DASTAR CORP. v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP. ET AL.

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation539 U.S. 23
Decision Date02 June 2003

OCTOBER TERM, 2002

Syllabus

DASTAR CORP. v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP. ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-428. Argued April 2, 2003-Decided June 2, 2003


General Dwight D. Eisenhower's World War II book, Crusade in Europe, was published by Doubleday, which registered the work's copyright and granted exclusive television rights to an affiliate of respondent Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (Fox). Fox, in turn, arranged for Time, Inc., to produce a Crusade in Europe television series based on the book, and Time assigned its copyright in the series to Fox. The series was first broadcast in 1949. In 1975, Doubleday renewed the book's copyright, but Fox never renewed the copyright on the television series, which expired in 1977, leaving the series in the public domain. In 1988, Fox reacquired the television rights in the book, including the exclusive right to distribute the Crusade television series on video and to sublicense others to do so. Respondents SFM Entertainment and New Line Home Video, Inc., acquired from Fox the exclusive rights to manufacture and distribute Crusade on video. In 1995, petitioner Dastar released a video set, World War II Campaigns in Europe, which it made from tapes of the original version of the Crusade television series and sold as its own product for substantially less than New Line's video set. Fox, SFM, and New Line brought this action alleging, inter alia, that Dastar's sale of Campaigns without proper credit to the Crusade television series constitutes "reverse passing off" in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The District Court granted respondents summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in relevant part, holding, among other things, that because Dastar copied substantially the entire Crusade series, labeled the resulting product with a different name, and marketed it without attribution to Fox, Dastar had committed a "bodily appropriation" of Fox's series, which was sufficient to establish the reverse passing off.

Held: Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act does not prevent the unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted work. Pp. 28-38.

(a) Respondents' claim that Dastar has made a "false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which ... is likely to cause confusion ... as to the origin ... of [its] goods" in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a), would undoubtedly be sustained if Dastar had bought


24

Syllabus

some of New Line's Crusade videotapes and merely repackaged them as its own. However, Dastar has instead taken a creative work in the public domain, copied it, made modifications (arguably minor), and produced its very own series of videotapes. If "origin" refers only to the manufacturer or producer of the physical "good" that is made available to the public (here, the videotapes), Dastar was the origin. If, however, "origin" includes the creator of the underlying work that Dastar copied, then someone else (perhaps Fox) was the origin of Dastar's product. At bottom, the Court must decide what § 43(a) means by the "origin" of "goods." Pp.28-31.

(b) Because Dastar was the "origin" of the physical products it sold as its own, respondents cannot prevail on their Lanham Act claim. As dictionary definitions affirm, the most natural understanding of the "origin" of "goods"-the source of wares-is the producer of the tangible product sold in the marketplace, here Dastar's Campaigns videotape. The phrase "origin of goods" in the Lanham Act is incapable of connoting the person or entity that originated the ideas that "goods" embody or contain. The consumer typically does not care about such origination, and § 43(a) should not be stretched to cover matters that are of no consequence to purchasers. Although purchasers do care about ideas or communications contained or embodied in a communicative product such as a video, giving the Lanham Act special application to such products would cause it to conflict with copyright law, which is precisely directed to that subject, and which grants the public the right to copy without attribution once a copyright has expired, e. g., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U. S. 225, 230. Recognizing a § 43(a) cause of action here would render superfluous the provisions of the Visual Artists Rights Act that grant an artistic work's author "the right ... to claim authorship," 17 U. S. C. § 106A(a)(1)(A), but carefully limit and focus that right, §§ 101, 106A(b), (d)(l), and (e). It would also pose serious practical problems. Finally, reading § 43(a) as creating a cause of action for, in effect, plagiarism would be hard to reconcile with, e. g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U. S. 205, 211. Pp.31-38.

34 Fed. Appx. 312, reversed and remanded.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except BREYER, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

David A. Gerber argued the cause for petitioner. him on the briefs were Stewart A. Baker, Bennett Cooper, and David Nimmer.

With Evan


25

Gregory G. Garre argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General McCallum, Deputy Solicitor General Clement, Anthony J. Steinmeyer, and Mark S. Davies.

Dale M. Cendali argued the cause for respondents. With her on the briefs were Walter E. Dellinger, Pamela A. Harris, Jonathan D. Hacker, Jeremy Maltby, Pammela Quinn, and Gary D. Roberts. *

JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, we are asked to decide whether § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1125(a), prevents the unaccredited copying of a work, and if so, whether a court may double a profit award under § 1117(a), in order to deter future infringing conduct.

I

In 1948, three and a half years after the German surrender at Reims, General Dwight D. Eisenhower completed Crusade in Europe, his written account of the allied campaign in Europe during World War II. Doubleday published the book, registered it with the Copyright Office in 1948, and granted exclusive television rights to an affiliate of respondent Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (Fox). Fox, in turn, arranged for Time, Inc., to produce a television series, also

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the International Trademark Association by Bruce R. Ewing; and for MalIa Pollack et al. by Ms. Pollack, pro se.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Association for Competitive Technology et al. by Paul Bender and Michael R. Klipper; and for the Directors Guild of America et al. by Richard P. Bress.

Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the American Intellectual Property Law Association by William G. Barber, Louis T. Pirkey, and Ronald E. Myrick; for the American Library Association et al. by Jonathan Band and Peter Jaszi; and for Intellectual Property Law Professors by Tyler T. Ochoa.


26

called Crusade in Europe, based on the book, and Time assigned its copyright in the series to Fox. The television series, consisting of 26 episodes, was first broadcast in 1949. It combined a soundtrack based on a narration of the book with film footage from the United States Army, Navy, and Coast Guard, the British Ministry of Information and War Office, the National Film Board of Canada, and unidentified "Newsreel Pool Cameramen." In 1975, Doubleday renewed the copyright on the book as the" 'proprietor of copyright in a work made for hire.'" App. to Pet. for Cert. 9a. Fox, however, did not renew the copyright on the Crusade television series, which expired in 1977, leaving the television series in the public domain.

In 1988, Fox reacquired the television rights in General Eisenhower's book, including the exclusive right to distribute the Crusade television series on video and to sublicense others to do so. Respondents SFM Entertainment and New Line Home Video, Inc., in turn, acquired from Fox the exclusive rights to distribute Crusade on video. SFM obtained the negatives of the original television series, restored them, and repackaged the series on videotape; New Line distributed the videotapes.

Enter petitioner Dastar. In 1995, Dastar decided to expand its product line from music compact discs to videos. Anticipating renewed interest in World War II on the 50th anniversary of the war's end, Dastar released a video set entitled World War II Campaigns in Europe. To make Campaigns, Dastar purchased eight beta cam tapes of the original version of the Crusade television series, which is in the public domain, copied them, and then edited the series. Dastar's Campaigns series is slightly more than half as long as the original Crusade television series. Dastar substituted a new opening sequence, credit page, and final closing for those of the Crusade television series; inserted new chapter-title sequences and narrated chapter introductions; moved the "recap" in the Crusade television series to the


27

beginning and retitled it as a "preview"; and removed references to and images of the book. Dastar created new packaging for its Campaigns series and (as already noted) a new title.

Dastar manufactured and sold the Campaigns video set as its own product. The advertising states: "Produced and Distributed by: Entertainment Distributing" (which is owned by Dastar), and makes no reference to the Crusade television series. Similarly, the screen credits state "DASTAR CORP presents" and "an ENTERTAINMENT DISTRIBUTING Production," and list as executive producer, producer, and associate producer employees of Dastar. Supp. App. 2-3, 30. The Campaigns videos themselves also make no reference to the Crusade television series, New Line's Crusade videotapes, or the book. Dastar sells its Campaigns videos to Sam's Club, Costco, Best Buy, and other retailers and mail-order companies for $25 per set, substantially...

To continue reading

Request your trial
372 cases
  • Siler v. Lejarza, 1:19CV403
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Middle District of North Carolina
    • November 21, 2019
    ...more than a copyright claim in disguise" and is "preempted by federal statute,"3 citing Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 24, 123 S.Ct. 2041, 156 L.Ed.2d 18 (2003), for the proposition that unfair competition protections should not be overextended to cover tradi......
  • Brantley v. Epic Games, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • May 29, 2020
    ...evaluated under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Cf. Dastar Corporation v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation , 539 U.S. 23, 32, 123 S.Ct. 2041, 156 L.Ed.2d 18 (2003) (evaluating Lanham Act unfair competition claim under Section 43(a)); Mays & Assocs., Inc. v. Euler......
  • Mays & Associates, Inc. v. Euler, No. CIV. RDB 05-437.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • May 18, 2005
    ...is preempted by copyright law, Defendants cite the unanimous14 Supreme Court opinion in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 123 S.Ct. 2041, 156 L.Ed.2d 18 (2003). In Dastar, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. ("Twentieth Century Fox") obtained exclusive rights to pr......
  • Nestle USA, Inc. v. Ultra Distribuciones Mundiales S.A. De C.V.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Texas
    • February 1, 2021
    ...The word "origin" in § 1125(a)(1)(A) does not refer merely to geographic origin. See Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 37, 123 S.Ct. 2041, 156 L.Ed.2d 18 (2003) ; Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. Casa Helvetia, Inc., 982 F. 2d 633, 639–40 (1st Cir. 1992) (fi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • How the Fifty States View Electronic Data as a “Product”
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • July 31, 2023
    ...in commerce . . .”). Id. Similar distinctions are drawn under the Lanham Act. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 37 (2003) (“the phrase refers to the producer of the tangible goods that are offered for sale, and not to the author of any idea, concept, or communic......
  • Spencer's Art Law Journal - Vol. 3, No. 2 - Fall 2012
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 5, 2012
    ...of Lanham Act claims is a step in the right direction toward protecting independent scholarship's role in the art world. Footnotes 1 539 U.S. 23 2 See Gilbert v. Indiana, No. 09-CV-6352, 2012 WL 688811 (S.D.N.Y. March 2, 2012). The author, with Gary D. Sesser and Ronald D. Spencer of Carter......
  • Stemming The Tide Of Federal Litigation Against Art Experts And Authentication Boards For Opinions About The Authenticity Of Art
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 5, 2012
    ...of Lanham Act claims is a step in the right direction toward protecting independent scholarship's role in the art world. Footnotes 1 539 U.S. 23 2 See Gilbert v. Indiana, No. 09-CV-6352, 2012 WL 688811 (S.D.N.Y. March 2, 2012). The author, with Gary D. Sesser and Ronald D. Spencer of Carter......
  • D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: January 2023
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 28, 2023
    ...is correct that 'context is crucial.'" More specifically, the Court observed that inDastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), the Supreme Court found that the phrase "'origin of goods' in the Lanham Act referred to the producer of the [goods], and not the produce......
10 books & journal articles
  • Federal Law of Unfair Competition
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort law
    • January 1, 2014
    ...marks.” 12 The Lanham Act is cumulative of, and does not preempt, state unfair 9. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 28 (2003) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1127); Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 (1992) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1127). 10. Dastar, 539 U......
  • COPYRIGHT AND THE CREATIVE PROCESS.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 No. 1, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...Michael Boucai, John Tehranian, and Jim Wooten for their helpful suggestions. (1) Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 37 (2003) (noting that copyright and patent laws were "designed to protect originality or creativity"); Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 223 (200......
  • A FRAGILITY THEORY OF TRADEMARK FUNCTIONALITY.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 No. 6, June 2021
    • June 1, 2021
    ...Off. v. Booking.com, 140 S. Ct. 2298, 2306 n.5 (2020) (quoting TrafFix, 532 U.S. at 32); Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 33-34 (2003); Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 829 (2002), superseded by statute, Leahy-Smith America......
  • The First Amendment walks into a bar: trademark registration and free speech.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 92 No. 1, November - November 2016
    • November 1, 2016
    ...necessarily pertain to commercial transactions and are thus commercial speech...." (quoting Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 34 (2003))); N.Y. Yankees P'ship v. IET Prods. & Sens., Inc., 114 U.S.P.Q.2d 1497, at *1508 (T.T.A.B. 2015) (trademark is inherently com......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT