Copyrighting Fashion After Varsity Brands Symposium The Annual Survey of American Law February 24, 2017 NYU School of Law Table of Contents Petitioner’s Brief..............................................................................................................................3 Respondent’s Brief.........................................................................................................................89 Petitioner’s Reply.........................................................................................................................165 Brief Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Intellectual Property Professors in Support of Petitioner....................................................................................................199 Brief of Professors Christopher Buccafusco and Jeanne Fromer as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.........................................................................233 Brief of Professors Jeannie Suk Gersen and C. Scott Hemphill as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents....................................................................279 NO. 15-866 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States STAR ATHLETICA, L.L.C., Petitioner, v. VARSITY BRANDS, INC., VARSITY SPIRIT CORPORATION, AND VARSITY SPIRIT FASHIONS & SUPPLIES, INC., Respondents. On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER STEVEN M. CROSBY JOHN J. BURSCH THE FELDMAN LAW GROUP Counsel of Record 220 East 42nd St., Ste. 3304 MATTHEW T. NELSON New York, NY 10017 CONOR B. DUGAN WARNER NORCROSS & MICHAEL F. RAFFERTY JUDD LLP EMILY HAMM HUSETH 900 Fifth Third Center HARRIS SHELTON HANOVER 111 Lyon Street, N.W. WALSH, P.L.L.C. Grand Rapids, MI 49503 One Commerce Sq., Ste. 2700 (616) 752-2000 Memphis, TN 38103-2555 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner i QUESTION PRESENTED Under the Copyright Act, “the design of a useful article” such as a chair, a dress, or a uniform cannot be copyrighted. 17 U.S.C. § 101. The design of the article’s component features or elements cannot be copyrighted either, unless capable of being “iden- tified separately from, and . existing indepen- dently 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 Question presented is: What is the appropriate test to determine when a feature of the design of a useful article is protectable under § 101 of the Copyright Act? ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE There are no parties to the proceedings other than those listed in the caption. Petitioner is Star Athletica, L.L.C. Respondents are Varsity Brands, Inc., Varsity Spirit Corporation, and Varsity Spirit Fashion & Supplies, Inc. Petitioner Star Athletica, L.L.C., does not have a parent corporation, and no publicly traded corpor- ation owns a 10% or greater interest in the company. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED........................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE ............................. ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................ v OPINIONS BELOW .................................................... 1 JURISDICTION .......................................................... 1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................. 2 COPYRIGHT DEPOSITS INVOLVED ...................... 4 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................... 7 The Copyright Act and “useful articles” ........ 7 The parties and cheerleading-uniform designs .................................................... 12 Star Athletica attempts to enter the cheerleading uniform market. ............... 17 District Court proceedings ........................... 18 Sixth Circuit proceedings ............................. 19 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .......................... 22 ARGUMENT ............................................................. 23 I. The Court should adopt an analytical framework for separability based on § 101’s statutory text. ................................... 23 A. The Copyright Act of 1976 implements the Copyright Clause’s purpose of encouraging the development of artistic works. ............... 23 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued B. The statutory basis for separability ...... 26 C. The statutory-separability analysis ...... 38 II. Response to potential criticisms of Star Athletica’s approach ..................................... 39 III. Applying the § 101 separability test compels the conclusion that the features of a cheerleader uniform (stripes, chevrons, color blocks, braids) cannot be copyrighted. .................................................. 44 IV. Errors in the Sixth Circuit panel majority’s analysis ........................................ 51 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 58 APPENDIX 1 – 17 U.S.C. § 101 ................................ 1a APPENDIX 2 – 17 U.S.C. § 102 .............................. 15a v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans Association, 126 F.3d 977 (7th Cir. 1997) ................................ 24 American Power & Light Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 329 U.S. 90 (1946) ................................................ 23 Application of Yardley, 493 F.2d 1389 (C.C.P.A. 1974)............................. 25 Berlin v. E.C. Publishing, Inc., 329 F.2d 541 (2d Cir. 1964) ................................. 24 Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903) .............................................. 36 Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989) ........................................ 25, 44 Brandir International Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co., 834 F.2d 1142 (2d Cir. 1987) ............. 31, 34, 35, 40 Carol Barnhart Inc. v. Economy Cover Corp., 594 F. Supp. 364 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) ....................... 25 Carol Barnhart, Inc. v. Economy Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1985) ................................. 42 Chosun International, Inc. v. Chrisha Creations, Ltd., 413 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2005) ................................... 7 Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989) .............................................. 23 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Eliya, Inc. v. Kohl’s Department Stores, 2006 WL 2645196 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ...................... 52 Esquire, Inc. v. Ringer, 591 F.2d 796 (D.C. Cir. 1978) .............................. 28 Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................. 32 Fashion Originators Guild v. FTC, 114 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1940) ..................................... 7 Feist Publishing, Inc. v. Rural Telelephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) .............................................. 18 Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123 (1932) .......................................... 7, 24 Galiano v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 416 F.3d 411 (5th Cir. 2005) ........................ passim Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc., 755 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2014) .............................. 32 Jack Adelman, Inc. v. Sonners & Gordon, Inc., 112 F. Supp. 187 (S.D.N.Y. 1934) ........................ 52 Jovani Fashion, Ltd. v. Fiesta Fashions, 500 F. App’x 42 (2d Cir. 2012) ................. 20, 32, 56 Kewanee v. Bicron, 416 U.S. 470 (1974) .............................................. 25 Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl, Inc., 632 F.2d 989 (2d Cir. 1980) ................................. 42 Masquerade Novelty, Inc. v. Unique Industries, 912 F.2d 663 (3d Cir. 1990) ................................. 11 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954) .................................... 8, 25, 36 Norris Industries, Inc. v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 696 F.2d 918 (11th Cir. 1983) .............................. 30 Pivot Point International v. Charlene Products, Inc., 72 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2004) ................ 34, 37, 40, 42 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964) .............................................. 44 Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) .............................................. 51 Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) .................................. 23, 24, 29 TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001) ................................................ 46 United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948) .............................................. 24 Universal Furniture International, Inc. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 618 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2010) ................................ 32 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000) .............................................. 39 Whimsicality, Inc. v. Rubie’s Costume Co., 891 F.2d 452 (2d Cir. 1989) ................................. 10 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Winfield Collection, Ltd. v. Gemmy Industries Corp., 147 F. App’x 547 (6th Cir. 2005).......................... 21 Statutes Constitution, Article I, § 8 .................................... 7, 23 17 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................. passim 17 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................ 3, 24, 26 17 U.S.C. § 113 .......................................................... 52 17 U.S.C. § 302 .........................................................