Practice Tips for Copyright Owners in the Wake of Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands

After considering almost a year’s worth of substantive briefing (including fifteen separate amicus briefs), oral argument, at least ten distinct tests employed in courts throughout the country, as well as numerous novel tests proposed during the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court delivered a rare victory for many intellectual property (IP) owners in its recent decision: Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017). Before sounding the victory trumpet for these IP owners, however, it is worth considering the rarified air in which this Supreme Court’s analysis occurred—the last time the Supreme Court addressed the impact an article’s usefulness has on its ability to be copyrighted was in 1954.[1] Here, we attempt to unpack what little clear, practical guidance may be garnered from this decision.

The State of the Problem

In defining the line between copyrightable works and unprotectable, utilitarian elements of industrial design, courts routinely ask “whether the aesthetic features of a useful article can be identified separately from, and can exist independently of, the work’s utilitarian functions.”[2] Articulating and evaluating the exact parameters and applicability of this inquiry, the “separability test,” however, has proven to be anything but straightforward.

For instance, the Sixth Circuit, acknowledging that “[c]ourts have struggled mightily to formulate a test” to accurately evaluate the separability test, enumerated and discussed nine different tests aimed at doing just that before articulating and applying its own newly-minted, five-part test directed at doing the same.[3] Thus, while the details of these various tests will not be discussed at any length here, it is safe to say that the Supreme Court faced a tall task in evaluating the state and merits of the judicial landscape surrounding this inquiry—even before the first brief was filed.

The Solutions Proposed

Piling on to the confusion, in its briefing before the Court, Star Athletica denounced all of the approaches discussed, including the one promoted by the Sixth Circuit, and instead proposed its own four-part, strictly-construed separability analysis based on the statutory language of § 101 of the Copyright Act[4] that would have required a court to consider:

1. “whether the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work is a design of a useful article . . . [which] are presumptively not entitled to copyright protection . . . and only [so] if that feature satisfies the separability test, with doubts resolved against copyrightability;”[5]
2. that “[t]he presumption against extending copyright protection to utilitarian objects requires courts to identify all of the article’s inherent, essential, or natural functions,” further considering that “[t]he uses for which an article is marketed is strong evidence of its functions;”[6]
3. “whether a feature of a useful article can be recognized as a unit by itself, apart from the article’s utilitarian aspects . . . because it is purely artistic,” further assuming that “[i]f the answer is no, the feature cannot be copyrighted;”[7] and
4. “whether the artistic feature and the useful article could both exist side by side and be perceived as fully realized, separate works,” which further requires, at least in part, that “the feature cannot advance the utility of the article, and the article cannot depend on the feature for its utility,” because “[i]f the feature is even slightly utilitarian, it cannot be copyrighted.”[8]

Furthermore, in a somewhat odd choice of proposed construction, Star Athletica suggested that in “close cases” under this four-part test, courts “should follow [the] analogous approach in the trade-dress arena and decline to provide copyright protection to the useful article’s design features based on Congress’s choice not to extend the copyright monopoly to industrial designs.”[9]

In response, Varsity Brands criticized Star Athletica’s approach as an “indeterminate hodge-podge of lower-court tests,” all flawed in one aspect or another, and the sum of which would surely be as well.[10] Accordingly, Varsity Brands reiterated the longstanding applicability and practicality of the Copyright Office’s “side-by-side” analysis for evaluating separability, which asks:

1. whether “an artistic feature can be ‘identified separately from’ the useful article’s practical features,” in essence, whether the artistic feature is ‘capable of being visualized—either on paper or as free-standing sculpture—as a work of authorship that is independent from the overall shape of the useful article’;”[11] and
2. whether “the artistic feature is ‘capable of independent existence apart from” the utilitarian features,” that is, whether “the artistic feature can ‘exist side by side’ with the useful article after being separated, and still be ‘perceived as [a] fully realized, separate work[].’”[12]

The Path Taken

The Supreme Court, perhaps unsurprisingly considering the landscape with which it was presented, elected to articulate and apply its own separability test. With Justice Thomas writing for the Court, the Court held that an “artistic” feature of a claimed design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if the feature:

1. “can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article;”[13] 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.”[14]

Furthermore, the Court further clarified that because here, “one can identify the decorations [on the useful article] as features having pictorial, graphic, or sculptural qualities,” and “if the arrangement of colors, shapes, stripes, and chevrons on the surface of the [article] were separated from the [article] and applied in another medium—for example, on a painter’s canvas—they would qualify as ‘two-dimensional … works of … art,’ . . . [t]he decorations are therefore separable from the [article] and eligible for copyright protection.”[15]

And, as is the case in this oft-polarized court, the final count came down 6-2, with Justices Breyer and Kennedy dissenting—not on the basis of an incorrect test being articulated, but instead on its incorrect application to the facts of this case.

Conclusion

Simple enough, right? Likely not—especially for courts attempting to apply the simple, but seemingly ambiguous, parameters of this test in the first instance. For example, courts are likely to struggle, just as the Court seemed to, with what “perceived” actually means in the context of the first prong. To Justice Thomas, perception seems to be more clearly defined in terms of what it is not.[16] Although this type of Justice Stewart-esque analysis may produce swift, seemingly equitable, results, in one case, it will be difficult for courts to interpret and apply to facts in others.[17] This confusion is also likely to only be compounded for those courts faced with a depth of diverse, distinct jurisprudence to the contrary and a dearth of information on how to accurately (or adequately) apply this analysis moving forward.

Thus, what are IP owners left to do in the wake of Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands? A couple of thoughts, particularly relevant to those in the fashion, music, and other apparel industries:

1. Copyrights are cheap to prosecute (relative to, say, patents) and it seems easier to obtain protection now than it did pre-Star Athletica—particularly if you are seeking protection for clearly articulated design choices (e.g., colors, patterns, and other shapes (aside from those of the article itself))— so in this climate, file aggressively and file often; and
2. Regardless of all the tests proposed in this appeal, because the Supreme Court seemed to pay the most deference to the analysis already articulated and routinely applied by the Copyright Office, applicants navigating the waters of that analysis during application should do so carefully—as it appears to be even more valuable for the copyrights you plan on enforcing moving forward.

© 2017 McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

snippets is a trademark of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP. All rights reserved. The information contained in this newsletter reflects the understanding and opinions of the author(s) and is provided to you for informational purposes only. It is not intended to and does not represent legal advice. MBHB LLP does not intend to create an attorney–client relationship by providing this information to you. The information in this publication is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney licensed in your particular state. snippets may be considered attorney advertising in some states.