Stealing Beauty: Pivot Point International v ... - UW Law School

2006:1067 Stealing Beauty 1073
this goal, Pivot Point hired a German artist to create an original sculpture
of a female human head. 33 Although it discussed what it wanted with the
artist, Pivot Point did not give the artist any specific dimensional
requirements for the sculpture. 34 With this freedom, the artist designed a
plaster sculpture called “Mara.” 35
Pivot Point sent the Mara sculpture to its manufacturer in Hong
Kong, which created exact reproductions of the sculpture. 36 After it
received the reproductions, Pivot Point discovered that the mannequin’s
hairline had been etched too high on the forehead, and that it had been
covered with implanted hair, creating a sort of double hairline on the
original Mara sculptures. 37 Despite this mistake, Pivot Point obtained a
copyright registration for the design of Mara, specifically the bareheaded
female human head with no makeup or hair. 38 The company enjoyed
great success with the copyrighted Mara, and developed a variety of
mannequins with different skin tones and makeup, without altering the
mannequin’s facial features. 39
At a trade show in 1989, however, the defendant Charlene Products,
a competing mannequin manufacturer, presented its own mannequin
named “Liza,” which was strikingly similar in design to Mara. 40 In
addition to the similar facial features, Liza also exhibited the same
double hairline that the early versions of Mara possessed. 41 Pivot Point
served notice upon Charlene for copyright infringement on September
24, 1989, and filed suit when Charlene refused to stop selling Liza. 42
look that is considered vintage in the modeling industry. See Chris Bynum, Role Models:
Muscular . . . Mature . . . Thin . . . Young? Those Who Show Each Season’s New
Fashions Influence American Women’s Perceptions of Themselves, TIMES-PICAYUNE
(New Orleans), May 12, 1993, at E1 (explaining that the healthy look of models like Elle
MacPherson and Cindy Crawford is gradually being replaced by the “hungry look”
possessed by older models like Twiggy, one of the world’s first supermodels).
33. Pivot Point, 372 F.3d at 915.
34. Id. This is relevant because it shows that the artist’s representations were
not based on utilitarian concerns, but were completely implemented for their artistic
value. See id. at 931-32. The defendant explained away this showing, however. See
infra note 54 and accompanying text.
35. Pivot Point, 372 F.3d at 915.
36. Id.
37. Id. The entire first shipment of reproductions contained this flaw. Id.
38. Id. In other words, the plaintiff only copyrighted Mara’s facial shape and
features.
39. Id. at 915-16.
40. Id. at 916.
41. Id. This is particularly illustrative that the defendant copied the plaintiff’s
design, as is the fact that the defendant’s founder, Mr. Yau, worked for the plaintiff
before starting Charlene Products. Id. at 916 n.2.
42. Id. at 916.