IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—C.D. Cal.: Copyright, trademark infringement claims of CSI MasterFormat construction classification system dismissed, (Sep 8, 2026)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

The divisions, numbers, and titles of building industry construction classification system were short phrases which did not require creative expression, and therefore, not elements entitled to copyright protection.

A lawsuit by a building industry association against a building specification writing service alleging that the service engaged in copyright infringement by using the association’s copyrighted publications related to its MasterFormat classification system that is the national standard for identifying construction bids in creating its building product manufacturers and architectural master templates to comply with the MasterFormat standards was dismissed because the similar features between the two products were not entitled to copyright protection, the federal district court in Santa Ana, California has ruled. Related unfair competition, trademark infringement, and unfair business practices claims also failed. Thus, the service’s motion for summary judgment was granted and the associations motion for summary judgment was denied (Construction Specifications Institute, Incorporated v. Zerodocs.com, Inc., No. 8:25-cv-00475-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2026)).

The Construction Specifications Institute, Inc. (CSI) is a national association of construction industry professionals that created the CSI MasterFormat, a classification system that has been the national standard for identifying construction bids. The 2020 edition of MasterFormat contains a taxonomy system for classifying and organizing technical information and project details in architectural, engineering, and construction projects. CSI’s maintenance task team (MFMTT) conducts ongoing reviews of the MasterFormat and has adopted a biennial revision process, where MasterFormat users can submit commentary and proposals to the MFMTT for review and approval.

CSI owns four copyright registrations for publications that include the MasterFormat taxonomy, which was first published in 1978. All four registered works are Class TX nondramatic literary works. CSI also owns eight trademark registrations related to the names CSI and MasterFormat.

Zerodocs.com, Inc. is a commercial specification writing service based in California that creates 3-part guide specifications for building product manufacturers and architectural master templates. Zerodocs distributed a product called “SimpleSpec” that was composed of a collection of pre-written word document processing document templates. The templates were created in 2017 to help users write bid proposals that complied with the MasterFormat classification system. Zerodocs used the CSI mark on its website to refer to CSI’s MasterFormat without CSI’s authorization and those references accurately reflected the source of the standards to which the SimpleSpec templates were written as the MasterFormat standard.

In March 2025, CSI filed suit against Zerodocs, asserting five claims for copyright infringement and trademark violations. After the court granted Zerodocs’ motion to dismiss the trademark dilution claim, CSI filed an amended complaint, asserting claims for copyright infringement, unfair competition, trademark infringement, and unfair business practices. Before the court were the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.

Copyright infringement. Although CSI identified the source of the alleged similarity between the MasterFormat and Zerodocs’ SimpleSpec, the similar features were not entitled to copyright protection, the court found. The validity of CSI’s copyrights and Zerodocs access to CSI’s copyrighted works was not challenged. It was also undisputed that there were similarities between CSI MasterFormat and Zerodoc SimpleSpec. Zerodoc adopted the structural style of MasterFormat into its Vendor Specs, uses templates organized the MasterFormat framework, displays SimpleSpec specifications that are identical to MasterFormat on its website, and SimpleSpec templates use the specific number and title combinations from MasterFormat. However, the divisions, numbers, and titles of MasterFormat were short phrases and, therefore, not elements protected by copyright.

The taxonomy of MasterFormat was also not a protected element. CSI’s descriptions were factually concise and identified “specific work results and construction practices.” Furthermore, whether a description was updated or adopted by the MFMTT’s revision process was a “rote, four step process that asks if the new description better defines the subject matter, is more useful, or is more appropriate,” which left no room for creative expression. Accordingly, Zerodocs’ motion for summary judgment regarding CSI’s copyright infringement claim was granted.

Unfair competition. Zerodocs’ use of the CSI mark was a nominative fair use. Nominative fair use “applies where a defendant has used the plaintiff’s mark to describe the plaintiff’s product.” It was undisputed that Zerodocs displayed the CSI mark on its website without authorization and to refer to CSI’s MasterFormat. The product MasterFormat was readily identifiable with the use of the mark since Zerodocs’ entire SimpleSpec product was built around MasterFormat and any product description would require a reference to the MasterFormat mark. CSI’s contention that Zerodocs’ use of the CSI mark through a series of blog posts on the Zerodoc website suggested sponsorship or endorsement was rejected. The blog posts showed Zerodocs used the mark as a tool to teach users how to use CSI’s MasterFormat classification system and did not suggest sponsorship or endorsement. Thus, CSI did not demonstrate a likelihood of confusion and Zerodocs’ motion for summary judgment regarding the unfair competition claim was granted.

Trademark infringement. CSI’s trademark infringement claim invoked 15 U.S.C. §1117, which allows a trademark owner to recover damages for a willful violation of Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act. Since summary judgment was granted for Zerodocs on CSI’s Unfair Competition claim, Zerodocs’ motion with respect to CSI’s claim for relief for trademark infringement was also granted.

Unfair business practices. Finally, a claim based on a prohibition of an unlawfulness business act or practice requires a predicate federal or state law claim. Since summary judgment for Zerodocs was granted on all of CSI’s other claims, Zerodocs’ motion for summary judgment with respect to CSI’s claim for relief for unfair business practices was also granted, the court concluded.

The Case is No. 8:25-cv-00475-JWH-JDE.

Judge: Holcomb, J.

Attorneys: Gabriel G. Green (Buchalter APC) for The Construction Specifications Institute, Inc. Matthew C. Lapple (Lapple Ubell IP Law LLP) for Zerodocs.com, Inc.

Companies: The Construction Specifications Institute, Inc.; Zerodocs.com, Inc.

Cases: Copyright Trademark CaliforniaNews