Background
In 1949, Twentieth Century Fox produced a television series based on Dwight Eisenhower’s book about World War II. Fox failed to renew the copyright when it expired in 1977, placing the series in the public domain. Dastar obtained copies of the old series, edited and repackaged it, and sold it under its own name as a new video set — without crediting Fox or the original creators.
Fox sued Dastar under §43(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits false designation of origin. Fox argued that by selling the videos without crediting the original source, Dastar was committing “reverse passing off” — falsely claiming to be the origin of creative work that actually came from Fox. The case raised a fundamental question: does trademark law protect the authorship of expressive works, or only the physical manufacture of products?
The Court’s Holding
Justice Scalia, writing for a unanimous Court (except Justice Breyer, who did not participate), held that the Lanham Act’s reference to “origin” means the producer of the tangible goods being sold — not the creator of the ideas or content within those goods. Dastar was the actual manufacturer of the video cassettes it sold, so it was the “origin” of those goods in the relevant sense.
The Court warned that allowing Lanham Act claims for unaccredited copying of expressive content would create a backdoor form of copyright protection with no expiration date. Copyright law deliberately places works in the public domain after the copyright term ends. Reading the Lanham Act to require attribution in perpetuity would effectively undo that design, and courts should avoid interpreting statutes in ways that conflict with the broader structure of intellectual property law.
Key Takeaways
- The Lanham Act’s false origin provisions apply to the physical producer of goods, not to the creator of expressive or communicative content within those goods.
- Copying a public domain work without crediting the original creator does not constitute trademark infringement — copyright law governs authorship credit, not trademark law.
- Using trademark law to require attribution for expressive works would effectively create perpetual copyright-like protection and conflict with the public domain.
- Creators who want attribution rights must rely on copyright, moral rights (limited in the U.S.), or contract — not the Lanham Act.
Why It Matters
This decision draws a bright line between trademark and copyright. Trademark protects source identification — who made the product in your hands. Copyright protects creative expression — who wrote the book, filmed the movie, composed the music. These serve different purposes and have different rules, including different expiration dates.
For anyone working with public domain content — filmmakers, educators, archivists, streaming services — this ruling provides important clarity. You can use public domain creative works without attribution and without fear of trademark liability, as long as you are honest about who manufactured and is selling the physical product. This has become especially relevant in the digital age, where repackaging and republishing old works is common.