Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Home Legend, LLC: Copyright Protection for Wood-Look Flooring Designs

Can a design that's meant to look exactly like real, aged wood actually be copyrighted—or is it just an uncopyrightable copy of nature? That question sat at the heart of Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Home Legend, LLC, officially captioned on appeal as Home Legend, LLC v. Mannington Mills, Inc., decided by the Eleventh Circuit on April 29, 2015. The district court had thrown out Mannington's copyright entirely, on three separate grounds. The Eleventh Circuit reversed on all three—and in doing so, offered a detailed roadmap for what it actually takes to secure enforceable copyright protection in a product design. Here's what happened, and ten takeaways for making sure your own designs qualify as protectable copyright subject matter.

The Story Behind the Case

Mannington Mills and Home Legend both manufacture laminate flooring with a decorative paper layer printed to look like real wood. In 2008, three Mannington employees set out to create a new design called "Glazed Maple." Rather than photographing actual aged wood, they hand-crafted raw wood planks themselves—distressing the surfaces with tools, applying stains to simulate wear patterns, and working in artistic effects meant to evoke time-worn flooring. They photographed roughly 30 of these prototype planks, digitally edited the images, selected 15 of them, and arranged the photographs into a single 120-by-100-inch composite design. Mannington registered that composite design with the Copyright Office in November 2010.

By September 2012, Mannington discovered that Home Legend was selling laminate flooring with a design it described as virtually identical in every respect to Glazed Maple. Home Legend struck first, filing suit seeking a declaratory judgment that Mannington's copyright was invalid. Mannington counterclaimed for infringement and sought a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied. The case proceeded in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The District Court Threw Out the Copyright Entirely

The district court granted summary judgment to Home Legend, invalidating Mannington's copyright on three independent grounds:

1. Lack of originality: the court viewed Glazed Maple as little more than a copy of natural wood grain, not an original creative work.
2. Inseparability from the useful article: the court found the design couldn't be separated from the utilitarian flooring product it was printed on, meaning it wasn't eligible for copyright as a design applied to a useful article.
3. Protection of an uncopyrightable process: the court concluded that what Mannington was really trying to protect was its technique for distressing and staining wood, an idea or process that copyright law doesn't cover.

Any one of these three grounds, if correct, would have been enough to leave Mannington's flooring design with no copyright protection at all.

The Eleventh Circuit Reversed on All Three Grounds

On appeal, a panel led by Chief Judge Ed Carnes (joined by Circuit Judge Jill Pryor and a visiting judge) rejected each of the district court's conclusions.

Originality: Copyright's originality bar is famously low—under the Supreme Court's Feist standard, a work needs only independent creation plus a minimum degree of creativity. The court found Glazed Maple cleared that bar easily: Mannington's employees didn't photograph or trace real wood, they built their own distressed planks by hand, made creative choices about tools, stains, and imperfections, and then selected and arranged 15 out of roughly 30 resulting photographs into a single composite. The court further rejects the “sweat of the brow” analogy because in the cases mentioned, the copyright was relying on the effort that was put in the creation of the work. In this case, however, the court found the labor to be creative itself, contributing to the originality of the work. That process of selection, coordination, and arrangement was, in the court's words, "the product of creativity, not a slavish copy of nature," and independently qualified for protection as a creative compilation.

Separability: For a design applied to a useful article like flooring to be copyrightable, it generally must be separable—physically or conceptually—from the article's utilitarian function. The court found both forms of separability present here. Physically, the design existed on its own decorative paper layer, distinct from the structural flooring material beneath it. Conceptually, the two-dimensional composite image was capable of being appreciated, printed, or displayed as standalone artwork entirely apart from its use as a flooring surface.

Idea versus expression: The court also rejected the idea that Mannington was improperly trying to copyright a process. What Mannington registered and sought to protect wasn't its distressing-and-staining technique—it was the specific, fixed, two-dimensional artistic composition that resulted from that process. Copyright doesn't protect the method a designer uses, but it does protect the particular expressive work the method produces.

Ten Takeaways to Ensure Copyright in Your Design:

1. Create From Scratch Rather than Copying Nature: The Glazed Maple team built their own planks instead of photographing or tracing existing wood. Starting with your own hand-made source material shows independent creation, which is the foundation of originality.
2. Make and Document Deliberate Creative Choices: The employees chose tools, stains, and distressing techniques. Each choice is evidence of creativity, so record them. Sketches, process notes, and rejected alternatives all help.
3. Remember the Originality Bar is Low, But It’s Still There: Under Feist, you need independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. A realistic or “natural” look doesn’t automatically disqualify a design, but you must be able to show your own contribution.
4. Use Selection and Arrangement as a Second Layer of Protection: Mannington picked 15 of roughly 30 photographs and arranged them into one composite. Even if individual elements were challenged, the creative compilation qualifies independently.
5. Fix the Design in a Concrete, Two-Dimensional (or Otherwise Tangible) Form: Protection attached to the specific, fixed composite image. A defined final work gives you something definite to register and enforce.
6. Keep the Design Physically Separable from the Useful Article: Because the design lived on its own decorative paper layer, apart from the structural flooring, it satisfied physical separability. Where possible, build products so the artwork is a distinct layer or component.
7. Ensure the Design Could Stand Alone as Artwork: Conceptual separability means the image could be printed, framed, or displayed apart from the product. Create designs that have independent aesthetic value, not just functional appeal.
8. Register What You Protect, and Describe It as Expression, Not Method: Mannington registered the finished composite, not its distressing-and-staining technique. Copyright protects the resulting expression, never the process or method, so frame your claim around the work itself.
9. Register Promptly with the Copyright Office: Mannington registered in November 2010, well before it discovered the copying in 2012. Early registration gives you a certificate of validity and the ability to sue and seek remedies.
10. Keep a Complete Creation Record to Defend Against Validity Challenges: Home Legend attacked the copyright on originality, separability, and process grounds. Dated files, photos of the physical prototypes, edit histories, and employee authorship records let you rebut all three if challenged.

Do you have questions whether your work of authorship qualifies for copyright protection? Interested in seeking registration of your works before the U.S. Copyright Office? Contact us at RThornburg@AllenDyer.com or call 305-374-8303 to discuss how we can help.