Dastar: Difference between revisions

From WikiMD's Wellness Encyclopedia

CSV import
 
CSV import
 
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:A_sikh_man_wearing_turban.jpg|thumb|A_sikh_man_wearing_turban]] [[file:Dastar_of_Guru_Gobind_Singh.jpg|right|thumb|Dastar_of_Guru_Gobind_Singh]] [[file:Near_contemporary_portrait_painting_of_Guru_Hargobind_by_a_Muslim_artist,_held_in_the_Bhai_Rupa_Collection,_circa_mid-17th_century.jpg|right|thumb|Near_contemporary_portrait_painting_of_Guru_Hargobind_by_a_Muslim_artist,_held_in_the_Bhai_Rupa_Collection,_circa_mid-17th_century]] [[file:Sikhs_with_chakrams.jpg|thumb|Sikhs_with_chakrams]] [[file:Pigeons_in_Bombay.jpg|thumb|Pigeons_in_Bombay]] [[file:A_Sikh_Hooper_Western_1860s.jpg|thumb|A_Sikh_Hooper_Western_1860s]] [[file:Sikh_Soldiers_India.jpg|thumb|Sikh_Soldiers_India]] {{Short description|Sikh turban worn by men and some women}}
[[File:Sikh wearing turban.jpg|thumb]] [[File:Dastar of Guru Gobind Singh.jpg|thumb]] [[File:Near contemporary portrait painting of Guru Hargobind by a Muslim artist, held in the Bhai Rupa Collection, circa mid-17th century.jpg|thumb]] [[File:Sikhs with chakrams.jpg|thumb]] {{Infobox legal case
{{Infobox religious item
| name = Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
| name = Dastar
| court = United States Supreme Court
| image =  
| full_name = Dastar Corporation v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, et al.
| caption =  
| date_decided = June 2, 2003
| type = Turban
| citations = 539 U.S. 23
| material = Cloth
| prior = 299 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2002)
| place of origin = [[Punjab region]]
| subsequent = None
| associated religion = [[Sikhism]]
| holding = The Lanham Act does not prevent the unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted work.
| majority = Scalia
| joinmajority = Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
| notparticipating = Stevens
}}
}}


The '''Dastar''' (Punjabi: ਦਸਤਾਰ, dastār) is a type of turban worn by [[Sikh]] men and some women to cover their hair, which is considered a symbol of spirituality and honor in [[Sikhism]]. The practice of wearing a Dastar is rooted in the teachings of the [[Sikh Gurus]] and is an important aspect of the [[Sikh identity]].
'''Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.''' is a landmark decision by the [[United States Supreme Court]] that addressed the scope of the [[Lanham Act]] in relation to the unaccredited copying of uncopyrighted works. The case was decided on June 2, 2003, and is cited as 539 U.S. 23.


==History==
==Background==
The tradition of wearing the Dastar dates back to the time of the [[Sikh Gurus]], particularly [[Guru Nanak]], the founder of Sikhism, and [[Guru Gobind Singh]], the tenth Guru, who formalized the practice. The Dastar symbolizes sovereignty, dedication, self-respect, courage, and piety.
The case arose when Dastar Corporation released a video series titled ''Campaigns in Europe'', which was based on a television series originally produced by Twentieth Century Fox called ''Crusade in Europe''. The original series was based on a book by [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]], and the copyright on the television series had expired, placing it in the public domain.


==Significance==
Twentieth Century Fox, along with SFM Entertainment and New Line Home Video, sued Dastar, claiming that Dastar's sale of the video series without proper attribution constituted "reverse passing off" under the Lanham Act. Reverse passing off occurs when a producer misrepresents someone else's goods or services as their own.
In Sikhism, the Dastar is a symbol of faith representing honor, self-respect, courage, spirituality, and piety. It is also a mark of responsibility and commitment to the [[Sikh community]]. The Dastar is worn to cover the [[Kesh]], one of the [[Five Ks]] mandated by [[Guru Gobind Singh]] for [[Khalsa Sikhs]].


==Types of Dastar==
==Legal Issue==
There are several styles of Dastar, each with its own significance and method of tying:
The primary legal issue was whether the Lanham Act's prohibition against false designation of origin applied to the unaccredited copying of a work that had entered the public domain. Specifically, the question was whether Dastar's actions constituted a false designation of origin by not crediting Twentieth Century Fox as the source of the original television series.
* '''Nok Dastar''': A pointed turban often worn by [[Nihang]]s.
* '''Patiala Shahi Dastar''': A voluminous turban style popular in the [[Patiala]] region.
* '''Dumalla''': A double turban worn by devout Sikhs, especially during religious ceremonies.
* '''Amritsar Dastar''': A simple and elegant style originating from [[Amritsar]].


==Cultural and Religious Importance==
==Supreme Court Decision==
The Dastar is not just a piece of cloth but a crown that represents the dignity and honor of a Sikh. It is a reminder of the teachings of the Sikh Gurus and the sacrifices made by the [[Sikh martyrs]]. Wearing a Dastar is a public declaration of faith and identity.
Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that the Lanham Act does not prevent the unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted work. The Court reasoned that the term "origin of goods" in the Lanham Act refers to the producer of the tangible goods offered for sale, and not to the author of any idea, concept, or communication embodied in those goods.


==Modern Context==
The Court emphasized that extending the Lanham Act to cover the attribution of ideas or concepts would create a "species of perpetual patent and copyright" that Congress did not intend. The decision clarified that once a work enters the public domain, it may be freely used by anyone, and the Lanham Act does not require attribution to the original creator.
In contemporary times, the Dastar continues to be an integral part of Sikh identity. It is worn by Sikhs around the world and is recognized as a symbol of their faith. The Dastar has also been at the center of various legal and social issues, particularly concerning the right to wear religious attire in public spaces and institutions.


==Related Pages==
==Impact==
* [[Sikhism]]
The decision in ''Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.'' has significant implications for intellectual property law, particularly in the context of works that have entered the public domain. It underscores the distinction between copyright law, which protects the expression of ideas, and trademark law, which protects the identification of the source of goods and services.
* [[Sikh Gurus]]
* [[Five Ks]]
* [[Khalsa]]
* [[Guru Nanak]]
* [[Guru Gobind Singh]]
* [[Nihang]]
* [[Amritsar]]
* [[Patiala]]


[[Category:Sikhism]]
==Also see==
[[Category:Religious headgear]]
* [[Lanham Act]]
[[Category:Indian clothing]]
* [[Copyright law of the United States]]
[[Category:Punjabi culture]]
* [[Public domain]]
* [[Intellectual property]]
* [[Reverse passing off]]


{{Sikhism-stub}}
{{United States Supreme Court cases}}
{{Intellectual property law}}
 
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:Intellectual property law]]
[[Category:2003 in United States case law]]

Latest revision as of 15:36, 9 December 2024

{{#invoke:infobox|infoboxTemplate

| italic title = | bodyclass = scotus ib-court-case | templatestyles = Infobox court case/styles.css

| above = Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. | aboveclass = fn | image = {{#if:|[[File:{{{image}}}|image=|size=|sizedefault=frameless|upright=0.82|alt= }} | autoheaders = yes | caption =

| label1 = Court | data1 = United States Supreme Court

| label2 = Full case name | data2 =

| label3 = Argued | data3 =

| label4 = Reargued | data4 =

| label5 = Submitted | data5 =

| label6 = Indictment | data6 =

| label7 = Started | data7 =

| label8 = Decided | data8 = June 2, 2003

| label9 = Docket nos. | data9 =

| label10 = Verdict | data10 =

| label11 = Defendant | data11 =

| label12 = Charge | data12 =

| label13 = Prosecution | data13 =

| label14 = Counsel for plaintiff | data14 =

| label15 = Plaintiff | data15 =

| label16 = Defence | data16 =

| label17 = Witnesses | data17 =

| label18 = Citation | data18 = 539 U.S. 23

| label19 = ECLI | data19 =

| label20 = Neutral citation | data20 =

| label21 = Reported at | data21 =

| label22 = Transcript | data22 =

| label23 = Claim | data23 =

| label24 = Cases cited | data24 =

| label25 = Legislation cited | data25 =

| header27 = Case history

| label28 = Prior action | data28 =

| label29 = Appealed from | data29 =

| label30 = Appealed to | data30 =

| label31 = Subsequent action | data31 =

| label32 = Procedural history | data32 =

| label33 = Related action | data33 =

| label34 = Argument | data34 =

| label35 = Reargument | data35 =

| label36 = Opinion announcement | data36 =

| header42 = Outcome | data43 =

| header44 = Questions presented | data45 =

| header46 = Holding | data47 = The Lanham Act does not prevent the unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted work.

| header48 = Ruling | data49 =

| header52 = Court membership | label53 = Judge sitting | data53 =

| label54 = Chief judge | data54 =

| label55 = Associate judges | data55 =

| header56 = Case opinions | data57 =

| data58 =

| label59 = Decision by | data59 =

| label60 = Majority | data60 =

| label61 = Majority | data61 =

| label62 = Majority | data62 =

| label63 = Plurality | data63 =

| label64 = Plurality | data64 =

| label65 = Plurality | data65 =

| label66 = Plurality | data66 =

| label67 = Seriatim opinion | data67 =

| label68 = Seriatim opinion | data68 =

| label69 = Seriatim opinion | data69 =

| label70 = Seriatim opinion | data70 =

| label71 = Seriatim opinion | data71 =

| label72 = Concurrence | data72 =

| label73 = Concurrence | data73 =

| label74 = Concurrence | data74 =

| label75 = Concurrence | data75 =

| label76 = Concurrence | data76 =

| label77 = Concurrence | data77 =

| label78 = Concurrence | data78 =

| label79 = Concurrence | data79 =

| label80 = Concur/dissent | data80 =

| label81 = Concur/dissent | data81 =

| label82 = Concur/dissent | data82 =

| label83 = Concur/dissent | data83 =

| label84 = Concur/dissent | data84 =

| label85 = Concur/dissent | data85 =

| label86 = Concur/dissent | data86 =

| label87 = Concur/dissent | data87 =

| label88 = Dissent | data88 =

| label89 = Concurrence | data89 =

| label90 = Dissent | data90 =

| label91 = Concurrence | data91 =

| label92 = Dissent | data92 =

| label93 = Concurrence | data93 =

| label94 = Dissent | data94 =

| label95 = Concurrence | data95 =

| label96 = Dissent | data96 =

| data97 =

| header98 = Laws applied

| data99 =

| data100 =

| data101 =

| data102 =

| data103 =

| data104 =

| data105 =

| data106 =

| data107 =

| header108 = Keywords | data109 =

| header110 = Area of law | data111 =

}}

Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that addressed the scope of the Lanham Act in relation to the unaccredited copying of uncopyrighted works. The case was decided on June 2, 2003, and is cited as 539 U.S. 23.

Background[edit]

The case arose when Dastar Corporation released a video series titled Campaigns in Europe, which was based on a television series originally produced by Twentieth Century Fox called Crusade in Europe. The original series was based on a book by Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the copyright on the television series had expired, placing it in the public domain.

Twentieth Century Fox, along with SFM Entertainment and New Line Home Video, sued Dastar, claiming that Dastar's sale of the video series without proper attribution constituted "reverse passing off" under the Lanham Act. Reverse passing off occurs when a producer misrepresents someone else's goods or services as their own.

Legal Issue[edit]

The primary legal issue was whether the Lanham Act's prohibition against false designation of origin applied to the unaccredited copying of a work that had entered the public domain. Specifically, the question was whether Dastar's actions constituted a false designation of origin by not crediting Twentieth Century Fox as the source of the original television series.

Supreme Court Decision[edit]

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that the Lanham Act does not prevent the unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted work. The Court reasoned that the term "origin of goods" in the Lanham Act refers to the producer of the tangible goods offered for sale, and not to the author of any idea, concept, or communication embodied in those goods.

The Court emphasized that extending the Lanham Act to cover the attribution of ideas or concepts would create a "species of perpetual patent and copyright" that Congress did not intend. The decision clarified that once a work enters the public domain, it may be freely used by anyone, and the Lanham Act does not require attribution to the original creator.

Impact[edit]

The decision in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. has significant implications for intellectual property law, particularly in the context of works that have entered the public domain. It underscores the distinction between copyright law, which protects the expression of ideas, and trademark law, which protects the identification of the source of goods and services.

Also see[edit]

Template:United States Supreme Court cases



Intellectual Property Law
General Concepts
By Region
Related Topics
Treaties
Organizations
This intellectual property law related article is a stub.
Retrieved from "https://wikimd.com/index.php?title=Dastar&oldid=6031532"