On March 22, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling aimed at resolving “widespread disagreement” over an important aspect of copyright law.
Under U.S. copyright law, “original works of art” are capable of protection, whereas “useful articles” are not. However, the distinction between works of art and useful articles can often be hazy, particularly when the two are both present in the same work.
This distinction was at the center of the dispute between competing cheerleading uniform companies Star Athletica, L.L.C. and Varsity Brands, Inc. Varsity Brands, who owns numerous U.S. copyright registrations for two-dimensional designs that appear on the surface of cheerleading uniforms, sued Star Athletica for copyright infringement in 2010. Ultimately, the parties disputed whether these uniform designs were useful articles not subject to copyright protection or decorative, expressive elements that were conceptually separable from the underlying garments themselves such that they were subject to copyright protection.
The task of determining such “separability” has long been a tricky one for courts, with various circuits taking different approaches and applying nearly a dozen different tests. In ruling on the matter, however, the U.S. Supreme resolved this uncertainty by establishing a new, nationwide standard.
In an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court established a two-part test for when a feature incorporated into the design of a useful object is separable, and thus copyrightable. First, the feature must be able to “be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article.” Additionally, the feature must “qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression, if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated.”
Applying this test to the case at hand, the Court found that the designs on the surface of the cheerleading uniforms, which consisted of arranged lines, chevrons, and colorful shapes, were separable features from the uniform garments themselves and were thus eligible for copyright protection.
While the Court’s ruling left some unanswered questions, it will serve to provide clarity and a level of certainty for various copyright matters moving forward—something worthy of cheering for!
Nicholas Krob is an Intellectual Property Attorney in the Litigation Practice Group at McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC. For additional information please visit www.ipmvs.com or contact Nick directly via email at firstname.lastname@example.org .
The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.
McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.
Your Worldwide IP Partner since 1924 ™