## Facts

- Pivot Point International, Inc. developed and sold mannequin heads used in the hair-design industry as educational and competition tools.
- Pivot Point’s founder worked with a sculptor to create an original female head sculpture, “Mara,” intended to reflect a stylized high-fashion “runway” look; the artist was not given specific dimensional requirements.
- The sculpture was converted into molds and manufactured as PVC mannequin heads.
- A production mistake placed the hairline too high; a second, lower hairline was added, leaving a visible “double hairline” on close inspection.
- Pivot Point obtained a copyright registration covering the bareheaded female head design (without makeup or hair), and the sculptor assigned rights to Pivot Point.
- Charlene Products, Inc., led by a former Pivot Point employee, sold a competing mannequin head, “Liza,” which Pivot Point alleged copied Mara’s distinctive facial features and the double-hairline detail.

## Issues

1. Whether the Mara mannequin head is excluded from copyright protection as an uncopyrightable “useful article.”
2. Whether Mara’s sculptural features are conceptually separable from the mannequin’s utilitarian function as a hair-design training/display tool.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for defendants and remanded.
- The court held that Mara’s sculptural design is copyrightable because its artistic features are conceptually separable from the mannequin’s utilitarian aspects.
- The court concluded the district court treated the useful-article limitation too broadly by denying protection to artistic expression embodied in a functional object.

## Legal Principles

- A “useful article” is not protected for its utilitarian aspects, but pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features are protectable if they are identifiable separately from, and capable of existing independently of, the article’s utilitarian aspects.
- Conceptual separability is satisfied when the article’s aesthetic features reflect independent artistic judgment not dictated by functional constraints and can be imagined as a standalone sculptural work.
- The presence of functional requirements (e.g., a mannequin having basic human-head elements) does not bar protection for the particular expressive selection, arrangement, proportions, and stylization of those elements.

## Conclusion

Because Mara’s appearance resulted from artistic choices rather than functional necessity and could be conceptualized independently as sculpture, the mannequin head’s design was eligible for copyright protection; the case was remanded for further proceedings on infringement and related issues.


Pivot Point Int’l, Inc. v. Charlene Prods., Inc., 372 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2004)