Abstract
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Star Athletica purported to tell us the circumstances under which copyright will protect creative features of useful articles, such as items of clothing or cars. Unfortunately, the decision announced only abstract principles that manage to be both internally inconsistent and generally unhelpful in dealing with three-dimensional designs. This Article explains some of the challenges presented by the opinion and argues that clearer attention to the differences between design patent and copyright could have helped—and might still be useful going forward.
