Dastar

{{#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

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

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

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

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

• Lanham Act
• Copyright law of the United States
• Public domain
• Intellectual property
• Reverse passing off