Table of Content
For these reasons, Defendants' motion as to Compass's copyright claim is denied. Our planning meetings were insightful and personal. Scott took the time to understand our needs, and he delivered the results.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Compass moves for summary judgment on its copyright infringement claim, arguing that as a matter of law the Trinity design is substantially similar to the Compass design. The McDermotts make the opposite argument in their motion for summary judgment, contending that the two designs are not substantially similar as a matter of law. Finally, Shirk & O'Donovan moves for summary judgment on the grounds that it did not participate in the alleged copyright infringement. In support of its conversion claim, Compass alleges that the Defendants created and distributed designs infringing on Compass's copyright, built the Lakins' new residence based on these plans, and used Compass's copyrighted design in promotional materials.
Compass Homes, Inc
In the February 16 email, Mrs. Gesing also reported that she had "forwarded the plans you sent to our office to have the guys get them to a scalable size so that I can actually measure the rooms." (Id.). Mrs. Gesing did in fact send the Compass plans to someone at Trinity so that they could "bring it up so that it was an eighth-inch scale or a quarter-inch scale," "something that could draw on top of and measure for size." (Dep. of C. Gesing at 59). A draftsperson at Trinity, likely Daniel Thornton, prepared a "scaled-up" version of the plans. Exterior finish of siding, stone and shaker shingles.
We’ve had the privilege of working with them on multiple projects. Team is easy to work with and knows the details. Positions at this location require proof of COVID-19 vaccination, boosters, and/or regular COVID testing. Where permitted by law, applicants who are offered a position for this location may be asked about their vaccination status, which must meet minimum business requirements. All religious, medical, or other legally recognized exemptions regarding vaccination status will be considered. - Just in time for the holidays, the family of a fallen New York firefighter is the first recipient of financial support from a nationwide charity.
Compass Homes
Creation of, and distributing the Infringing Plans, constructing the Residence based upon those plans, and wrongfully using unauthorized copies or derivatives of the Copyrighted Compass Design in its promotional materials." Doc. 2 ¶ 44. This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with this Opinion and Order. With founders Ori Allon and Robert Reffkin at the helm, Compass is led by a team of experienced innovators. These proven pioneers across technology, real estate, marketing, and finance are solving real estate’s most complex challenges.
This contractor scores a C for payment and ranks in the bottom 20% of small U.S. contractors. No other contractors have reviewed Compass Homes Inc.'s payment process and practices.Review your experience with Compass Homes Inc. anonymously and quickly. Our free bidding system will get you quotes from Compass Homes Inc and 2 other top contractors. Their BuildZoom score of 100 ranks in the top 13% of 52,717 Ohio licensed contractors. Compass Homes is a boutique custom home builder for families in central Ohio.
Compass Homes, Inc. v. Trinity Health Grp., Ltd.
As an innovative residential real estate firm, we empower our agents so they have more time for advising their clients. With the solutions-driven mindset of a startup and the sophistication of a luxury brand, Compass is the future of real estate. Compass Collections is a curated visual workspace that allows agents and clients to collaborate in real-time to organize homes, centralize their discussions, and monitor the market by receiving immediate status and price updates.
She attached her scaled floor plan drawings, which indicated that the McDermotts had decided on the "option" plan for the second floor. Vogel forwarded the email to Joel Ronschke, an interior design director at Trinity, with the instruction that he could get started on the project. Vogel began sketching the elevation views of the house. Vogel testified that he never saw any documents that had the Compass name on them while he worked on the McDermotts' home design. Compass further alleges that it created drawings for the Lakins "with the understanding that the Lakins would contract with it for the construction of a home based upon" its drawings and designs. Taken together, these allegations could support a claim that "the conduct" of the Lakins rose to the level of a promise.
Compass Homes, Inc License info
Because Compass did not register its copyright until February 17, 2012 — one day after the alleged infringement commenced — the court finds as a matter of law that Compass is not entitled to an award of statutory damages or attorney's fees. Compass argues that it has submitted direct evidence of copying. It characterizes the testimony of Mrs. Gesing as an admission that Trinity traced the Compass plans. Compass argues that her admission should lead to a grant of summary judgment in its favor.
Compass brought suit against the McDermotts, Trinity, Total Cleaning, Shirk & O'Donovan and Arrow Heating and Cooling Mechanical, Inc. for copyright infringement, unjust enrichment, conversion and tortious interference with business relations. The court, on defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissed the unjust enrichment and conversion claims on the grounds that they were preempted under 17 U.S.C. § 301. Defendants Total Cleaning and Arrow Heating have been voluntarily dismissed from this action.
The court finds that a jury could reasonably conclude that Mrs. Gesing's testimony does not contain an admission of direct copying. She testified that she used the Compass plans as "something to start with" but maintained that she prepared her February 16, 2012 floor plans with her own hand and did not trace over the Compass plans. Gesing produced sketches that, when overlaid on the Compass plans, contain some dissimilarities from the computer-generated Compass plans. In other words, Gesing's sketches are not an exact duplicate of the Compass plans. See Lumetrics, Inc. v. Blalock, 23 F.Supp.3d 138, 145 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (noting that direct evidence of copying typically involves "exact copying"). Copyright protection subsists in "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." 17 U.S.C. § 102.
Applying this law, Compass bases its claim for tortious interference on Heritage's copying and improper usage of architectural drawings. The Court has already held that the Copyright Act provides protection against this conduct. In short, "his claim is based upon activity which constitutes copyright infringement and is preempted because it is not qualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim." Id. at 307 . Compass filed suit in this Court in August of 2013. It brings claims against all Defendants—Heritage, the Lakins, and the John Doe Defendants—for copyright infringement, unjust enrichment, and conversion. It brings an additional count against Heritage for tortious interference with business relationships.
Here, it is undisputed that the McDermotts and Trinity had access to the Compass plans. Braunsdorf emailed the plans to Mrs. McDermott, who emailed them to Gesing, who in turn provided them to Trinity employees. After additional communication between Mrs. Gesing and Mrs. McDermott, Mrs. Gesing sent an email on March 7, 2012 to Andrew Vogel, Vice President of Trinity, reporting that "the layout is set" on the McDermotts' house.
This represents a claim "concerned with dominion over tangible personal property," which "fall outside the scope of the Copyright Act." Lynn v. Sure-Fire Music Co., 237 F. In other words, insofar as Compass bases its conversion claim on this allegation, the Copyright Act does not preempt it. The Court notes that the issue here is close. Defendants do advance a number of strong arguments for why preemption should apply to bar Compass's unjust enrichment claim. Compass clearly labels its claim as one for unjust enrichment or "quantum meruit," which, according to Ohio law, is a contract implied in law. See, e.g., Legros v. Tarr, 44 Ohio St. 3d 1, 7, 540 N.E.2d 257, 263 .
No comments:
Post a Comment