Term: 2016
Docket: 15-866
Star Athletica, L.l.c. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.
- Pro
15-866 STAR ATHLETICA, L.L.C. V. VARSITY BRANDS, INC. DECISION BELOW: 799 F.3d 468 GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 5/2/2016 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Under the Copyright Act, a "useful article" such as a chair, a dress, or a uniform cannot be copyrighted. 17 U.S.C. § 101. The article's component features or elements cannot be copyrighted either, unless capable of being "identified separately from, and . . . existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article." Id. Circuit courts, the Copyright Office, and academics have proposed at least nine different tests to analyze this separability. The Sixth Circuit rejected them all and created a tenth. The first question is: What is the appropriate test to determine when a feature of a useful article is protectable under § 101 of the Copyright Act? 2. The Copyright Act specifies that in any judicial proceeding, the certificate of a registration made before or within five years after first publication is prima facie evidence of the copyright's validity. 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). The effect is to re-order the burden of proof to require the infringement-action defendant to prove the copyright is invalid. Until now, no circuit has given additional judicial deference to a registration. But the Sixth Circuit determined that a copyright registration is entitled to Skidmore deference. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). The second question is: Whether, in determining a copyright registration's validity, a court should give any judicial deference in addition to the statutory deference articulated in 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 14-5237
The case of Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., revolved around the issue of copyright protection for clothing designs. Varsity Brands, a company that designs cheerleading uniforms, sued Star Athletica for infringing on their copyrights by producing similar uniform designs. The main question was whether the design elements of a useful article (in this case, a cheerleading uniform) are protectable under copyright law if they can be identified separately from and exist independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article itself. In 2016, in an effort to clarify how courts handle such disputes over clothes design patents and copyrights in future cases,the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Varsity Brands stating that fashion designers could indeed treat some parts or features as separate creative works eligible for copyright protection.
The dissenting opinion in the case of Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., argued that the majority's decision to allow copyright protection for cheerleading uniforms' designs was a significant expansion of copyright law and could potentially stifle innovation and competition within the fashion industry. The dissenters believed that such design elements are not separable from their utilitarian function - to cover the body, wick away moisture, etc., hence they should not be eligible for copyright protection under Section 101 of Copyright Act which only protects works of art separate from their utilitarian aspects. They warned this ruling might lead to monopolization by large companies who can afford extensive copyrights portfolios while smaller competitors may be sued out of existence over basic design elements.
