## Facts

- Harper House, Inc. designed and sold loose-leaf personal organizers under the marks *Day Runner* and *Running Mate*.
- Thomas Nelson, Inc. and related entities produced and marketed a competing organizer called *Time Maker*.
- Harper House obtained copyright registrations covering versions of its organizers, identifying the authorship as “text, compilation of data and editing of data.”
- The organizers consisted largely of functional and factual materials (e.g., calendars, address/phone pages, “to do” lists) arranged into tabbed sections with particular page layouts and headings.
- Harper House alleged defendants copied the protectable selection, coordination, and arrangement of categories, tabs, and formats embodied in its organizers.
- Harper House also alleged false advertising under Lanham Act § 43(a), claiming defendants advertised one version of *Time Maker* but sold a different, inferior version in stores.
- A jury found for Harper House on both copyright infringement and Lanham Act unfair competition and awarded damages.

## Issues

1. Whether personal organizers made largely of blank forms, common factual categories, and functional layouts can be protected by copyright as compilations.
2. What infringement standard applies when protection is limited to the selection, coordination, and arrangement of mostly unprotectable elements, and whether the jury was properly instructed on that limitation.
3. Whether the evidence supported Lanham Act § 43(a) liability for advertising one product while allegedly selling a different product, including proof of consumer deception and resulting injury.

## Decision

- The court held the organizers were copyrightable as compilations to the extent they reflected original selection, coordination, and arrangement, despite many unprotectable component elements.
- The court vacated the copyright judgment and remanded for a new trial because the jury instructions did not sufficiently separate protectable compilation expression from unprotectable functional/common elements, risking liability based on noncopyrightable material.
- The court reversed the Lanham Act judgment because the evidence was insufficient to prove material consumer deception (or a tendency to deceive a substantial segment of consumers) and resulting competitive injury.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation; it protects original expression, including an original selection and arrangement of materials.
- “Blank forms” and functional page features are generally not protectable; protection, if any, is limited to original expressive choices in how elements are selected, organized, and presented.
- Compilation protection is “thin” where originality lies chiefly in arrangement of unprotectable elements; infringement requires appropriation of the protected compilation features rather than similarity in common or functional components.
- In substantial-similarity analysis for compilations, the factfinder must filter out unprotectable features and compare only protectable expression (including the overall structure where that is the claimed protectable contribution).
- A Lanham Act § 43(a) false-advertising claim requires proof that a challenged representation is false or misleading, that it actually deceived or tended to deceive a substantial audience, and that the plaintiff suffered (or was likely to suffer) injury caused by the deception.

## Conclusion

The court recognized limited compilation copyright protection for organizers made largely of functional, common elements, but required a new copyright trial because the jury was not properly instructed to confine infringement to protectable selection and arrangement; it also rejected the Lanham Act verdict for failure to prove consumer deception and injury.


Harper House, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 889 F.2d 197 (9th Cir. 1989)