Design Gaps v. DD Luxe Design: Tales from the Copyright Trenches with Attorney Steve Vondran.
By Attorney Steve® | Copyright Litigation & Intellectual Property Law
One of the most overlooked aspects of copyright law is also one of the most important: registering the work under the correct category of authorship.
A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina illustrates exactly why this matters. In Design Gaps, Inc. v. Olivieri, et al. (DD Luxe Design), the plaintiff may have had valuable cabinet designs and a legitimate complaint that its work was used without payment. Yet the federal copyright lawsuit was dismissed—not because the defendants necessarily did nothing wrong—but because the plaintiff registered its work under the wrong copyright classification.
The decision is an important reminder for architects, interior designers, cabinet manufacturers, product designers, construction professionals, and copyright lawyers alike.
Case Citation
Design Gaps, Inc. and David Glover v. Davide Olivieri, DD Luxe Design, LLC, et al., No. 3:25-cv-00604-KDB-WCM, United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Memorandum and Order entered May 28, 2026.
Background of the Case
David Glover, through his company Design Gaps, designs custom cabinetry for luxury residential homes.
According to the complaint:
- Design Gaps prepared custom cabinet designs, architectural plans, and pricing proposals for a luxury residence.
- The designs were provided to DD Luxe Design with the understanding that Design Gaps would be paid if the designs were incorporated into the project.
- After communications ceased, DD Luxe allegedly represented that the construction project had been placed "on hold."
- Design Gaps later discovered that construction had continued and alleged that its cabinet designs had been incorporated into the residence without authorization or compensation.
Believing its copyrighted work had been misappropriated, Design Gaps sued for:
- Copyright infringement
- Contributory copyright infringement
- Breach of implied contract
- Unjust enrichment
The federal claims depended entirely upon one copyright registration covering the cabinet designs.
The Critical Problem
The cabinet designs had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office as an "architectural work."
That decision ultimately became fatal to the lawsuit.
The Legal Issue
The court addressed a straightforward—but significant—question:
Can custom cabinetry designs qualify as an "architectural work" under the Copyright Act?
If not, then the plaintiff lacked a valid copyright registration supporting its infringement claims.
The Rule
The Copyright Act protects numerous categories of works.
Among them are:
- Literary works
- Musical works
- Software
- Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
- Architectural works
Architectural works receive protection under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(8).
The Copyright Act defines an architectural work as:
"The design of a building."
Federal regulations further define a building as:
A humanly habitable structure intended to be permanent and stationary.
The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) protects the overall design of a building—including the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements—but not every individual component inside a building.
The Court's Analysis
Judge Kenneth Bell focused on the threshold requirement for any copyright infringement action.
To prevail, a plaintiff must establish:
- ownership of a valid copyright; and
- copying of protected original expression.
The court never reached the copying issue because it found the registration itself defective for purposes of the asserted claim.
The court reasoned that:
- cabinetry is not a building;
- cabinets are merely component parts of a building;
- therefore cabinet designs cannot themselves constitute "architectural works."
The opinion noted that adopting the plaintiff's position would dramatically expand architectural copyright law.
If cabinet designs qualified as architectural works, then countless other home components could also be separately copyrighted as architectural works, including:
- closets,
- fireplaces,
- staircases,
- windows,
- shelving,
- garage storage systems, and
- countless other interior features.
The court rejected that interpretation as inconsistent with the Copyright Act.
Instead, architectural copyright protects the design of the building itself—not each individual feature contained within it.
Could the Designs Have Been Protected Another Way?
Interestingly, the court did not conclude that the cabinet designs were incapable of copyright protection.
Instead, it specifically observed that the works may have qualified under a different copyright category, including:
- pictorial works,
- graphic works,
- sculptural works, or
- technical drawings.
Those categories fall under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5).
Unfortunately for the plaintiff, that was not the registration it obtained.
Because the lawsuit relied exclusively on an architectural works registration, the court could not simply substitute another category after the fact.
The Holding
The court held that:
- the cabinet designs were improperly registered as architectural works;
- the asserted registration therefore could not support the copyright claims;
- the federal infringement claims were dismissed; and
- because no federal claims remained, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, dismissing those without prejudice.
Why This Decision Matters
Although the case involves cabinetry, its implications extend much further.
Many creative businesses produce works that do not fit neatly into traditional copyright categories, including:
- furniture designers;
- kitchen and bath designers;
- interior designers;
- industrial designers;
- product designers;
- architectural visualization firms;
- CAD drawing companies;
- custom millwork manufacturers; and
- luxury home builders.
For all of these industries, selecting the proper copyright classification can determine whether a federal infringement action survives.
Practical Lessons for Designers
Before filing a copyright application:
1. Choose the Correct Category
The title of the work does not determine its legal classification.
The statutory definitions do.
2. Don't Assume Everything Related to Buildings Is an Architectural Work
Architecture and architectural copyright are not synonymous.
Individual components often fall under entirely different copyright provisions.
3. Registration Is Strategic
Many businesses view registration as a paperwork exercise.
It is actually a legal decision that may determine future enforcement rights.
4. Review Existing Registrations
Companies with significant design portfolios should periodically review prior registrations to ensure they accurately reflect the protected work.
Correcting a mistake early is generally far less expensive than discovering it during litigation.
5. Consider Legal Advice Before Filing
For valuable designs, consulting experienced copyright counsel before registration can help avoid classification errors that may later jeopardize enforcement.
Broader Implications
The Design Gaps decision illustrates an increasingly important principle in copyright litigation.
Courts continue to enforce the statutory requirements governing copyright registration with precision.
Even where substantial creative effort exists—and even where copying may have occurred—a plaintiff must still satisfy the procedural and substantive prerequisites established by Congress.
As this case demonstrates, the question is not simply:
"Did someone copy my work?"
It is also:
"Did I register the work under the correct legal category?"
If the answer to the second question is "no," the first question may never be reached.
Key Takeaways
- A valid copyright registration is generally a prerequisite to bringing a federal copyright infringement action.
- Architectural works protect the design of buildings, not every component incorporated into a building.
- Custom cabinetry does not qualify as an architectural work under the Copyright Act.
- Cabinet designs may still qualify for copyright protection under another statutory category, such as pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works.
- Selecting the wrong copyright classification can prevent enforcement of otherwise valuable intellectual property.
- Businesses should treat copyright registration as an important legal strategy rather than a routine administrative filing.
Need Help Registering or Enforcing Copyrights?
Whether you create architectural drawings, product designs, technical illustrations, software, artwork, photographs, furniture, cabinetry, or other creative works, proper copyright registration can make the difference between successfully enforcing your rights and having your case dismissed before it begins.
Attorney Steve® (Steven C. Vondran) represents businesses, designers, creators, software companies, photographers, and copyright owners in copyright registration, infringement litigation, licensing disputes, DMCA matters, and intellectual property enforcement nationwide.
