UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DOORAGE, INC., ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No. 1:20-cv-0421

 ) 

BLUE CRATES, LLC, ) Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Doorage, Inc. (“Doorage”) and Defendant Blue Crates, LLC are competitors in the 

“door-to-door storage industry.” In this action, Doorage alleges that Blue Crates illegally copied 

Doorage’s marketing video and recreated it with only minor changes, and substituting Blue 

Crates’s color scheme and branding. Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment and an award 

of damages on its claim of copyright infringement. As explained here, the motion for summary 

judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

I. Doorage’s marketing video

The facts are largely undisputed. Doorage is in the door-to-door storage business: the 

company delivers packing containers and materials to its customers’ homes. Then, once the 

customer has packed the containers, Doorage picks the items up and takes them to a secure 

storage facility, returning them later, at the customer’s request. (Affidavit of Doorage CEO Sean 

Sandona (“Sandona Affidavit”) [120-2], ¶¶ 1–3.) 

In October 2017, Doorage CEO Sean Sandona commissioned a designer to create a 

marketing video describing these services. (Id. ¶ 8.) Doorage paid $15,000 for the marketing 

videos, short animated depictions that show potential customers how they can use the company’s 

services, display the Doorage logo and its green and pink color scheme, and include images of 

trucks, boxes, and other moving equipment. (Id.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-00421 Document #: 149 Filed: 09/22/23 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1390
2

 The videos were created exclusively for Doorage’s use in marketing and advertising, and 

Doorage uploaded them to YouTube in February 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10.) All of the videos were first 

published on February 19, 2018; the United States Register of Copyrights issued a Certificate of 

Registration for each video in November and December 2019. (Pl’s Statement of Material Facts

(Pl’s SOF”) [120], Ex. 3 [120-3], Ex. 4 [120-4], Ex. 5 [120-5].) 

II. Blue Crates marketing video

Blue Crates, LLC (“Blue Crates”), as noted, is a competitor of Doorage. Beginning in 

January 2015, Blue Crates also provides door-to-door storage and moving services to customers 

in the Chicago area. (Def.’s statement of Material Facts (“Def.’s SOF”) [134], ¶ 1.) In the summer 

of 2018, Blue Crates hired BrandsMark Marketing to create a marketing video (“Blue Crates 

marketing video”). (Id. ¶ 2.) It is clear from the record that the Blue Crates marketing video was 

modeled on one created for Doorage: In July 2018, Michael Walker, Blue Crates’s CEO, sent a 

message Blue Crates’s own vendor, BrandsMark, and attached a link to Doorage’s videos. (Pl’s 

SOF, Ex. 6 [120-7] at BC 391.) In his message, Walker told his contact at Brandsmark that “[t]he 

videos from Doorage are a great example of what we are looking to do . . . . We would like to do 

the same . . . . [I]f you recreate this [Doorage video] with better imagery, we are on the right 

track.” 

Walker was even more explicit two months later. In a September 7, 2018 message, he 

requested that BrandsMark make a second video, one that would show viewers how the service 

worked. Walker attached, as a link, Doorage’s own “how to” video, titled “Doorage is Super Easy,” 

and directed Taher Shaikh of Brandsmark to “recreate the linked video exactly as it is with our 

branding.” (Id. at BC 403.) Walker noted that Doorage’s video “does a good job explaining how 

things work,” and told Shaikh to simply “change the color scheme to Blue Crates and brand it and 

we should be good to go.” (Id.) Shaikh understood that Walker sought to copy the Doorage 

video; Shaikh responded by noting that he “would need source files of [the Doorage] video in 

order to do the editing.” Walker replied by explaining that “this is not our video,” but “[Blue Crates] 

Case: 1:20-cv-00421 Document #: 149 Filed: 09/22/23 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:1391
3

like[s] the video and needs [Brandmarks] to make something just like it except for Blue Crates” 

and that Brandsmarks’ creation “should be a very close replica of the linked video above from 

Doorage.” (Id. at BC 404.) He added, “to be clear [,] this is a basic recreation of the video linked.” 

(Id.) Later in September, Walker pulled back a bit, directing that Shaikh use the Doorage video 

“as a guide and not an exact replication in look” and “[w]hile the content is to mirror the suggested 

[Doorage] video, it cannot be a replica . . . .” (Id. at BC 408, 410.) But a side-by-side comparison 

of Doorage’s video with the one created for Blue Crates reveals marked similarities in the content, 

illustration style, the timing and sequence, and even the accompanying music. Blue Crates

posted the commissioned video to YouTube on December 1, 2018 and then uploaded its market 

video to the Blue Crates website on March 3, 2019. (Def.’s SOF ¶¶ 3, 5.) 

In July 2019, Sean Sandona learned that Blue Crates had copied Doorage’s videos and 

“published at least one substantially similar videos [sic] on the internet, including on YouTube, to 

market Blue Crates’ competing storage services.” (Sandona Affidavit, ¶ 13.) Sandona contacted 

Blue Crates’ CEO, Michael Walker, and asked that Walker stop using the infringing video. (Id. at 

¶ 14; Def.’s Resp. to Pltf’s SOF [132] ¶ 17.) When Blue Crates took no action, on August 20 and 

August 21, 2019, Doorage’s attorney sent “Cease and Desist” demand letters to Walker and to 

Blue Crates’s registered agent, notifying Defendant that Doorage viewed Blue Crates’s marketing 

videos as infringing and demanding that Blue Crates immediately cease using them. (Letters of 

Attorney Jackson, Exhibits D and E to Supp. and Am’d. Complaint [42], Exs. D, E.) Without 

commenting on Sandona’s contacts with Michael Walker in July, Michael and Matthew Walker, 

who identify themselves as authorized agents of Blue Crates, have asserted in affidavits that prior 

to receipt of the cease-and-desist letters, neither of them knew that Blue Crates’ “conduct could 

or would violate Doorage’s alleged rights.” (Affidavit of Blue Crates CEO Michael Walker (“Walker 

Affidavit”) [120, Ex. 9] ¶ 3; Affidavit of Blue Crates Agent Matthew Walker (“Matthew Walker 

Affidavit”) [120, Ex. 10], ¶ 3.) Blue Crates’ marketing video remained posted until it was eventually 

removed in December 2019. (Sandona Affidavit, ¶¶ 17, 18.)

Case: 1:20-cv-00421 Document #: 149 Filed: 09/22/23 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:1392
4 

III. This lawsuit

On July 2, 2020, Doorage filed an amended and supplemental complaint alleging 

copyright infringement and seeking actual damages and lost profits resulting from the alleged 

infringement. (Pl.’s Supp. and Am’d. Complaint [42], 2–4.) Doorage alleges that it suffered 

$2,175,048 in actual damages caused by Blue Crates’ infringing marketing video.1

 (Pl’s Mot. for 

Summary Judgment [119] at 13.) Blue Crates is in bankruptcy; Doorage now seeks a summary 

judgment that would be enforceable through payment from proceeds of any applicable insurance 

coverage and/or policies of non-debtors, including Blue Crates’ insurer Crum & Foster.2

 (Id. at 

13–14.) 

DISCUSSION

To succeed on its motion for summary judgment, Doorage must show that “there is no 

genuine dispute regarding any material fact and that [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists if “the evidence is such that a 

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Parker v. Brooks Life Sci., Inc., 

39 F.4th 931 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)).

I. Copyright Infringement

To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) ownership of a valid 

copyright; and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. JCW Investments, 

Inc., v. Novelty, Inc., 482 F.3d 910, 914 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural 

1

 In its amended complaint, Doorage sought $375,000 in attorneys’ fees, but 

withdrew that request in the reply brief; Doorage is not entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees under 

17 U.S.C. § 412 because the effective date of the registration of its copyrights in the marketing 

videos was more than three months after they were first published and more than one month after 

Doorage learned of the infringement. (See Pl’s Reply Br. [137], 7 n.1.)

2

 On April 12, 2021, this action was automatically stayed after Blue Crates filed for 

Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On February 1, 2023, Bankruptcy Judge Carol Doyle granted Doorage’s 

motion for relief from the automatic stay, allowing allow Doorage to proceed in this action “solely 

to liquidate its claims against [Blue Crates] . . . to finality,” but not to collect on any judgment other 

than through the bankruptcy court or from “any applicable insurance coverage and/or policies of 

non-debtors. . . .” (Order Granting Relief, Exhibit 1 to Pl’s Notice of Stay Modification [117-1].) 

Case: 1:20-cv-00421 Document #: 149 Filed: 09/22/23 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:1393
5

Telephone Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). The United States Copyright Office has issued 

a Certificate of Registration for each of the three Doorage videos, and the validity of their 

copyrights is undisputed. The court turns, then, to analysis of the question whether Blue Crates 

has actually copied constituent elements of Doorage’s original work. “The Copyright Act affords 

no protection against the independent creation of a work that happens to resemble some prior 

creation,” and a plaintiff alleging copyright infringement “must prove that the defendant actually 

copied its original work.” Design Basics, LLC v. Lexington Homes, Inc., 858 F.3d 1093, 1099 (7th 

Cir. 2017) (referencing Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896, 901 (7th Cir. 1984)). To make that 

determination, the court considers “(1) whether the defendant actually copied the protected work; 

and (2) whether the copying constituted an improper appropriation.” Design Basics, LLC v. 

Kerstiens Homes & Designs, Inc., 1 F.4th 502, 505 (7th Cir. 2021) (referencing Design Basics 

LLC v. Signature Construction, Inc., 994 F.3d 879, 887 (7th Cir. 2021). The Seventh Circuit has 

explained that similarity between two works may be probative of actual copying, but wrongful 

copying requires a showing a substantial similarity between the defendant’s work and the 

protected elements of the copyrighted work. Signature Construction, 994 F.3d at 888. 

A. Actual Copying

Where, as is often the case, there is no direct evidence of copying, a plaintiff offers 

evidence that “the defendant had the opportunity to copy the original (often called ‘access’) and 

that the two works are ‘substantially similar’, thus permitting an inference that the defendant did 

copy the original.” Peters v. West, 692 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2012). Blue Crates urges that 

because substantial similarity is an inquiry inherently reserved for the jury, this court must deny 

summary judgment. Francorp, Inc. v. Siebert, 210 F. Supp. 2d 961, 965 (N.D. Ill. 2001); Cavalier 

v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 8156, 822 (1st Cir. 2002) (stating that summary judgment is 

improper if reasonable minds could differ on the issue of substantial similarity); Atkins v. Fischer, 

Case: 1:20-cv-00421 Document #: 149 Filed: 09/22/23 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:1394
6

331 F.3d 988, 995 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

3

 In this case, however, there is no genuine question about

whether Blue Crates actually copied Doorage’s marketing video. The undisputed messages 

between Michael Walker and his vendor, BrandsMark, express Walker’s intention that Brandmark 

create a video at least modeled on Doorage’s video and at most an exact replica. The resulting 

Blue Crates marketing video is (as described below) nearly identical to Doorage’s marketing video 

and uses the same style and formatting, the same step-by-step instructions on use of the 

company’s services, and the same background music. Blue Crates has made no attempt to rebut 

evidence supporting a finding of actual copying. Therefore, the court finds that Blue Crates 

actually copied Doorage’s marketing video and turns to determining whether Blue Crates’ copying 

constituted an improper appropriation.

B. Unlawful Appropriation

Only “original works of authorship” are afforded copyright protection. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). 

The substantial similarity test assesses whether “an ordinary reasonable person would conclude 

that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff’s protectable expression by taking material 

of substance and value.” Design Basics, 1 F.4th at 503 (citations omitted). A court must “separate 

the protected elements of a work from unprotected elements and then assess whether the 

protected elements were improperly appropriated.” Id. Doorage notes a number of similarities 

between its video and the one used by Blue Crates: 

• Both videos share similar step-by-step titles (“step 1”, “step 2”, etc.) and similar animated 

illustrations.

• Both videos use the same “bouncy [background] music with [a] xylophone.”

• Both videos depict animations of two hands scrolling through pictures on a smartphone 

containing a person, storage boxes, and the words “thank you.”

3 Blue Crates also argues that any likelihood of confusion is a question of fact. 

Scandia Down Corp. v. Euroquilt, Inc., 772 F.2d 1423, 1428–29 (7th Cir. 1985) (affirming an 

injunction against competitor’s use of a trademark confusingly similar to plaintiff’s own logo).

Likelihood of confusion is relevant to the issue of trademark infringement; its relevance in the 

context of this copyright infringement case is not apparent to the court. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00421 Document #: 149 Filed: 09/22/23 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:1395
7

• Doorage’s video contains a text box that pops up, prompting the user to “select a 

container.” The Blue Crates video also contains a text box that pops up, prompting the 

user to “Select your crates.” In both videos, the “select” instruction is followed by the image 

of a company-branded box arriving at the user’s doorstep.

• Doorage’s video instructs the user to “snap a photo” of their belongings before the items 

are packed into their branded container. Similarly, the Blue Crates marketing video directs

users to “Catalogue with [their] phone” before the user’s belongings are packed into their 

branded container.

• Both videos show a company-branded truck arriving at the doorstep and picking up the 

customer’s boxed-up belongings. Doorage’s tagline is “We pick it up”, while Blue Crates’ 

tagline is “We pick up and store.”

(Pl’s SOF ¶ 16–20.)

Blue Crates makes light of these similarities and contends that the ideas and themes in 

Doorage’s marketing videos are unprotectable elements that are not original to the author. 

Essentially, Blue Crates invokes the scènes à faire doctrine, which renders thematic concepts or 

schemes unprotectable under copyright law, along with “incidents, characters, or settings which 

are as a practical matter indispensable, or at least standard, in the treatment of a given topic.” 

Atari Inc. v. N. Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp., 672 F.2d 607, 616 (7th Cir. 1982). That 

doctrine is relevant here, Blue Crates contends, but the case it relies on, Reed-Union Corp. v. 

Turtle Wax, Inc., 77 F.3d 909, 913 (7th Cir. 1996) appears to support Doorage’s position. In Reed

Union, plaintiff alleged that defendant—its competitor in the business of car rust protection—had 

made a knockoff of plaintiff’s copyrighted video advertisement. The district court concluded that 

defendant’s video was not a copy and that, in fact, plaintiff’s video was not copyrightable at all 

because it was nothing more than an assemblage of scènes à faire. On appeal, the Seventh 

Circuit concluded that the district judge “was right the first time but wrong the second.” 77 F.3d 

at 914. True, plaintiff’s video used some “stock scenes,” but “although the themes are not 

copyrightable, a unique combination of them is.” Id. The court remanded the case, concluding 

that although the evidence did not support the claim that defendant had made a copy, plaintiff 

retained a valid copyright in its own video. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00421 Document #: 149 Filed: 09/22/23 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:1396
8

Here, Blue Crates is correct that copyright laws do not permit one to claim ownership over 

ideas or common situations. Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82, 43 (1899); Nash v. CBS, Inc., 899 

F.2d 1537 (7th Cir. 1990). But Doorage’s video, like that of the plaintiff in Reed-Union, is not the 

“’rare work that consists entirely of scènes à faire.’” Reed-Union, 77 F.3d at 914, quoting William 

F. Patry, 1 Copyright Law & Practice 338 (1994). The general ideas and themes of Doorage’s 

marketing videos may not be protectable expressions, but the video itself as a unique combination 

is a copyrightable expression. Had Blue Crates merely drawn inspiration from Doorage’s video, 

there could be no finding of wrongful copying. But given the presence of actual copying in a nearly 

identical arrangement as Doorage’s video, an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that 

the Blue Crates unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff’s protectable expression by taking material of 

substance and value from Doorage’s copyrighted work.

The court is also not persuaded by Blue Crates’ argument that the words and terminology 

in the Doorage video are nothing more fragmentary words and slogans. Health Grades, Inc. v. 

Robert Wood Johnson Univ. Hosp., Inc., 634 F. Supp. 2d 1226, 1237 (D. Colo 2009) (“[C]opying 

protection does not extend to fragmentary words or short phrases that lack the minimal level of 

creativity necessary to warrant copyright protection.”); Magic Mktg. v. Mailing Servs. of Pittsburgh, 

Inc., 634 F. Supp. 769, 771 (“[C]olorful descriptions, such as advertising slogans are not accorded 

copyright protection.”); Feist, 499 U.S. at 344 (“[F]acts are not copyrightable.”); 

37 C.F.R. § 202.1 (a) (stating that “words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans” 

are not copyrightable). Doorage’s video consists of animated illustrations, a sequence of events 

depicting Doorage’s service, and a bouncy melody. The combination is original and goes well 

beyond names and titles. Indeed, when data is selected and arranged in an original way, even a 

work that contains nothing but factual elements may be entitled to copyright protection. Cf. Feist, 

499 U.S. at 349 (“Notwithstanding a valid copyright, a subsequent compiler remains free to use 

the facts contained in another’s publication to aid in preparing a competing work, so long as the 

competing work does not feature the same selection and arrangement.”). Blue Crates attempts 

Case: 1:20-cv-00421 Document #: 149 Filed: 09/22/23 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:1397
9

to argue that its video uses different words and phrases than those that appear in Doorage’s

video. But the script and the visual style of the Blue Crates video are minimally distinguishable

from that in the Doorage video, and both are accompanied by an identical musical score. No

reasonable person would differ as to the substantial similarity between the two marketing videos. 

The court finds that Blue Crates infringed upon Doorage’s copyrighted works and is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.

II. Damages

The Copyright Act states:

The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by [them] 

as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable 

to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual 

damages. In establishing the infringer’s profits, the copyright owner is required to 

present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is required to 

prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to 

factors other than the copyrighted work.

17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Actual damages are “usually determined by the loss in the fair market value 

of the copyright, measured by the profits lost due to the infringement or by the value of the use of 

the copyrighted work to the infringer.” Bell v. Taylor, 827 F.3d 699, 709 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing 

McRoberts Software, Inc. v. Media 100, Inc., 329 F.3d 557, 566 (7th Cir. 2003)). The value of the 

infringing use to the infringer may be used to determine actual damages if the amount is not based 

on “undue speculation.” Id. Doorage argues that it has suffered $2,175,048 in actual damages 

as a result of Blue Crates’ infringement. In support of this calculation for actual damages, Doorage 

cites only to an affidavit from Doorage CEO Sean Sandona asserting that Blue Crates’ activity 

“resulted in immediate loss of sales revenue and long-term recurring revenue” and setting forth 

the (unexplained) damages claim that Doorage filed in the Blue Crates bankruptcy proceeding. 

(Sandona Affidavit, ¶ 22.)

Blue Crates argues that this evidence is insufficient to support summary judgment. The 

court agrees that Sandona’s damages claims are not based on personal knowledge and lack 

factual support. See Cooper-Schut v. Visteon Auto. Sys., 361 F.3d 421, 429 (7th. Cir. 2004); 

Case: 1:20-cv-00421 Document #: 149 Filed: 09/22/23 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:1398
10

Friedel v. City of Madison, 832 F.2d 965, 970 (7th Cir. 1987); Butts v. Aurora Health Care, 387 

F.3d 921, 925 (7th Cir. 2004) (“[S]elf-serving statements in affidavits without factual support in the 

record carry no weight.”). Furthermore, Blue Crates argues that Doorage’s actual damage 

calculation is highly speculative and inappropriately includes lost revenue. 

Doorage is correct that it is not required to prove an exact number of damages. Dynegy 

Mktg. & Trade v. Multiut Corp., 648 F.3d 506, 518 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Plaintiffs are not required to 

prove damages to the exact cent; they must merely establish a ‘reasonable basis for computing 

damages.’”) (internal citations omitted). But Doorage’s submissions do not even provide that 

reasonable basis. How Blue Crates’s use of Doorage’s work resulted in a loss in excess of $2 

million is unexplained. When asked at his deposition whether his workbook detailing damage 

calculations existed in any physical form, Sean Sandona responded that it existed “in [his] head 

and on notes . . .” and that any physical calculations used to determine the amount of damages 

were written on “scratch pad” that he had not provided to his attorneys. (Ex. F of Def’s Statement 

of Material Facts [134-6], 181:14–182:5.) In his deposition, he also repeatedly described his 

calculations as “super high level”, “back-of-a-napkin type high level”, while also describing himself 

as “a yellow pad life kind of guy”. (Id., 171:17; 181:18.) 

Sandona’s actual damages calculations lack evidentiary support, and the description of 

his methodology is unsatisfying. The court declines to enter judgment in an amount certain and 

will instead convene a hearing at which the parties will be expected to present evidence on the 

issue of the losses, and their amount, resulting from Blue Crates’s display of the infringing video. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [118, 119] is granted in part and denied in part.

ENTER:

Dated: September 22, 2023 ______________________________________

REBECCA R. PALLMEYER

United States District Judge

Case: 1:20-cv-00421 Document #: 149 Filed: 09/22/23 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:1399