Intellectual Property Law
New Matter SUMMER 2017 Volume 42, Number 2
Content
- 2017 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Case Comments
- Contents
- Federal Circuit Report
- Federal Government Expands Public Disclosure Requirements For Clinical Trials: Product Developers Must Publish More Detailed Information, Study Protocols, and the Results of Studies of Unapproved/Unmarketed Products
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2016-2017
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2016-2017
- Ip and Art: An International Perspective
- Letter from the Chair
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- Standing Still: Denial of Certiorari in Belmora Llc v. Bayer Consumer Care Ag Leaves Question on Standing for Foreign Plaintiff's Unfair Competition Claims
- The Band Who Must Not Be Named: Summary of Briefs and Oral Hearing in Lee v. Tam
- The Licensing Corner
- The State Bar of California Intellectual Property Alumni
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- Copyright Commentary
Copyright Commentary
WILLIAM J. O’BRIEN
One LLP
THE SUPREME COURT SPEAKS ON COPYRIGHTS IN USEFUL ARTICLES: WHERE DO WE STAND AFTER VARSITY BRANDS V. STAR ATHLETICA?
"Be careful what you wish for…."1
More than a year ago, I suggested that it might be "time for our highest court to clarify the scope of copyright protection for clothing, cars, and other useful articles…."2 One of the two cases on which I focused was Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, L.L.C., in which the Sixth Circuit held that cheerleader uniform features such as stripes, chevrons, and color blocks "can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects" of the uniforms and thus are protected by copyright.3 I quoted the dissenting Sixth Circuit judge who had said that, "until we get much-needed clarification, courts will continue to struggle and the business world will continue to be handicapped by the uncertainty of the law."4 I concluded that, "[a]bsent Supreme Court intervention, there is no clear limit to the expansion of copyright protection for product designs."5