Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
The Court ruled that a company selling videos copied from a public-domain television series was itself the "origin" of the videos under federal trademark law, so it could not be sued for failing to credit the series' original creators.
The decision keeps trademark law from being used to extend copyright-like protection to creative works after their copyrights expire, preserving the public's right to freely copy and repackage material once it enters the public domain.
How it got here: A federal trial court ruled for the rights-holders on their trademark claim; the Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling, and Dastar asked the Supreme Court to review it.
The Case in Depth
What happened
General Eisenhower's book about World War II became a television series, "Crusade in Europe," whose copyright lapsed into the public domain. A video company, Dastar, bought old copies of the series, edited and repackaged it as its own product without mentioning the original series. The companies that held rights to distribute the original series sued Dastar, claiming it falsely presented the material as its own creation.
The question before the Court
Could a video company be sued under federal trademark law for repackaging a public-domain TV series as its own without crediting the original creators?
Why it matters
Companies that repackage or sell copies of expired-copyright books, films, and TV shows can now do so without crediting the original creators, at least under this section of trademark law. Copyright holders can no longer use trademark claims as a backup way to control public-domain works once their copyright protection has lapsed, narrowing one avenue creators previously used to fight unauthorized copying.
What changes now
The case goes back to the lower courts. A separate claim that Dastar's videos infringe the copyright in General Eisenhower's underlying book is still pending and was not decided here. This is a final ruling on the trademark claim, though it leaves open whether a different provision of the same law — covering misrepresentations about a product's nature or characteristics — might apply in similar situations.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether Dastar's videos infringe any copyright in the underlying book, which remains a live issue on remand. It also left open whether a producer could be liable under a different part of the same law for misrepresenting how different its copy is from the original work.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court examined what the word 'origin' means in the Lanham Act's ban on false designations of origin, since that word determines whether Dastar's failure to credit the original series counts as a violation.
- It concluded that 'origin of goods' means the producer of the tangible physical product sold to consumers — here, the videotapes — not the creator of the underlying creative content the product conveys.
- The Court reasoned that treating 'origin' as including the creator of ideas or content would let trademark law function like a permanent copyright, letting companies control public-domain material forever through attribution requirements even after copyright protection expires.
- It pointed to the Visual Artists Rights Act, where Congress created a narrow, carefully limited right of attribution for certain artists, reasoning that if the Lanham Act already provided a broad attribution right, that narrower law would serve no purpose.
- The Court also found this reading consistent with earlier rulings — including cases involving unpatented boat hulls and functional road-sign designs — where similar attempts to use trademark law to protect uncopyrighted or unpatented designs were rejected.
- Because Dastar was the actual maker of the physical videos it sold, the Court held Dastar was the 'origin' of its own product and could not be liable under this provision, regardless of how much of the underlying content it copied without credit.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (532 U. S. 23)
Reaffirmed that trademark law should not be stretched to cover matters belonging to patent or copyright law.
Reaffirms Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (489 U. S. 141)
Reaffirmed that once patent protection expires, the public may freely copy the design without attribution.
Reaffirms Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. (529 U. S. 205)
Relied on to show trademark law's limits would be pointless if reverse-passing-off claims covered the same ground.