Posts Tagged: "Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands Inc."

There’s a season every year where individuals dress-up in homemade costumes and gather for tricks, treats… and comic books? That’s right, it’s comic-con season! Many fans proudly wear costumes that they create themselves, dressing up as their favorite super hero, anime cartoon, or video game character. However, one thing they probably are not considering is whether those costumes could put them in jeopardy of a copyright infringement claim. But, since the costume industry as a whole is a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States alone, it is a consideration that could have costly consequences.

Like other opinions in the IP arena, the Supreme Court’s decision in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands has created a new legal rule with limited practical guidance that will inevitably lead to less predictability in an already-murky area of copyright law.  Its new “imaginative separability” test for copyright eligibility for useful articles, such as footwear, clothing, and furniture, may be so easy that few designs will fail to qualify.  Yet, ultimately, Star Athletica may have the unimagined consequence of making copyright protection less desirable for qualifying designs. For those who seek the benefits of the Court’s undeniable expansion of potential copyright protection for useful designs, a bit of caution may be the appropriate response.

One of the interesting theories posed by the case is Character for Hire’s claimed right to use Disney characters, which derive from Norse mythology or centuries-old fairy tales. In its response to Disney’s motion for summary judgment, Characters for Hire argues that many of the Plaintiffs’ copyrights are based on prior works that have been in the public domain for hundreds of years such as Cinderella, Snow White, Rapunzel, Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, Princess Aurora, Beauty and the Beast, the Little Mermaid, Thor and Loki. “It will be interesting to see how the Court delineates between established fairy tale characters and the original expression added to them by Disney,” Furey said.

My intuition is that the judge came to the correct conclusion, but that the Supreme Court test ultimately did little to guide her thinking.  As I mentioned in my previous IPWatchdog article, determining the contours of the useful article is a metaphysical exercise that likely will require other “tests” to resolve.  Why, for instance, does the useful article not consist of the lighting elements, sockets, wires and covers, which the judge admits also serve important utilitarian functions?  What factors caused her to draw the line so that the covers were not included within her concept of the useful article?  My guess is that it came down to the fact that in her view, “The primary purpose of the cover is artistic; once the covers are removed, the remainder is a functioning but unadorned light string.” 

Instead of using claims of trademark infringement and more expensive design patent infringement (if a design patent is even obtained), one can expect manufacturers of useful articles such as apparel manufacturers and designers to rely more often upon copyright to enforce their rights against knock-offs, and to seek more copyright registrations for design features on useful articles.

The Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, which addressed whether copyright protection can extend to the graphic designs depicted on cheerleading uniforms. The sole inquiry in Star Athletica was the meaning of a provision in the Copyright Act which permits copyright protection for the design of a pictorial, graphic or sculptural work, but only to the extent that the design can be identified separately from, and is capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article. Essentially, the question in Star Athletica was whether a copyright could extend to a graphical design that allegedly made a useful product more desirable because it satisfied the aesthetic demands of target purchasers. But will the Supreme Court’s decision in Star Athletica lead to more expansive protection for clothing designs? The result, I fear, is that the decision will serve to raise more questions than it resolved.

The ruling has wide implications for both the fashion apparel and home furnishings industry, both of which rely on distinctive, eye-catching designs to sell products. The upshot for clothing and furniture companies is that the Varsity Brands ruling gives product manufacturers an additional tool to combat knock-off designs. With that in mind, manufacturers should review their product line to ensure their copyright-eligible products are protected under this new standard.

Authors who are making a wage that is at or below the poverty line create a burdensome charge for readers? Well when you put it that way what Justice Breyer wrote just sounds stupid… There is a cost associated with discovering whether there are previous copyrights and securing permission to copy? Is Justice Breyer really suggesting that the grant of rights to copyright holders is too onerous for copycats and plagiarists to bear? What about this radical idea Justice Breyer – don’t copy what you didn’t create! If you cannot acquire the rights then just don’t copy, period… There is a reason judges, and in particular Justices of the Supreme Court, are not supposed to say more than is necessary to decide a case. Without consideration of a multitude of important issues seemingly innocuous statements can easily be absurd in the broader context, not to mention set bad precedent.

In Star Athletica Breyer laments that the majority is ignoring the statute, refers to copyrights as a monopoly, and explains that copyrights are a tax on consumers… These seemingly innocent comments demonstrate a breathtaking dishonesty, which is hardly a newsworthy conclusion, or even much of a revelation to anyone in the patent community. Still, over the past few days the drivel that has been sprinkled into Supreme Court opinions has been particularly nauseating. The ends justify the means for the Supreme Court. When it is convenient they defer to Congress and wax poetically about the importance of stare decisis, as they actually had the gall to do in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment. When adhering to well-established rules and expectations of an entire industry is inconvenient, they create exceptions to statutes, ignore statutory schemes altogether, and overrule generations of well-established law.

On Wednesday, March 22nd, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in a copyright case, which clarifies federal copyright law surrounding whether features incorporated into the design of a useful article are eligible for copyright protection. In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court held in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. that such features are eligible for copyright protection if they can be perceived as a work of art separate from the useful article and would qualify as an protectable work if imagined separately from the useful article.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari this term in Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., which considers whether typical designs on cheerleading uniforms can be copyrightable subject matter. The appeals court believed that the designs were appropriate, but my guess is that several Supreme Court justices reacted with skepticism, which is why they decided to take the appeal. Those engaged with product development eagerly await the decision in this case because there is significant judicial uncertainty about the application of copyrights to useful products, and in particular, with how to draw the line between artistic craftsmanship and industrial design. Unfortunately, this case raises rather narrow issues, and the Court will be able to resolve them while skirting the most difficult debates. Thus, I believe that those looking for hard-and-fast rules will ultimately feel no more satisfied than observers did after the Court’s decisions with patentable subject matter, such as in Bilski v. Kappos.

This case concerns Star Athletica’s alleged infringement of Varsity Brands’ purported copyrights in the design of certain cheerleading uniforms. Under the Copyright Act, because clothing possesses an intrinsic utilitarian function (covering the body, providing warmth and protection from the elements, etc.), clothing designs historically have not been protected by copyright unless the claimed design is physically or conceptually separable from the garment’s utilitarian features. The district court found in favor of defendant Star Athletica, concluding that the design elements in Varsity Brands’ cheerleading uniforms were not separable from the uniform’s function. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, and in doing so, devised a new test for assessing the copyrightability of a design of a useful article.