek to amend the Preliminary Injunction Order
to allow Defendants to meet with customers and potential customers at the model home located
1

the case.

See the July 25, 2014 Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 43) for a full background of

at 1317 Durham Drive in Herculaneum Missouri ("1317 Durham"). 2 Defendants contend that
K.A.B. has developed plans to remove the Rockport Design's copyright protectable hallway
configuration from the 1317 Durham property. See ECF No. 50-2. In response, Plaintiff argues
that Defendants' proposed remodel of 131 7 Durham would continue to infringe on Plaintiffs
copyrighted Rockport Design because "it is a protected derivative work of the Rockport Design,
and because allowing the proposed remodel would not alleviate the unfair competition and
irreparable harm to Plaintiff as a result of Defendants' use of Plaintiffs Rockport Design[.]"
(ECF No. 55 at 1-2).
The Court will not modify the Preliminary Injunction Order based upon plans alone.
However, if Defendants modify the house at 1317 Durham according to the plans submitted, the
Court will consider modifying the Preliminary Injunction Order to allow K.A.B. to utilize 1317
Durham as an office for meeting with customers and potential customers. The Court previously
held that Plaintiff had presented evidence that the design feature of separate hallways for the
ancillary bedrooms and the master bedrooms was unique to the Rockport Design. The Court,
however, held that Plaintiff had not provided evidence that any other feature was unique to the
Rockport Design. Thus, the Court found that the only protectable element of the Rockport
Design was the dual hallway configuration. See Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
499 U.S. 340, 348 (1991)("The mere fact that a work is copyrighted does not mean that every
element of the work may be protected. Originality remains the sine qua non of copyright;
2

In the Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court allowed Defendants to com.Plete
construction and closing of the sale of the houses at, in relevant pa~ 1024 Stonewick Court1
Arnold, Missouri and 1015 Stonewick Court ArpoJd, Mis~oour!. (tCF No. 43 at 9). In their
Motion Defendants also seek to correct the Prehmmary InJunct10n Order to reflect erroneous
addresses provided by the parties and included in the origiJ!al Preliminald' Injunction Order.
(ECF No. 49 at 2). Instead of"1015 Stonewick, Amold,-Missouri" and 1024 Ston~wick Court,
Arnold Missouri' the Preliminary Iniunction Order should reference "l 005 Stonewick Court,
Herculaneum: Missouri" and "1024 Stonewick Court, Herculaneum, Missouri". (Id.) Plaintiff
has no objection. (ECF No. 55 at 2, n. l).
2

accordingly, copyright protection may extend only to those components of a work that are
original to the author."). The Court believes that if Defendants remodel 1317 Durham according
to the plans provided, then the building will not infringe on Plaintiffs copyright in the Roc¥1ort
Design. For the same reason, the Court also holds that the revised 1317 Durham plan would not
constitute an unauthorized derivative work because the house would no longer contain
protectable interests. See Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823, 833 (10th
Cir. 1993)("in order to impose liability for copyright infringement, the court must find that the
defendant copied protectable elements of the plaintiffs program and that those protectable
elements comprise a substantial part of the plaintiffs program when it is considered as a whole").
The Court denies Defendants' Motion, in part, as it relates to 1317 Durham, but it will reconsider
this position after Defendants complete construction on that site.

II.

Plaintiff's Motion to Modify

Plaintiff seeks to modify the Preliminary Injunction Order to (1) include a general
directive that Defendants not infringe on Plaintiffs copyright in the Rockport architectural work;
(2) enjoin Defendants from creating and using derivative works of the Rockport Design; and (3)
enjoin Defendants from continuing construction of the Rockport Design-based homes now under
construction on Lot 628 and Lot 639 in the Providence Park residential development. Plaintiff
wants the Court to provide a "general prohibition against infringement and a prohibition against
creating or using derivative works[.]" (ECF No. 57 at 3) see also ECF No. 57 at 4 ("Plaintiff ...
requests that this Court modify the Preliminary Injunction Order to include a general directive
that Defendants not infringe upon Plaintiffs copyright in the Rockport Design.").

Plaintiff

asserts that "[i]t would be impossible to create a list of every potential home design that could
infringe upon Rolwes Company's copyrighted Rockport Design." (ECF No. 57 at 5). Plaintiff

3

again argues that the placement of the stairs, as well as the kitchen access and layout, are unique
features. Plaintiff asserts that Lot 628 and Lot 639 are derivative works because Defendants
merely "tacked an additional bedroom onto an existing [copyrighted] design[.]" (ECF No. 57 at
10-11).
In response, Defendants note that Plaintiff previously argued at the hearing on the Mction
for Preliminary Injunction that the stairs and kitchen design were not protectable features. (ECF
No. 61 at 1-2). Defendants also point out that the architectural plans for Lots 628 and 639,
which were under contract at the time this litigation was initiated, do not contain any prohibited
elements under the Preliminary Injunction Order. The plans for Lots 628 and 639 show a fourth
bedroom and, instead of dual hallways, the master bedroom is accessible from the great room.
(ECF No. 61 at 5; ECF No. 56-4). Defendants emphasize that the construction on Lot 628 is
nearly complete and the customers are scheduled to close on the home, and Lot 639 is fully
framed. (ECF No. 61 at 5).
In the Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court previously outlined Plaintiffs protectable
interest in the Rockport Design based upon the facts and evidence that had been presented by the
parties. The Court found that the dual hallway was the only unique feature of the Rockport
Design. The Court also considered Plaintiffs argument regarding the placement of the stairs and
the layout out of the kitchen, but the Court did not find the evidence supported copyright
protection for those areas. Plaintiff essentially asks the Court to reconsider its prior order, which
was based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. The Court finds no reasons to amend its
order based upon Plaintiffs argument, which was largely duplicative of its prior argument. In
addition, the Court believes that the language proposed by Plaintiff is overbroad and ambiguous

4

and provides no guidance to Defendants, or any other party, regarding what would be considered
infringing conduct. The Court denies Plaintiffs Motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction

[49] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

The Preliminary Injunction Order is

amended to change "1015 Stonewick, Arnold, Missouri" and "1024 Stonewick Court, Arnold
Missouri" to the correct addresses of "1005 Stonewick Court, Herculaneum, Missouri" and
"1024 Stonewick Court, Herculaneum, Missouri". Defendants' Motion to Modify Preliminary
Injunction is denied, without prejudice, in all other respects.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Rolwes Company's Motion to Modify

Preliminary Injunction Order [56] is DENIED.
Dated this .£._N.£.y of October, 2014.

.ROSS
D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5