CSI is asserting Uniformat 2010 in my case in Canada. So, we’ll know in due time.
2 Likes
(In Mr. Roger’s voice) “Grok, can you say “personal liability”? “There, I knew you could…”
1 Like
Curious if the Canadian court will consider the US Court ruling… especially now.
Well, that didn’t take long…
Not sure where they think spending more money on an appeal is going to ge them
3 Likes
Thanks for that succinct history. Yeah they should be worried. I think that in whatever shakeup happens, the organization must go back to its actual mission. The “I” stands for Institute, not Inc..
3 Likes
I think CSI just showed their cards.
3 Likes
I hope CSI realizes that appeal cannot be because you do not like the outcome. Appeal must be based on a legal or procedural mistake or misapplication of the law. The judge allowing a third amended complaint probably eliminated any hope of successful appeal.
2 Likes
The best part the building enclosure article is the last FAQ and response:
No. This ruling does not have any impact on CSI trademark registrations.
Does this change how members and licensees should use the MasterFormat® standards?
No. Members and licensees should continue using MasterFormat® as they do today.
Words matter. What does this mean for non-members and non-licensees? Or for members without a license? TBD, I suppose. Wishing CSI fun in spending more time and money to protect its properties.
By the way, I left a comment on the LinkedIn post wondering if Building Enclosure had permission to use the CSI Logo that was prominently displayed. If not, is CSI selective in its property rights enforcement? Even chapters require a license to use the logo, via the affiliation agreement.
5 Likes
The ruling is likely not binding in Canada. However, it is often the case that when there is no precedent in Canada, courts review US case law. It will ultimately be up to the judge to decide.
Guessing they could claim a “Fair Use” exemption for educational purposes.
CSI will be meeting with their legal advisors soon to discuss whether they want to appeal the recent negative judgment by the federal 9th Circuit in California. CSI lost their copyright claim for MasterFormat, and thereby lost much of their clout in selling subscriptions to the new MF26 and Dynamic Standards.
As a CSI member, I hope CSI does the sensible thing and decides not to appeal the judgment. How much of our money has already been spent on legal fees pursuing this non-productive case? How much staff time has been spent producing documentation, responding to discovery, and sitting for depositions? How much more will need to be spent on attorneys’ fees if an appeal is pursued?
If you agree enough is enough, contact your regional board member. Contact Board Chair Mann, Chair-elect Young. Contact our Treasurer and our Secretary. Tell them as a member you don’t want to see any more money spent on lawsuits.
Appeals are risky, with no guarantee of winning. But you know who always wins, regardless of what the appeals court rules? No?
Good sir, kind madam: for precedent I refer you to the 1853 case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the English Court of Chancery.
Today Building Enclosure published this article about the court ruling and ended with CSI’s response to the ruling.
2 Likes
How can anyone in our industry justify expending funds on the Dynamic Standards or MasterFormat 2026 in light of this Federal Court ruling?
A friend asked that question to a principal in one of the largest A/E companies in the country. You can imagine the response…
On another front, my friend gets the distinct impression from speaking to a prominent member of CSI’s leadership that they are seriously considering appealing the ruling.
The madness, it appears, continues unabated.
2 Likes
Jerrod just released an Update and there was unsurprisingly no mention of the case.
1 Like
The message as milquetoast as it gets for closing the loop. We started. We are reviewing it. The only concrete thing from Institute was the announcement that the Communities website was updated.
I am glad to hear Jarrod reporting the chapters are strong and planning great programs. By a prior informal poll that is where members derive value.
2 Likes
“Chapters are putting together impressive programs for the year ahead.” I’m heading off to one of those in an hour or so. Thanks to Jarrod, I am sure I’ll have a good time there.
2 Likes
Something to keep in my mind from my friend Claude. Oh, and neither of us are lawyers.
"Three things, in rough order of importance to watch:
Money, and it isn’t small. Under 17 U.S.C. §505 the court may award full costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party in a copyright case. Zerodocs won on everything, so it qualifies. This case ran eighteen months, four complaints, two motions to dismiss, a full deposition schedule, and cross-motions for summary judgment with a Joint Statement running past 370 numbered facts. Defense fees for that are plausibly high six figures. The Lanham Act has its own fee provision, §1117(a), but it requires an “exceptional” case — a harder standard than §505.
It tells you how the court reads CSI’s conduct. Copyright fee awards run through the Fogerty/Kirtsaeng factors, and objective unreasonableness carries substantial weight. Holcomb has already written that CSI provided no facts supporting creativity in the MFMTT process, and that CSI’s own oral argument about alternative descriptions cut against its position. If he grants fees, that’s a judicial finding that the claim was unreasonable to bring — a much sharper statement than “you lost,” and one that lands directly on the governance question of whether this litigation should have been authorized.
It changes the appeal math. Appealing when you’re already facing a fee award means defending the award too, and the exposure keeps growing — Zerodocs can seek appellate fees under §505 as well. Board members weighing a September appeal decision with an unresolved fee motion pending are weighing a materially different risk than they were on September 2.
Procedurally: the motion doesn’t extend the appeal deadline on its own. The court can defer ruling until the appeal resolves, or rule and have the fee order appealed separately. Either way, a fee motion filed by Monday would be visible on the docket well before October 1."
1 Like
In Canada, it’s “loser pays”.
1 Like
“I facilitate industry growth through compelling value propositions with a customer-focused mindset, creating programs, events, and services that revitalize brands and significantly increase customers and membership.”
Hahahahahahahahaha!
He uses the phrase “financial acumen” a lot. I don’t think it means what he thinks it means.
3 Likes