539 U.S. 23 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003)
Dastar Corp. v.
Does a producer who lawfully copies and republishes a public-domain work commit reverse passing off or false designation of origin under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act by failing to attribute the original creator of the underlying content, or does "origin of goods" refer only to the producer of the tangible goods sold in commerce?
For purposes of Section 43(a)(1)(A) of the Lanham Act, the "origin of goods" denotes the producer of the tangible goods that are offered for sale in the marketplace, not the person or entity that originated the ideas, expressions, or communications embodied in those goods. Consequently, a claim of reverse passing off cannot be premised on the defendant's failure to credit the author of public-domain content embodied in a product the defendant manufactured. Reading "origin" to include the author of underlying content would impermissibly create a species of perpetual intellectual property right and conflict with the Copyright Act's carefully calibrated limits. Nor can plaintiffs evade this limitation by recharacterizing such a theory as false advertising under Section 43(a)(1)(B), which addresses misstatements about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of goods, not authorship attribution.
Reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court held that Dastar, as the producer of the physical videotapes it sold, was the "origin" of the goods under Section 43(a). Respondents could not use the Lanham Act to require attribution or to assert a reverse-passing-off claim based on the uncredited use of public-domain material. Any false advertising theory based on failure to attribute similarly failed.
Dastar is a pivotal limit on the reach of the Lanham Act. It prevents trademark law from being used to secure attribution or quasi-copyright protection for public-domain works. The decision clarifies that reverse passing off under Section 43(a) protects against misrepresentations about who made the physical goods sold—not who authored the ideas or content they embody. For law students, Dastar illuminates the interplay between IP regimes, demonstrates how statutory purpose and policy (especially the sanctity of the public domain) guide interpretation, and underscores the importance of choosing the right legal tool—copyright, contract, or limited moral rights—rather than stretching trademark law beyond its purpose.