Music to Sheeran’s Ears: Supreme Court Declines to Rehear Marvin Gaye Copyright Suit
The US Supreme Court has declined to revisit a copyright dispute over alleged similarities between Ed Sheeran’s 2014 hit, “Thinking Out Loud”, and Marvin Gaye’s 1973 classic, “Let’s Get It On,” closing a major chapter in a long-running legal saga.
The lawsuit that the Supreme Court put to rest was initiated in 2018 by Structured Asset Sales (“SAS”), a company which owns partial rights to “Let’s Get It On”. SAS claimed Sheeran’s song used copyright-protected musical elements of Gaye’s composition, including its chord progression, melody, harmony, and rhythm. SAS’s appeal to the Supreme Court followed two decisions from lower courts, which found that the elements were too generic to garner copyright protection.
The Court’s rejection of the appeal is further contextualized by a separate lawsuit filed in 2016 by the heirs of Ed Townsend, a co-writer on “Let’s Get It On,” which focused on similar musical elements in the song’s composition. The high-profile trial occurred in Spring 2023, in which a New York jury sided with Sheeran, after he famously played his guitar on the stand.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to revive SAS’s composition-based lawsuit represents a victory for Sheeran, but Sheeran’s battle is not over yet.
Per U.S. News, SAS has filed another claim, this time concerning the sound recording of “Let’s Get It On,” alleging that Sheeran’s song used protected sonic elements from Gaye’s recorded performance, such as the bass lines, phrasing, and general feel. According to David Pullman, the owner of SAS, “[Sheeran’s] fear has always been the sound recording of 'Let’s Get It On.' The U.S. Supreme Court was aware of this and understands that the case will go forward and may very well be back at the U.S. Supreme Court at a later date”.
Authors: Arash Rouhi and Finn Mitra, 2025 Summer Student-At-Law
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@whitfieldjordan
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@whitfieldjordan
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
CIPO Explores Fast-Tracking Patents for Innovation in Priority Sectors
Industry Minister Mélanie Joly is reportedly evaluating a proposal from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) that would accelerate patent applications in artificial intelligence…