Source: cases/15usc1125/us-539-23-dastar-v-twentieth-century-fox.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_539/0023_01/index.html
In sum, reading the phrase “origin of goods” in the Lan-ham Act in accordance with the Act’s common-law foundations (which were not designed to protect originality or creativity), and in light of the copyright and patent laws (which were), we conclude that 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 communication embodied in those goods.
Because we conclude that Dastar was the “origin” of the products it sold as its own, respondents cannot prevail on their Lanham Act claim.
If, moreover, the producer of a video that substantially copied the Crusade series were, in advertising or promotion, to give purchasers the impression that the video was quite different from that series, then one or more of the respondents might have a cause of action — not for reverse passing off under the “confusion ... as to the origin” provision of § 43(a)(1)(A), but for misrepresentation under the “misrepresents the nature, characteristics [or] qualities” provision of § 43(a)(1)(B).
We thus have no occasion to consider whether the Lanham Act permitted an award of double petitioner’s profits.
casedsl 1 case /us/539/0023-01 name Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. cite 539 U.S. 23 (2003) court Supreme Court of the United States date 2003-06-02 url catalog/cases/us/volume_539/0023_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/us_539.jsonl sha1=998b65ca299add261d6d33a1b4d50c3f93543780 chars=27497 law 15usc1125 role applied posture Review of summary judgment imposing reverse-passing-off liability; judgment reversed and remanded, with copyright issue separately unresolved. result claimant-lost element false-association : not-satisfied [law] variant origin-of-goods/public-domain-video-copying theory Reverse passing off based on unattributed authorship fact @2270..2456 [supports] | 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. fact @2992..3064 [cuts-against] | Dastar manufactured and sold the Campaigns video set as its own product. rule @21169..21594 | In sum, reading the phrase “origin of goods” in the Lan-ham Act in accordance with the Act’s common-law foundations (which were not designed to protect originality or creativity), and in light of the copyright and patent laws (which were), we conclude that 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 communication embodied in those goods. held @23135..23273 | Because we conclude that Dastar was the “origin” of the products it sold as its own, respondents cannot prevail on their Lanham Act claim. gloss Authorship copying supports the alleged theory but is legally insufficient; tangible-product origin is Dastar. No ruling about ordinary source confusion, false endorsement, or product qualities is inferred. element false-fact : not-reached variant hypothetical-advertising/claimed-difference-from-copied-video role rule-announced scope hypothetical theory Possible subsection (B) misrepresentation distinct from pleaded subsection (A) claim rule @22531..23024 | If, moreover, the producer of a video that substantially copied the Crusade series were, in advertising or promotion, to give purchasers the impression that the video was quite different from that series, then one or more of the respondents might have a cause of action — not for reverse passing off under the “confusion ... as to the origin” provision of § 43(a)(1)(A), but for misrepresentation under the “misrepresents the nature, characteristics [or] qualities” provision of § 43(a)(1)(B). gloss The Court identifies a different hypothetical advertising claim; it neither finds the relevant advertisement nor decides liability on that theory. element relief : not-reached variant profits/doubling-to-deter scope procedural held @23274..23384 | We thus have no occasion to consider whether the Lanham Act permitted an award of double petitioner’s profits. gloss The reserved remedy question is not an element of base liability and does not establish either entitlement or ineligibility for profits in other cases.