## Facts

- Dwight D. Eisenhower’s book *Crusade in Europe* was published in 1948; exclusive television rights were granted to an affiliate of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (Fox).
- Fox arranged for Time, Inc. to produce a 26-episode television series, *Crusade in Europe*, and Time assigned its copyright in the series to Fox.
- The series first aired in 1949; Fox did not renew the series’ copyright, and it entered the public domain in 1977.
- In 1988, Fox reacquired certain rights in the book and licensed SFM Entertainment and New Line Home Video to manufacture and distribute *Crusade* on video.
- In 1995, Dastar Corporation released an 8-tape set titled *World War II Campaigns in Europe*, created by copying and editing Betacam tapes of the original series, adding new openings/closings and credits, and repackaging under a new title.
- Dastar’s packaging credited Dastar as producer and did not credit Fox, Time, or the *Crusade* series.
- Fox, SFM, and New Line sued, alleging “reverse passing off” under Lanham Act § 43(a) based on Dastar’s failure to attribute the underlying series.

## Issues

1. Whether Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(A) prohibits selling a product embodying public-domain expressive content without crediting the original creator by treating that failure as a false designation of the “origin of goods.”
2. Whether “origin of goods” in § 43(a) refers to the producer of the physical goods sold or to the author/producer of the expressive content embodied in those goods.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- Section 43(a) does not bar unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted work.
- “Origin of goods” in § 43(a) refers to the producer of the tangible goods offered for sale, not the author of ideas or communications embodied in the goods.
- Because Dastar manufactured and sold its own videotapes, it was the “origin” of those goods for § 43(a) purposes, even though the underlying content was copied from a public-domain series.
- Extending § 43(a) to require attribution for public-domain works would conflict with federal copyright policy by creating a de facto perpetual copyright.
- The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s “bodily appropriation” approach as lacking support in the statutory text when the copied content is in the public domain.

## Legal Principles

- Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(A) protects against confusion about the source of tangible goods in commerce; it does not create a general attribution requirement for communicative works.
- For § 43(a), the “origin of goods” is the maker of the physical product sold, not the creator of the intellectual or expressive content embodied in that product.
- “Reverse passing off” applies where a party markets another’s physical goods as its own; it does not reach the copying and repackaging of public-domain content into new physical goods absent a false designation about who produced those goods.
- Trademark law may not be used to restrict the public’s right to copy and use works after copyright expiration.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 43(a) cannot be used to require credit for public-domain expressive content, because “origin of goods” means the producer of the physical goods sold and expanding the statute to police attribution would improperly extend copyright-like control beyond copyright’s limits.


Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003)