Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Cheerleader Uniform Designs Protectable Under Copyright Act

By James Anderson on April 7, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
copyright

The Supreme Court recently held in Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., that the designs on certain cheerleader uniforms may be protected copyrights. The 6-2 decision clarified the test to be applied when determining whether a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article would be eligible for copyright protection.

Varsity Brands, Inc., Varsity Spirit Corporation, and Varsity Spirit Fashions & Supplies, Inc., plaintiffs below, hold over 200 United States copyrights for two-dimensional designs on cheerleading uniforms and other apparel. They sued Star Athletica, L.L.C., a company that also sells cheerleading apparel, alleging that Star Athletica infringed on certain of those copyrights.

In the lower court, the Western District of Tennessee determined that the designs at issue were utilitarian in that they served the function of identifying the garments as cheerleading uniforms. As such, the designs were not eligible for copyright protection because they could not be physically or conceptually separated from the utilitarian function of the cheerleading uniform.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, determining that the designs were “separately identifiable,” because they could appear side-by-side with a blank cheerleading uniform or, for example, could be hung on the wall as a framed work of art.

The case then went up to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court, in deciding the issue, set forth a two-part test to determine whether a feature of a useful article would be eligible for copyright protection. The first prong of the test is whether the feature could be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article. The second prong asks whether the feature would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work—either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression—if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated. (The question of whether the features are copyrightable, that is, whether they are sufficiently original to be copyrightable or whether other prerequisites for a valid copyright have been met, was not before the court.)

In analyzing the cheerleading uniforms in the case, the court first found that the decorations on the uniform had graphical qualities, and could qualify as two dimensional works of art if the particular arrangements of stripes, chevrons, and colors, were taken off the uniform and applied to, for example, a painter’s canvas. The court noted that the respondent had applied the designs to other media, including different types of clothing without reproducing the uniform.

As such, the court found that uniform designs were separable from the uniforms and therefore could be protected under the copyright law.  (The court did not opine on whether the designs were original enough to qualify for copyright protection.)   

The majority opinion also dispensed with a number of objections from the petitioner, amicus curiae, and dissent. For example, Justice Breyer argued in dissent that removing the designs and placing them on a canvas would result in no more than a, “picture of the cheerleader uniforms.” However, the mere fact that some work corresponds to the shape or type of surface to which it is applied is no barrier to copyright protection, according to the majority opinion. 

The case is Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., No. 15-866 (2017), with Justice Thomas writing for the majority. A copy of the opinion can be found here. 

Photo of James Anderson James Anderson

Jim Anderson is a litigator and trial lawyer. Jim’s practice focuses on commercial litigation, with a particular emphasis on disputes at the intersection of intellectual property and private capital. Drawing on his engineering background and his experience in the courtroom, he has successfully…

Jim Anderson is a litigator and trial lawyer. Jim’s practice focuses on commercial litigation, with a particular emphasis on disputes at the intersection of intellectual property and private capital. Drawing on his engineering background and his experience in the courtroom, he has successfully represented leading technology and pharmaceutical companies in high-stakes litigation. He also litigates cases on behalf of asset managers and private lenders that serve those industries.

Jim recently achieved a defense verdict before a Delaware jury in a case involving fraud and patent infringement allegations against a medical device company. He represents clients across a range of diverse industries in trial and appellate courts across the country, as well as before administrative and arbitral bodies including the International Trade Commission, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and international arbitration tribunals under ICC and CPR Rules.

In addition to his trial practice, Jim offers strategic counsel to asset managers, portfolio companies, and private lenders, helping them to navigate regulatory and litigation risks. He also has experience advising clients on intellectual property strategy spanning the full range of patent, trademark, and trade secret protections. He has developed and maintained intellectual property portfolios in a broad range of industries, including consumer products, medical devices, machining and fabrication equipment, and semiconductor devices. Jim is registered to practice before the USPTO.

Jim also maintains an active pro bono practice. He has received awards for his work on behalf of victims of domestic violence and abuse.

Jim has a background in Mechanical Engineering, with a focus on energy, power, and fuel cell technologies. Prior to his career at Proskauer, Jim served as a judicial intern in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and represented clients with the UConn Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship Law Clinic.

Read more about James AndersonEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    New England IP Blog
  • Organization:
    Proskauer Rose LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo