Infringement Suit Over Teddy Bear Clothing May Proceed

Although clothing for humans is excluded from copyright protection, a federal court in Pennsylvania has ruled for the second time that an infringement claim made by a plush-bear manufacturer over its teddy bear clothing is potentially valid because the clothing does not constitute a "useful article."

The Boyds Collection Ltd., a maker of plush stuffed bears, filed a copyright infringement suit against competitor The Bearington Collection Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania over its copyrighted plush-bear designs.

The Bearington designs at issue were allegedly copies of previous plush bears registered by Boyds with different outfits.

Bearington had previously asked the court to grant summary judgment in its favor, but U.S. District Judge Christopher C. Conner refused to dismiss the case. In his ruling, the judge explained that copyright law excludes "useful articles" from its protection, and it is well established that clothing for people generally falls under this category.

However, the court found that this restriction did not apply to the bears' clothing and concluded that several of Boyds' copyrights were potentially valid because clothing for toys and dolls is not necessarily considered a "useful article."

Bearington then moved for partial reconsideration of the court's decision. Judge Conner rejected Bearington's argument for the second time and affirmed his previous decision denying summary judgment on the copyright infringement claims.

In addressing Bearington's argument that his previous decision improperly disregarded contrary rulings of the U.S. Copyright Office, Judge Conner acknowledged that the agency considered all clothing as "useful articles."

Judge Conner said he was not bound by the Copyright Office rulings, stressing that letters from the agency offered by Bearington did not disclose the rationale behind the Copyright Office's theory and did not have the force of law since the interpretation was not issued as a regulation. As such, its approach was not enforceable against Boyds and did not affect Boyds' right to bring a copyright infringement action against Bearington.

Judge Conner said clothing for people serves the useful purposes of covering and providing protection for the body. Clothing for a doll or plush bear, however, is not generally useful, serves no independent utilitarian function, and is for appearance only.

He stressed that the usefulness of clothing is not an all-or-nothing proposition and must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Judge Conner again denied summary judgment, ruling that the copyrights held by Boyds were potentially valid and the infringement claims should be allowed to proceed.