Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands — Cheerleading Uniform Designs Are Copyrightable

Background

Varsity Brands, a major producer of cheerleading uniforms, owned copyright registrations in two-dimensional designs featuring stripes, chevrons, zigzags, and color blocks that appear on the surface of cheerleading uniforms. Star Athletica, a competitor, produced uniforms with similar designs. Varsity sued for copyright infringement.

The legal question was whether the surface decorations on a cheerleading uniform — a functional garment, a “useful article” — are eligible for copyright protection. Copyright law does not protect useful articles (clothing, furniture, vehicles), but it does protect artistic elements that can be “separated” from the utilitarian aspects. Courts had struggled for decades to articulate a workable test for when such separation exists, generating a bewildering variety of approaches across the circuits.

The Court’s Holding

Justice Thomas wrote for the majority, announcing a two-part test: a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection if (1) it can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and (2) it would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work on its own if imagined separately from the useful article.

The Court held that Varsity’s surface designs met this test. The stripes and chevron patterns could be perceived as two-dimensional graphic works independent of the uniforms, and those patterns would be protectable artwork if they appeared on canvas or paper. The fact that the designs could only be applied to clothing — and that removing them would leave a plain, undecorated uniform — did not matter. The separability inquiry is conceptual, not physical.

Key Takeaways

• The new separability test: a design element on a useful article is copyrightable if it can be perceived as an independent work of art, and would qualify for copyright if imagined separately from the article.
• The test is conceptual, not physical — you don’t need to be able to physically remove the design; you just need to be able to mentally separate it.
• Surface decorations (patterns, graphics, ornamentation) on functional objects may receive copyright protection even though the underlying garment or object does not.
• The functional role of the design — making a garment look like a cheerleading uniform — does not defeat separability.

Why It Matters

Star Athletica resolved decades of circuit splits over the separability test for useful articles, giving designers and manufacturers clearer guidance — though critics argue the majority’s test still leaves significant ambiguity. Fashion designers, furniture makers, industrial designers, and any company that incorporates artistic elements into functional products all needed to understand where the line falls.

The decision opened the door to broader copyright protection for fashion-adjacent industries that had long operated in a legal gray zone. It also generated a wave of litigation as courts worked to apply the new standard to everything from fabric prints to furniture designs. The dissent’s concern — that the test collapses into allowing copyright for any ornamentation on useful articles — remains a live debate in the design community.