IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—W.D.N.C.: Home cabinetry cannot be protected as an ‘architectural work‘, (May 29, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

Only the building itself, not its individual components, could qualify.

The maker of custom cabinetry could not contend that his designs qualified as “architectural works” under the Copyright Act, the federal court for the Western District of North Carolina has held. The court, in dismissing the designer’s copyright infringement claim, took pains to emphasize that the works were registered with the Copyright Office only as architectural works and that the designer had not sought to have them registered as “pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works” (Glover v. Olivieri, No. 3:25-CV-00604-KDB-WCM (W.D.N.C. May 28, 2026)).

The lawsuit was brought by David Glover and his custom cabinetry design company, Plaintiff Design Gaps, LLC. The cabinetmaker alleged that he provided cabinetry designs to DD Luxe Design, LLC, an interior design company, for use in the building of a residence in Belmont, North Carolina. The interior design company, the complaint asserts, went ahead and used the designs without paying for them after allegedly falsely telling the cabinetmaker that the project was “on hold.” The cabinetmaker’s copyright lawsuit, aimed not only at the interior designer but also the homeowners and a host of other entities and persons involving in the construction of the home, brought claims of copyright infringement as well as various common law claims.

The interior design company and its co-defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, leading to this opinion.

Definition of architectural works. The court’s order, which at eight pages clocked in at three pages longer than the initial motion to dismiss that prompted it, easily dispatched of the complaint. The cabinetmaker, for reasons not made clear in the court pleadings, chose not to register its cabinet designs as “pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works” under Section 102(5) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 102(5). Rather, the cabinetmaker registered its designs as an “architectural works” as defined under Section 102(8) of the Act. That choice, the court found, was fatal to the cabinetmaker’s claim.

The problem for the cabinetmaker, the court found, was that an architectural work was expressly defined in the Copyright Act, as amended by Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990, as the design of a “building” as embodied in any tangible medium of expression. 17 U.S.C. § 101. Moreover, the court noted, Copyright Office regulations expressly defined the term “buildings” as “humanly habitable structures that are intended to be both permanent and stationary.” 37 C.F.R. §202.11. “Applying the governing statute to the [copyright at issue],” the court reasoned, “cabinetry designs are plainly not the design of a ‘building.’” If the law were otherwise, the court noted, “then the design of every separate component element or feature of a home could be copyrighted as an ‘architectural work,’ including, among innumerable examples, closets, fireplaces, windows, staircases, and even garage storage.” The complaint would therefore fail.

Common law claims. The court also dismissed the cabinetmaker’s claims under state law. In the absence of a viable federal claim, the court noted, “the federal question jurisdiction on which this action depends is lacking and the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims.” The court exercised that discretion to decline that jurisdiction here, thus leaving them to the determination of a state court.

The Case is No. 3:25-CV-00604-KDB-WCM.

Judge: Bell, K.

Attorneys: Todd Maurice Hess (Hess Law, PLLC) for David Glover. James S. Derrick (Womble Bond Dickinson [US] LLP) for Davide Olivieri.

Companies: Design Gaps, LLC; DD Luxe Design, LLC; Hardwood Creations, Inc

Cases: Copyright NorthCarolinaNews GCNNews