Design Gaps v. Olivieri — Court Rules Custom Cabinetry Designs Cannot Be Copyrighted as Architectural Works

Background

David Glover, a custom cabinetry designer operating through his company Design Gaps, Inc., created detailed cabinet designs and architectural plans for a residence in Belmont, North Carolina. He shared the designs with DD Luxe Design, an interior design firm, with the understanding that he would be compensated if the designs were used in construction. After months of work, Glover was told the project was “on hold” — but in fact, the residence was still being built, allegedly using his cabinetry designs without permission or payment.

Glover registered his cabinet designs with the U.S. Copyright Office as an “architectural work” under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(8), receiving registration number VA 2-437-524. He then sued the homeowners, builder, interior designer, and a cabinetry fabricator for copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement, along with state-law claims for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Bell granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that cabinetry designs are “plainly not the design of a ‘building’” and therefore cannot be validly copyrighted as “architectural works.” The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) defines an architectural work as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression” — a definition that encompasses the overall form and the arrangement of spaces and elements in the design, but requires the work to be the design of a building as a whole, not one of its component parts.

The court reasoned that if cabinetry designs could qualify as architectural works, then “the design of every separate component element or feature of a home could be copyrighted,” including closets, fireplaces, windows, staircases, and even garage storage. The court noted that the plaintiffs cited no authority holding that cabinetry or similar residential components can be copyrighted as architectural works.

Judge Bell acknowledged that the designs might have been eligible for copyright protection as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” under § 102(a)(5) — a separate category that can cover useful articles when design elements are separable from utilitarian function — but the plaintiffs had not sought or obtained registration under that category, and could not rely on that possibility in this case. Without a valid federal copyright, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Key Takeaways

• Component designs are not “architectural works.” The AWCPA protects the design of a building — the overall form and arrangement of spaces — not individual interior components like cabinetry, fixtures, or built-in features. Designers seeking copyright protection for such elements must look to other categories.
• Copyright category matters at registration. The plaintiffs’ choice to register their designs as “architectural works” rather than “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” proved fatal. The right creative work registered under the wrong copyright category can leave a designer without federal protection.
• State-law alternatives remain. The court expressly declined to rule on the state-law claims for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment, leaving Glover free to pursue those remedies in North Carolina state court. Designers whose work doesn’t fit neatly into a federal copyright category may still have viable state-law claims.

Why It Matters

This decision is a cautionary tale for architects, interior designers, and specialty designers who rely on copyright registration to protect their creative work. The AWCPA provides powerful protection — including the right to control construction of buildings based on the protected design — but its scope is limited to building-level designs. Designers of individual interior elements like custom cabinetry, millwork, or fixtures should consider registering their work under the “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” category, which can protect original design elements that are separable from a useful article’s function, particularly after the Supreme Court’s broadening of the separability analysis in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands (2017).