How to foil the fashion fakes

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

How to foil the fashion fakes

Fashion designs are not easy to protect in the US. Trademark, trade dress, design patent and copyright law are all useful, but each has its disadvantages. This was the message to hundreds of people that attended yesterday’s industry breakout session on the fashion industry.

To qualify for protection as trade dress, a design must show acquired distinctiveness and non-functionality (either utilitarian or aesthetic). This is possible. In Miche Bag v. Marshall (2010) the handbag producer successfully won protection for removal shells that went over the bag. They were considered non-functional when combined with the other elements of the bag’s design. But clothing and particularly dresses rarely pass this test.


Design patents are “probably the most fruitful area of protection in fashion,” said speaker Louis S. Ederer of Arnold & Porter. Fellow speaker Barbara Kolsun of shoe brand Stuart Weitzman described how she files several design patents every year. The problem is they are expensive ($6,000 to $8,000), time limited and take 12 to 18 months to be registered. So Stuart Weitzman only files design patents for shoe models it thinks will still be big sellers two years from now, beyond the normal fashion cycles.


“When you do get protection it’s great,” said Kolsun. “I call it a ‘bingo’—you normally write your cease and desist letter and get your money in pretty short order.”


Copyright is difficult to get for fashion items unless you can show the design is separable from its functional role. While Kolsun gave examples of two belt buckles that succeeded in getting copyright protection, few other items of clothing have been successful.


There was great optimism at the end of last year when the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill to extend copyright to the fashion industry. But for the fourth time in five years (similar bills were introduced in 2006, 2007 and 2009) it has got stuck in committee. “The problem is that there is a split within the fashion industry and even within brands themselves about the benefits of being able to copy designs,” said speaker Anne Gilson LaLonde of Gilson on Trademarks. “Many of the big brands have bridge or diffusion lines and they genuinely don’t know if a law like this would hurt that side of the business.”

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The renowned food brands were represented by a host of lawyers, including members of the firms’ IP teams
Partners at Bird & Bird and Taylor Wessing discuss how Saudi Arabia offers unique opportunities for firms dealing in IP and tech
Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Gift this article