Editing Debbie Does Dallas (section)

=== Trademark ===
[[File:Dallas-001216-N-1110A-513.jpg|thumb|right|alt=The Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders perform on the flight deck for the crew of USS Harry S Truman|The Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders in uniform]]

New York's [[Pussycat Theater]] was enjoined in 1979 from showing the film by the [[Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders]] under the [[Lanham Act]], arguing that their uniforms were mimicked by the film's producers and used in advertising, infringing on their [[trademark]]s.<ref name="Miller 2002">{{cite book |last1=Miller |first1=Jeffrey |title=Ardor In The Court!: Sex and the Law |date=2002 |publisher=[[ECW Press]] |location=Toronto |isbn=978-1-55490-528-7 |pages=152–153 |url=https://archive.org/details/ardorincourtsexl0000mill/page/151/mode/1up?view=theater |url-access=registration}}</ref> The theater argued that uniforms are strictly functional items, but in affirming the lower court's decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the [[Second Circuit]] found that "[i]t is well established that, if the design of an item is nonfunctional and has acquired secondary meaning, the design may become a trademark even if the item itself is functional."<ref name="Miller 2002" /> The decision has been criticized on free speech grounds, but the [[Seventh Circuit]] has cited it for the proposition that "confusion about sponsorship or approval, even when the mark does not mislead consumers about the source of the goods," may be sufficient to state a claim under Lanham Act 43(a).<ref name="Farmany 2001">{{cite journal |last1=Farmany |first1=Tony |title=Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders v. Pussycat Cinema |journal=Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues |date=2001 |volume=12 |pages=275 ff |issn=0896-5595}}</ref>