Supreme Court of the United States

Name: Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
Author: Supreme Court of the United States

Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp…

Summary

“Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.”, is a work by Supreme Court of the United States. It explores elements such as Dastar, the Lanham Act and television.

Quotes from Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp… (Supreme Court of the United States)

Supreme Court of the United States, Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp…

“ As dictionary definitions affirm, the most natural understanding of the "origin" of "goods"--the source of wares--is the producer of the tangible product sold in the marketplace, here Dastar's Campaigns videotape. The phrase "origin of goods" in the Lanham Act is incapable of connoting the person or entity that originated the ideas that "goods" embody or contain. The consumer typically does not care about such origination, and §43 (a) should not be stretched to cover matters that are of no consequence to purchasers. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp…

“ It could be argued, perhaps, that the reality of purchaser concern is different for what might be called a communicative product--one that is valued not primarily for its physical qualities, such as a hammer, but for the intellectual content that it conveys, such as a book or, as here, a video. The purchaser of a novel is interested not merely, if at all, in the identity of the producer of the physical tome (the publisher) , but also, and indeed primarily, in the identity of the creator of the story it conveys (the author) . ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp…

“ Thus, as it comes to us, the gravamen of respondents' claim is that, in marketing and selling Campaigns as its own product without acknowledging its nearly wholesale reliance on the Crusade television series, Dastar has made a "false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which . . . is likely to cause confusion ... ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp…

“ Although purchasers do care about ideas or communications contained or embodied in a communicative product such as a video, giving the Lanham Act special application to such products would cause it to conflict with copyright law, which is precisely directed to that subject, and which grants the public the right to copy without attribution once a copyright has expired, e.g., Sears, Roebuck & Co. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp…

“ If anyone has a claim to being the original creator of the material used in both the Crusade television series and the Campaigns videotapes, it would be those groups, rather than Fox. We do not think the Lanham Act requires this search for the source of the Nile and all its tributaries.
Another practical difficulty of adopting a special definition of "origin" for communicative products is that it places the manufacturers of those products in a difficult position. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp…

“ With respect to the Lanham Act claim, the Court of Appeals reasoned that "Dastar copied substantially the entire Crusade in Europe series created by Twentieth Century Fox, labeled the resulting product with a different name and marketed it without attribution to Fox [,and] therefore committed a 'bodily appropriation' of Fox's series." Id., at 314. It concluded that "Dastar's 'bodily appropriation' of Fox's original [television] series is sufficient to establish the reverse passing off." Ibid. [2] The court also affirmed the District Court's award under the Lanham Act of twice Dastar's profits. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp…

“ Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U. S. 141, 150-151 (1989) , under which, once the patent or copyright monopoly has expired, the public may use the invention or work at will and without attribution. Thus, in construing the Lanham Act, we have been "careful to caution against misuse or over-extension" of trademark and related protections into areas traditionally occupied by patent or copyright. TrafFix, 532 U. S., at 29. "The Lanham Act," we have said, "does not exist to reward manufacturers for their innovation in creating a particular device ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp…

“ As the Second Circuit accurately observed with regard to the original enactment, however--and as remains true after the 1988 revision-- §43 (a) "does not have boundless application as a remedy for unfair trade practices," Alfred Dunhill, Ltd. v. Interstate Cigar Co., 499 F. 2d 232, 237 (1974) . " [B] ecause of its inherently limited wording, §43 (a) can never be a federal 'codification' of the overall law of 'unfair competition,' " 4 J. McCarthy Trademarks and Unfair Competition §27:7, p. ”

Supreme Court of the United States

Summary

Quotes from Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp… (Supreme Court of the United States)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature