Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.
The Court ruled that the decorative designs on cheerleading uniforms—the chevrons, stripes, and color blocks—can be protected by copyright, because those designs could be imagined as standalone artwork separate from the uniform itself.
The decision sets a new two-part test for when artistic designs on everyday useful objects, like clothing, furniture, or dishware, qualify for copyright protection, resolving years of disagreement among lower courts over how to draw that line.
How it got here: A federal trial court ruled for Star Athletica, but the Sixth Circuit reversed and sided with Varsity; Star Athletica asked the Supreme Court to review the case.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Varsity Brands designs and sells cheerleading uniforms and holds over 200 copyright registrations for two-dimensional patterns of chevrons, lines, and colorful shapes that appear on their uniforms. A competitor, Star Athletica, also sold cheerleading uniforms. Varsity sued Star Athletica for copying its uniform designs and infringing its copyrights.
The question before the Court
Can the colorful stripes, chevrons, and shapes printed on a cheerleading uniform be copyrighted, even though they're part of a piece of clothing?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court ruled that Varsity's uniform designs can qualify for copyright protection. It laid out a two-part test: a design feature is copyrightable if it can be seen as a two- or three-dimensional artistic element separate from the object, and if, once mentally removed and placed in another form, it would count as protectable art on its own.
Applying that test, the Court found Varsity's chevrons and color patterns pass: if lifted off the uniform and painted on a canvas, they would look like ordinary artwork, not a depiction of a uniform. The Court stressed this doesn't let Varsity copyright the uniform's shape or cut — only the surface design — and it left open whether the designs are original enough to ultimately win their infringement case.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Clothing and product designers now have clearer guidance on when they can copyright surface designs on useful items like uniforms, fabric, and furniture. Companies that copy competitors' decorative patterns may face infringement suits more easily, while the shape and cut of the underlying garment or object itself remains free for anyone to copy.
What changes now
The case returns to the lower courts, where Varsity's infringement claims against Star Athletica can proceed under the new separability test. The ruling does not decide whether Varsity's specific designs are original enough to warrant copyright protection — that question remains open for further litigation. The decision otherwise stands as a final resolution of the legal test to be used nationwide.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether Varsity's designs are actually original enough to qualify for copyright, or whether any other copyright requirement is met. It also made clear that Varsity cannot stop anyone from making a uniform of the same cut, shape, or dimensions — only the surface artwork itself is protected.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Ginsburg
Justice Ginsburg agreed with the outcome but thought the majority didn't need to create a separability test at all. In her view, Varsity's designs were simply standalone pictorial or graphic works that Varsity reproduced on uniforms, so copyright law already lets Varsity stop others from copying those designs onto useful articles without any separability analysis.
Dissent — Justice Breyer
Justice Breyer argued that even under the majority's own test, Varsity's designs fail because pictures of the designs are simply pictures of cheerleader uniforms, not standalone art. He would ask whether imagining the design apart from the uniform still produces a picture of the useful article itself; since Varsity's designs track the neckline, sleeves, and skirt of the dress, extracting them still depicts a dress and therefore cannot be copyrighted.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court read the copyright statute's rule for useful objects, which says a design feature is copyrightable only if it can be identified separately from, and can exist independently of, the practical function of the object it's part of.
- The Court set out a two-part test: first, can a viewer look at the object and pick out a two- or three-dimensional design element that looks like art rather than pure function? Second, if you mentally lift that design off the object and place it in another form (like a canvas), would it qualify as protectable art on its own?
- The Court explained that the second step doesn't require imagining what would be left of the useful object without the design — the focus stays entirely on the extracted design, not on the leftover object.
- Applying this to Varsity's uniforms, the Court found the chevrons and color patterns could be lifted off the uniform and painted on a canvas, where they would look like ordinary two-dimensional artwork rather than a picture of a uniform.
- The Court rejected the argument that a picture of a uniform-shaped outline defeats copyright protection, comparing it to a painting that follows the shape of its canvas — the artwork's boundaries tracking the object's shape doesn't disqualify it.
- The Court also rejected Star Athletica's proposed additional requirements — that the design reflect the designer's purely artistic judgment and that it be marketable on its own — because neither requirement appears in the statute's text.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Mazer v. Stein (347 U. S. 201)
Relies on this 1954 case allowing copyright in an artistic statuette used as a lamp base to support today's rule.