AND · 15usc1125:false-association
Require a qualifying designation or representation likely to mislead about affiliation, connection, origin, sponsorship or approval. False endorsement may concern a persona rather than a plaintiff-owned registered mark. Dastar limits origin-of-goods theory to producers of tangible goods, not authorship of uncopyrighted ideas; copyright cannot be recreated through a false-origin label.
Exact element source
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person,Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec1125; Unicode character offsets [395:670] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0a5680239d11ae3247a99abab2344db45177346d2d2e3050e95c82fb39f3aca7.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| origin-of-goods/public-domain-video-copying | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/539/0023-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — not |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /us/539/0023-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 | Misleading affiliation approval or sponsorship | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; theory: Reverse passing off based on unattributed authorship; subject: theory=Reverse passing off based on unattributed authorship 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. | origin-of-goods/public-domain-video-copying | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_539.jsonl#/us/539/0023-01; Unicode character offsets [2270:2456] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e8c626d208ead599409c58268cc104a002fcb2cf5fa4a70d95bd12040f9b1242.Dastar manufactured and sold the Campaigns video set as its own product.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_539.jsonl#/us/539/0023-01; Unicode character offsets [2992:3064] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e8c626d208ead599409c58268cc104a002fcb2cf5fa4a70d95bd12040f9b1242.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_539.jsonl#/us/539/0023-01; Unicode character offsets [21169:21594] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e8c626d208ead599409c58268cc104a002fcb2cf5fa4a70d95bd12040f9b1242.Because we conclude that Dastar was the “origin” of the products it sold as its own, respondents cannot prevail on their Lanham Act claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_539.jsonl#/us/539/0023-01; Unicode character offsets [23135:23273] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e8c626d208ead599409c58268cc104a002fcb2cf5fa4a70d95bd12040f9b1242. |