FASHION LAW
Design rights and copying: What are the issues?
Claims of copying of designs by fashion companies appear regularlyin the news media, and this was at the heart of a claim against Boohoo recently which provides many lessons for both fashion designers and brands…
U
nregistered design rights protect the shape or configuration of the whole or part of an article that is sufficiently original. Infringement of an unregistered design requires copying of the design to produce an article that is exactly or substantially to that design.
This was at the heart of a claim brought recently by Sonia Edwards against Boohoo, which provides many lessons for both fashion designers and brands which may seek to be “inspired” by the works of the designers.
The claims
Ms Edwards claimed that Boohoo had infringed her unregistered design rights in the shape and configuration of: A bikini multiway top, organza rib puff- sleeve high neck fitted top, two high waist ruched skirts, and high waist half ruched leggings. Ms Edwards represented herself at the trial. The court considered the alleged infringements in relation to these designs…
The court found that the bikini top design was not protected as an unregistered design from the claimed March 2016 date. This was because Ms Edwards had released an earlier 2011 version which meant that the 2016 design was not original enough for a new unregistered design
right. The court was concerned about the risk of “evergreening” by extending such design protection with minor changes.
In the case of the organza puff sleeve top, Ms Edwards relied on “the extended rib fabric cuff reaching from past the wrist and under the elbow and connecting to the base of the organza puff sleeve”. The court decided that an unregistered design could not be defined in relation to the fabric being used because methods of construction are not protectable and it could not be defined according to the wrist or elbow of
50 • FOOTWEAR TODAY • AUGUST 2025
could not subsist in a concealed waistband or a high fitting waistline. The remainder of the design was a small chevron shape at the top of the leggings with ruching on the top half. The court considered this was “barely enough to compromise a subsisting design” but “just passes the necessary threshold”.
Infringement?
The court decided that on the balance of probabilities there was not enough evidence of copying for there to be infringement. The
a wearer. Due to the lack of evidence, the court found it to be “borderline” whether the remaining design was sufficiently original but valid. With the two skirt designs, these were posted on social media in 2013 and were the same except the back of one of them was not ruched (it was flat). The court ruled that the concealed waistband and the lack of seams on the side and zips and fastenings which are features – which cannot be seen – are not protected as unregistered design rights.
With the high waist ruched leggings, the court decided that unregistered design rights
judge considered it unlikely that someone from Boohoo searching online for many of the designs would have come across Ms Edwards’ design given that many of them were from years before, and Ms Edwards’ online profile had been relatively low.
The court also found that the low originality meant that it was possible that someone could come up with the designs independently. In addition, for the puff sleeve fitted top design, the infringing articles were not made exactly or substantially to the design.
As a result, the court decided that Boohoo had not infringed any of the designs. The judgment has many practical takeaways for fashion designers, particularly those operating in fast fashion or who promote themselves using social media:
Unregistered design rights can exist in photos shared on social media, but relying on this as evidence of a design is too vague. Fashion designers will have stronger protection if a design is claimed from a design document such as CAD or detailed design drawing.
Be careful about which unregistered design rights you rely on and from which date. If you have released an earlier design this could invalidate your later design if both have substantially the same features.
Register your designs – this provides much better protection (and a certificate!) because you do not need to prove copying and lasts longer (up to 25 years!).
This could have saved Ms Edwards in this case, as Boohoo were found not to have copied her unregistered designs.
Scott Steiberg is a Legal Director, Guy Haslewood, is an Associate, Simon Bennett is a Partner, and Stephen Sidkin is a Partner at Fox Williams LLP (
www.fashionlaw.co.uk;
www.foxwilliams.com).
DOWNLOAD THE FOOTWEAR TODAY APP NOW SPONSORED BY
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
