Essay Example on Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands: Legal Ruling With Business Impact

Introduction

One legal ruling that has a direct impact on business entities is that on the 2017 case, Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. Star Athletica is a company that designs and manufactures athletic apparel and accessories for a wide range of athletic purposes and cheerleading (Carter, 2018). The company incorporates different elements, including lines, shapes, and colors, in its design concepts. However, these concepts do not consider the functionality of the end product. Star Athletica received copyright registration for two of its dimensional artwork, which bore similarities with those of Varsity Brands. Varsity Brands alleged that Star Athletica violated the Copyright Act, 1976. On their part, Star Athletica noted that since the design in question was not copyrightable, the defendant's claims were fraudulent.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Star Athletica argued that Varsity Brands did not possess valid copyrights since the disputed designs amounted to useful articles that could not be copyrighted. Further, the defendant argued that, since the drawings and the uniforms were inseparable, they were not copyrightable. On their part, Varsity Brands maintained that the designs were not only non-functional but also separable from the uniforms. In its ruling, the Sixth Circuit clarified that the Copyright Act allowed companies to copyright graphic features that comprised a design, whether detachable or not, from useful articles.

In a 6-2 vote, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that copyright protection is admissible for features that form part of a design of a useful article if the two can be perceived separately and distinctly as two- or three-dimensional artwork. The second condition for such consideration was that copyright protection applied if the feature qualifies as a protectable sculptural, graphic, or pictorial work, either independently or as a part of another medium of expression that is itself tangible. Therefore, Star Athletica won the Case.

How the Case Could Impact Business

The decision ruling made in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., does not prevent lower courts from making contradictory approaches to the issue of copyright. The issue of concern is the ruling's focus on the inherent separability of surface designs. However, what the ruling did was to restate the statute. Little is done to address the visuality of the issues. The issue of what constitutes separable features from a product may still be open for debate. Issues to do with copyrights are at the heart of any business because branding forms the core of a business' relationship with its customers. Hence, without any clarity on copyright protection, businesses would find themselves involved in legal battles.

How the Case could Affect Coca Cola

As a multinational company, Coca-Cola has a strong brand that is synonymous with the soft drinks industry. This strength in the brand makes it difficult for the entry of new players. Hence, a new company may enter a market using almost similar brand features of Coca-Cola, and get unfavorable entry into the market. Without proper definition regarding what the company can allow another to use in its branding, it may be difficult for it to defend its brand features. This Case applies to any business (Burmann et al., 2017). Since companies spend a lot of time and resources, building their brand names and identity, such a struggle must be recognized and protected. Hence, there is a need for more clarity on issues regarding copyright.

References

Burmann, C., Riley, N. M., Halaszovich, T., & Schade, M. (2017). Identity-Based Trademark Protection. In Identity-Based Brand Management (pp. 281-289). Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.

Carter, J. (2018). Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002. Joule: Duq. Energy & Envtl. LJ, 6, 1.

Howes, S. (2016). Creative Equity: A Practical Approach to the Actor's Copyright. Mitchell Hamline L. Rev., 42, 70.