Not so fast: Solo designer loses unregistered design right infringement claim against fashion giants

Introduction 

The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court recently handed down its judgment on a claim brought against a number of big name “fast fashion” brands. Clothing designer, Sonia Edwards (Ms Edwards), brought a claim against a group of retail companies (collectively, the Defendants), alleging infringement of unregistered design rights in five of her clothing designs.

This decision highlights some of the difficulties in claiming unregistered design rights, emphasising the need for the design to be original and well-defined, by reference to visual elements. Designs that are described or characterised by reference to general concepts, methods of construction or features that depend on how a garment is worn will likely not meet the requirements for unregistered design protection. With the ever-increasing market of fast-fashion brands, it underscores the need for precision when seeking to enforce intellectual property rights in a fast-moving trend-driven landscape.

Background

Ms. Edwards claimed unregistered design rights in five specific clothing designs:

1. Design 1: A bikini top multiway;
2. Design 2: A organza rib puff sleeve high neck fitted top;
3. Designs 3 & 4: A high-waist gather to front and gather to back ruched skirt, and a high-waist single gather ruched front skirt; and
4. Design 5: A high-waist half ruched front leggings.

In defending, the Defendants made a criticism about Ms Edwards’ decision to define her designs by reference to the articles made to those designs, rather than by reference to design documents (with dimensions of the designs specified). Though the court accepted this as being an acceptable method of claiming design rights, it did mean Ms Edward’s designs were defined more broadly than if they had been claimed by reference to design documents setting out more precise features and dimensions.

The Court ultimately concluded the following:

1. Design 1: As the date the article was first made was in 2011, any potential design rights which may have subsisted would have expired before the first allegedly infringing acts of the Defendants. Even if design rights had still subsisted in the bikini top, the Court was satisfied there was no copying of this design when the Defendants created their own bikini product.
2. Designs 2, 3, 4 & 5: Although design rights did subsist in the designs, the Court noted no evidence of copying was found.

Comment

A number of lessons came out of this case:

1. Flying under the radar: Ultimately, designers whose products are generally low-profile may have a harder time proving copying of their designs. The Court cited the low likelihood of the Defendants encountering Ms Edwards’ designs, given the limited prominence and reach of her social media channels. Add to this the substantial passage of time between Ms Edwards releasing her clothing products, and the Defendant’s launch of their product line, meant the Court was unconvinced that any copying by the Defendants had occurred.
2. Greater volume of products: Where a fast-fashion brand is churning out hundreds of products every week, the Court noted it is unsurprising this may result in such clothing items sharing similarities with clothing previously designed by others, without necessarily indicating copying.
3. Avoid abstract design descriptions: Several of the Defendants’ arguments against design rights subsisting in Ms Edwards’ designs hinged on their claim that her designs described abstract concepts and methods of construction, rather than protectable shapes or configurations. The Court noted that, in such cases, it would be easier for defendants to argue the claimed designs are “commonplace” since general concepts are more likely to have been encountered previously. This is why it is crucial for designers to maintain detailed design documentation to avoid the validity of design rights being attacked on the grounds of generality or lack of precision.
4. Interaction with wearer’s body: The Court had to disregard any aspects of the designs which were contingent upon who was wearing it and varied depending on the individual’s physique. A design’s description should therefore focus on the garment itself, rather than how it will appear when worn by different individuals. Again, the Court sought to ensure that the claimed design could be identified with sufficient precision to be protectable.
5. Original means original: A subsequent design has to be sufficiently different to its predecessor design to be able to attract a separate, new design right. This is particularly challenging in the fast-fashion sector, where hundreds of new garments are produced in quick succession and often through minor adaptation of previous designs, or in response to popular trends. 

For more articles on topics affecting the retail space, please visit our Consumer Products webpage. If you would like to discuss more about design rights, please do get in touch with our dedicated Designs Law team.

Case reference: Sonia Edwards v Boohoo.com UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 805 (IPEC)