Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: April 26, 2017
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comIn a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the design of a cheerleading uniform is eligible for copyright protection. As highlighted by the Court, its holding in Sitar Athletic° v. Varsity Brands “resolve[s] widespread disagreement over the proper test” for determining when “the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection.”

The Copyright Act of 1976 provides copyright protection for original works of art, but not for industrial designs. Under 17 U. S. C. $101, the “pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features” of the “design of a useful article” are eligible for copyright protection as artistic works if those features “can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.” Prior to the Court’s decision, the circuit courts of appeal could not agree what test should be used to analyze whether the designs on an article were separate from the functional aspects of the garment, known as “separability.”
Varsity Brands holds more than 200 copyright registrations for two-dimensional designs consisting of various lines, chevrons, and colorful shapes appearing on the surface of the cheerleading uniforms the company designs, makes and sells. Varsity Brands filed a copyright infringement suit against Star Athletica, which also markets cheerleading uniforms. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Star Athletica, ruling that the designs could not be conceptually or physically separated from the uniforms and were, therefore, ineligible for copyright protection. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the graphics could be “identified separately” and were “capable of existing independently” of the uniforms under §101.
The Supreme Court upheld the Sixth Circuit’s decision. Under the Court’s two-part test to determine separability: “if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or in some other medium if imagined separately from the useful article.”
When applying the above test to the uniforms at issue, the Court determined that the decorations were separable and, therefore, eligible for copyright protection. “First, the decorations can be identified as features having pictorial, graphic, or sculptural qualities,” Justice Clarence Thomas explained. “Second, if those decorations were separated from the uniforms and applied in another medium, they would qualify as two-dimensional works of art under §101.” He further added: “Imaginatively removing the decorations from the uniforms and applying them in another medium also would not replicate the uniform itself.”
While the Court’s decision established a bright line rule, Justice Thomas was careful to emphasize the limits of its holding. He wrote:
To be clear, the only feature of the cheerleading uniform eligible for a copyright, in this case, is the two-dimensional work of art…respondents have no right to prohibit any person from manufacturing a cheerleading uniform of identical shape, cut, and dimensions to the ones on which the decorations in this case appear. They may prohibit only the reproduction of the surface designs in any tangible medium of expression—a uniform or otherwise.
The Court’s decision in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands brings much-needed clarity for copyright holders. It may also help businesses battle counterfeiters and others that seek to copy their clothing designs. To take full benefit of the Court’s holding, fashion companies should assess, with counsel, whether to pursue copyright registrations for their two- or three-dimensional clothing surface designs.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, David Einhorn, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

For battery energy storage system (BESS) developers, securing equipment and site control is only part of the development equation. A project must also connect to the electric grid, and increasingly, BESS interconnection is one of the biggest sources of schedule, cost, and contractual risk. Key Takeaways This article is Part 3 of our Battery Storage […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

Director and officer liability increases sharply when a company is in financial distress. Decisions that would draw little attention in a healthy business can later be challenged by creditors, shareholders, bankruptcy trustees, and regulators as breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfers, or oversight failures. Understanding where that exposure comes from, and how to manage it, […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For developers pursuing battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, finding the right property is only the beginning. BESS site selection is as much a legal and transactional exercise as a real estate decision, with risk analysis central to the project’s ultimate success. Key Takeaways The core questions for BESS site selection in New York and […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!