United States: Podcast - Supreme Court Ruling: Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands

What impact is the Supreme Courtís recent decision in†Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, the cheerleader costume case, likely to have on the protectability of the creative elements of clothing and other useful articles?† Doug Hallward-Driemeier, who leads Ropes & Grayís Appellate & Supreme Court practice, along with Evan Gourvitz from the firmís Intellectual Property Litigation practice, offer their perspectives on the case and what it may mean for the future copyright protection of fashion and industrial design.

Transcript:

Hello, Iím Doug Hallward-Driemeier a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Ropes & Gray and chair of the firmís Appellate and Supreme Court practice.† Today Iím joined by IP litigation counsel Evan Gourvitz from Ropes & Grayís New York office.†

In todayís Supreme Court podcast we are going to talk about the Supreme Courtís recent copyright decision Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, better known as the cheerleader uniform case which was decided by the Court on March 22.† The decision found that certain decorative elements of cheerleader uniforms were potentially protected by copyright law and more generally provided guidelines for assessing the copyrightability of the design elements of useful articles.† Evan can you summarize for our audience what the impact is at the high level of this decision.

Evan: Iíll lay out one technical result of the decision and the practical result of the decision.† Technically, for copyright folks the interesting thing here is that the decision rejects the long-standing distinction between physical and conceptual separability.† Iím sure weíll go into that in greater detail.† As far as the practical implications, because this decision laid out new and arguably more lenient guidelines for assessing the copyrightability of the design elements of useful articles this might end up leading to expanded attempts to protect clothing designs and industrial designs more generally through copyright law so it might lead to the fashion industry and consumer products companies more generally trying to get more expansive copyright protection for their products.†

Doug: So Evan this is an odd case in that itís not very often that we have pictures, the Supreme Court usually issues its opinions just in words, but here we have pictures of the copyrighted uniforms, and I have to confess when I look at the designs here, what I see are cheerleader uniforms, so maybe you could unpack this a little bit for us when you are talking about these doctrines of separability, how do they apply to the question presented in this case as applied to cheerleader uniforms?

Evan: This is the tricky part of the decision really.† How do you separate conceptually, physically or however you might do it, the copyrightable and protectable aspects of any given cheerleader uniform from cheerleader uniforms more generally.† As you said, the decision does include pictures and if you look at the pictures (and we canít really do that on a podcast), you see that the designs that are protected are essentially geometric design elements, chevrons and other aspects of sort of a conventional looking cheerleader costume that, considered in their entirety, make up the whole thing. They make up the whole costume.† Itís not like a picture of Mickey Mouse on a t-shirt where you can say well yes thereís a t-shirt and it has this completely separable illustration of Mickey Mouse on it; rather, all of the elements or essentially all of the elements of the cheerleader uniform are encompassed by this design, and this is exactly why in copyright law, the doctrine of separability came about.

Doug: I was taken by the fact that this was an opinion that was written by Justice Thomas and Justice Thomas is famous for being I suppose a quintessential originalist.† He doesnít really care much for legislative history or what courts have said legislation means over the years.† He goes back to the original text as written and asks what does this mean.† So in this case, he seems to have gone back to the language of Section 101, which says that the design, if it incorporates pictoral graphic and sculptural features that can be identified separately from and are capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article, they would be eligible for copyright protection.† But Iím focused on this language ďcapable of existing independently of.Ē †I suppose thatís where the physical separability test comes from. †How does the Courtís analysis square with that?

Evan: I think that there is sort of a reasonable roadmap here.† Traditionally, the separability of the pictorial graphic or sculptural elements of a useful article were sort of broken down into two categories: physical separability and conceptual separability.† Physical separability simply meant, can you cut the darn thing off.† So for example, could the hood ornament of a car be protectable even though its part of a car?† Yes, because itís physically separable.† Conceptual separability was slightly different and was figured basically by the argument can you sort of conceive of the protectable elements sort of existing in and of themselves as an illustration or a sculpture.† Generally, the way that courts and for that matter the legislative history understood that was basically to say, can you remove the copyrightable elements so at the end you have two different things.† You have the copyrightable elements as a sculpture or illustration and you nevertheless still have a completely functional item without the illustration or sculpture on the other end.† What this decision did was abolish it and as you pointed out, itís a little tricky when you take a look at the language of the Copyright Act itself because it does say that to be protectable, the design elements have to be identified separately from and are capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article. †Traditionally, that was understood as meaning you have to have copyrightable elements here on one side, you have to have the useful article on the other side.† They both have to exist in and of themselves, but what Justice Thomasí decision does is that it points out that this doesnít have to work both ways.† That is, if you look at the actual language it says that the pictorial graphic or sculptural features must be identified separately from and must be capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects, but the statute itself does not say it has to go vice versa.† It doesnít say that the utilitarian aspects have to exist independently themselves.† So basically what this test says and the way that Justice Thomas interpreted it was by saying you know look at that cheerleader uniform, look at that t-shirt, look at that hood ornament, can you basically take the graphic or sculptural elements, rip them off and kind of slap them on a blank wall.† And if so, can you identify look, that would be a protectable work in and of itself.† If so, itís protectable and if there is nothing left over in terms of the utilitarian work afterwards, well it doesnít matter, the test doesnít go both ways.† It just goes one way.†

Doug: So if there is nothing left over, does that mean that in effect the item itself is susceptible to copyright protection?

Evan:†††† Well thatís really the trickiest issue here.† And thatís the most problematic one.† The dissent to this decision basically says, yeah thatís kind of what happens at the end.† If you basically say that an entire item is protectable in and of itself, whatís left?† Can you basically copyright a shovel.† Can you basically say that every sort of physical aspect of the shovel should be protectable by copyright because a picture of the shovel would be protectable.† The dissent says no that canít be right thatís just sort of an absurd result so we canít accept it.† And I think this is something that really is going to have to kind of work its way through the Copyright Office as they try to sort of interpret the extent and sort of scope of where this will lead us.

Doug: As a practical matter, what do you think this means in terms of the interest of those I guess top-end manufacturers who have the designs and their relationships with their knockoff competitors?

Evan: I think what this means is that going forward, apparel companies, clothing companies for that matter, even industrial design companies are going to go to the Copyright Office and they are going to try to register their works, whether that is a particular dress design or for that matter a particular shovel design and basically say we want to register the sculptural or ornamental aspects of this product.† We are not trying to register the useful article itself, rather we are just trying to register the pictorial graphic or sculptural features of this useful article which just happened to encompass the entirety of the useful article.† And then the Copyright Office will then have to consider that given this decision and really sort of have to work out for themselves where it is they can draw the line, especially now that there is no real split between physical separability and conceptual separability.†

Doug: How searching of an inquiry does the Copyright Office apply in deciding whether to register an application?

Evan: As a general matter they donít do a very searching inquiry at all.† Honestly, I don't actually prosecute copyright applications, but I have dealt with a couple of appeals where the Copyright Office has rejected a given work as being insufficiently original.† So generally they just take a look at a work to determine whether it constitutes copyrightable subject material and if it does, they register it.† On rare occasions, they basically say hereís some guidance you can only claim this part of a work but not that part.† I think they are going to have a harder time doing that going forward and basically saying no you can only copyright this part and not that part.† But I guess we are going to have to see.† Once companies do get registrations, assuming they do, we will also have to see how the courts actually deal with the litigation of infringement cases involving these potentially expanded works and where they draw the line between granting a company copyright protection in its original work of authorship and basically just utilitarian articles as utilitarian articles.

Doug: So I can see that we can expect the applicants to be more aggressive in what they are seeking copyright protection of, but even if they are successful, there are defenses available for entities that might be subject to suit for copyright infringement?

Evan: Sure, I mean even in this case, Justice Thomas basically says while we consider this cheerleader uniform design to be potentially protectable, we are not opining on whether it is in fact in and of itself copyrightable.† There might be other reasons why it might not be. For example, this design might not be sufficiently original to qualify for a copyright.† There may have been many other cheerleader uniforms created by third-parties before this, making this work a derivative work based on those other works.† Defendants in cases are also going to have all sorts of arguments, including fair use.† They might be able to claim that the original owners might not have obtained all the necessary rights from the author of the original work. †There are still plenty of defenses that people should be able to bring up.†

Doug: So it seems that this may open a whole new chapter in kinds of litigation that weíll have on a new playing field in terms of these design copyrights.† So stay tuned for further developments, but thatís all the time we have today.† Thank you Evan for joining me in this interesting conversation and hopefully we will be able to have another Supreme Court podcast soon.† In the meantime, thank you all for listening and please visit our Capital Insights page at www.ropesgray.com for more news and analysis on noteworthy issues arising out of Washington D.C.

Download Podcast

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think youíve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaqís use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributorís own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaqís Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaqís Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaqís right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions