Author: Arushi Mishra, Invertis University

This research examines the intellectual property rights (IPR) issues and protection of fashion designing in the light of challenges brought about by fast fashion and globalization. It utilizes doctrinal legal analysis of the US, EU, India, and Australia legal systems, incorporates interviews with fashion designers and IP experts, and includes an examination of copyright, design patents/registered designs, trademarks, trade dress, and trade secrets through their protective scope. The results indicate that although trademark protection is pervasive, there is limited use of other IP protections as a result of high costs, complicated bureaucracy, and challenges with enforcement. Pivotal case law, such as Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, Designer Guild Ltd. v. Russell Williams, and the Birkenstock “applied art” controversy, illustrate a mixture of jurisprudential progress alongside persistent protection gaps. This research shows the absence of unified systems for design registration, legal mechanisms for smaller creators, and tech-based proof of authorship systems. Proposed solutions include quicker design registration processes, IP education, and increased inter-country collaboration. Further studies should measure the impacts of enforcement and focus on AI-generated digital.

Keywords

Intellectual Property Rights, Fashion Industry, Design Protection, Copyright Trademark, Design Patent

Background

The fashion industry is projected to reach a value of more than USD 2 trillion by 2025, functioning as an economic powerhouse and a means of cultural expression. However, the distinguishing aspect of fashion—the artistry behind designs and aesthetics—faces the threat of duplication. Original designs are vulnerable to replication, especially from fast-fashion brands. Independent designers face IP exploitation (intellectual property exploitation) .

 This study seeks to answer the question whether the existing frameworks of IP copyright, patents, trademarks, trade dress, and trade secrets provide adequate protection to fashion design innovation. 

1.Analyze the application of different IP mechanisms concerning fashion designs in key jurisdictions.

2.Identify legal, procedural, and economic barriers that hinder effective protection. 

3.Formulate policy recommendations aimed at enhancing protection, particularly for new creators. 

It is posited that there is a gap between the theory and practice of the IPR regimes which, in principle, are comprehensive but in practice, do not extend to small and agile fashion designers.

The fashion sector flourishes on innovation, creativity, and cultural expression, making it fundamentally reliant on systems that safeguard originality and commercial investment. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are vital in protecting these characteristics by providing creators with exclusive rights to their designs, branding, and proprietary techniques. Without strong IPR enforcement, fashion designers—particularly independent and emerging talents—are continually at risk of design theft and unauthorized reproduction, largely due to the aggressive tactics employed by fast-fashion brands.  In the contemporary globalized fashion economy, IPR has become crucial not only for safeguarding economic interests but also for maintaining artistic identity. Designs, logos, patterns, and trade secrets are valuable assets that embody the character and philosophy of a fashion house. When these elements are stolen or replicated without authorization, it diminishes brand value, confuses consumers, and undermines the economic foundation of design-oriented businesses. Consequently, robust IPR protection encourages original creation, fosters competition, and supports a sustainable innovation ecosystem.  Furthermore, in nations such as the United States and those within the European Union, an effective IP regime has contributed to the expansion of creative industries and attracted foreign investment. For example, luxury brands allocate significant resources to research, development, and marketing, all of which are safeguarded under IP frameworks. Trademarks, for instance, protect brand identity and consumer confidence; design rights preserve visual aesthetics; while copyrights protect original prints, sketches, and textile art. These components not only facilitate monetization but also act as instruments for brand positioning and legal action against counterfeiting.

Copyright Law

Under U.S. brand law, the functional features of apparel are not defended, but brand

can be attained for divisible design rudiments as held in Star Athletica. Fabric prints are 

defended in the EU and Australia. developer council Ltd. v. Russell Williams verified that 

protection requires substantial element copying, not inescapably exact duplication. 

US design patents and EU registered designs defend the beautifiers on the papers of vesture,  still, these are expensive and take a longer time than what the fashion cycles permit. The US does not have a sui generis unrecorded design rights unlike the EU.

Trademarks, including ensigns and colour, are defended in trade dress form and enjoys global acceptance. While secondary meaning is a must-have in the U.S., it's easier to prove in earlier doctrine and other authorities; notable triumphs include Christian Louboutin v. YSL. Two Pesos Taco Cabana verified essential distinctness for trade dress. 

Trade secrets represent a lower- known but vital aspect of intellectual property protection in the fashion world. Unlike imprints or trademarks that bear formal enrolment, trade secrets offer protection through confidentiality — covering any personal information that gives a business a competitive advantage. This includes manufacturing processes, supplier lists, unreleased design generalities, marketing strategies, fabric formulas, and product ways. 

In an assiduity where product reversal times are rapid-fire and reproduction is common, guarding behind- the- scenes know- how is frequently more critical than guarding the finished product. For example, luxury brands like Hermès or Louis Vuitton nearly guard their sourcing strategies and artisanal ways. These internal processes, which are delicate to reverse- mastermind, form the backbone of brand prestige and quality. 

One of the advantages of trade secret protection is its indefinite duration — handed that the information remains non public. Still, this also makes enforcement delicate. If a 

contender singly discovers the same fashion or if an hand leaks sensitive data without acceptable contractual protection, the legal expedient may be limited. Hence, companies frequently calculate robust internal controls, including non-disclosure agreements( NDAs), non- contend clauses, and hand training to alleviate pitfalls. 

In authorities similar as the United States, trade secrets are shielded under the Defend

Trade Secrets Act( DTSA), which offers civil- position remedies in cases of  misappropriation. The European Union has also legislated the EU Trade Secrets Directive, which seeks to regularize protection and enforcement mechanisms among member countries. 

Again, nations like India and Australia give limited statutory guidance, counting further

heavily on contract and tort law for remedies. Despite these legal fabrics, the underutilization of trade secrets within the fashion assiduity arises from a lack of mindfulness and institutional perpetration. Small and medium enterprises( SMEs), which constitute a significant portion of the fashion force chain, constantly fail to maintain acceptable attestation or legal protocols to identify and guard their trade secrets. This negligence renders them susceptible to internal leaks and commercial spying, especially when engaging with overseas manufacturers or digital platforms. As the design process becomes decreasingly digitized — through CAD lines, 3D printing, and AI- generated fashion guarding personal data has come indeed more essential. Cybersecurity now intersects with intellectual property rights( IPR), as leaks of design data or unreleased collections can affect not only in fiscal losses but also in reputational detriment. To attack these issues, the fashion assiduity must emphasize internal IP checkups, give legal education for workers, and establish secure digital architectures. When managed duly, trade secrets can act as redoubtable means — easing sustainable intervention while keeping strategic intelligence nonpublic from the public sphere. 

Through Case Law 

• Birkenstock v. copyists in Germany question whether sandals can be considered “ applied art ” in terms of brand. 

• Australian independent brand Maison de Sabre’s fight 

Research Design 

The current exploration employs a mongrel exploration methodology that integrates doctrinal legal analysis with qualitative empirical ways to completely probe the functioning of intellectual property rights (IPR) within the global fashion sector. This binary approach was named to ensure that the paper transcends are theoretical or legislative conversations, rather landing the real- world guests of stakeholders, including fashion contrivers, legal professionals, and IP advisers. 

1.Doctrinal Legal exploration

The main exploration system employed is doctrinal, generally known as black- letter law

exploration, which entails an in- depth examination and interpretation of bills, case law, legal doctrines, and transnational covenants that regulate IPR across colorful authorities. This aspect of the study aims to comprehend how specific IP administrations

similar as imprints, design patents (U.S.), registered designs( EU, India, Australia), 

trademarks, trade dress, and trade secrets — function in securing fashion products. 

To achieve this, legal databases including Westlaw, Hein Online, SCC Online, and  LexisNexis were employed to pierce statutory textbooks and corner rulings.

Significant legislative instruments anatomized comprise

• The U.S. Copyright Act (1976) and Design Patent regulations

• The EU Community Design Regulation and EU Trademark Regulation

• The Indian Designs Act, 2000, Copyright Act, 1957, and Trademarks Act, 1999

• The Australian Designs Act2003

A relative legal analysis was also performed to probe the parallels and differences in how 

colourful legal systems interpret and apply IP protections for fashion creations. 

This included an examination of vital case law similar as Star Athletica v. Varsity 

Brands (U.S.), developer council Ltd. v. Russell Williams (U.K.), and recent rulings

involving brands like Birkenstock, Christian Louboutin, and Zara. The doctrinal 

analysis played a pivotal part in revealing both the legal advantages and the being

gaps within the current IPR fabrics. 

2.Qualitative Empirical Research

In order to enhance the legal analysis with practical insights, a qualitative empirical approach was utilized. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a select group of participants, which included:

• Independent fashion designers (3)

• Legal professionals with expertise in IPR (2)

• In-house counsel from fashion brands (1)

• A fashion educator knowledgeable about IP curriculum (1)

The interviews were conducted virtually, each lasting approximately 20 to 30 minutes. Open-ended questions were employed to provide flexibility and encourage participants to elaborate on their experiences and viewpoints. Discussion topics included:

• Awareness and application of IP laws among designers

• Difficulties in the registration and enforcement of rights

• Effects of fast fashion and AI tools on design protection

• Perspectives on existing legal reforms and desired modifications

Ethical guidelines were adhered to throughout the process, ensuring participant anonymity and informed consent. Thematic analysis was applied to extract common themes and insights from the responses, which were subsequently integrated into the discussion section.

3.Compass and Limitations

The study's compass is primarily confined to the protection of fashion design, banning other areas similar as jewellery or cosmetics unless they're directly material. Although the authorities examined include the U.S., EU, India, and Australia, the results may not be

entirely generalizable to other legal systems due to differences in IP fabrics. Also, owing to time and resource limitations, the empirical aspect was confined in scale. Nonetheless, it was designedly designed to capture rich, experience- grounded perceptivity rather than quantitative data. unborn exploration could expand on this by including a larger sample size and exercising quantitative styles similar to checks or impact assessments. 

Legal Framework 

The protection of fashion design under intellectual property law is governed by colourful legal instruments, each furnishing unique yet lapping content grounded on governance. Brand law, especially following the significant Star Athletica ruling in the United States, permits the protection of divisible design rudiments similar as fabric prints and artwork, while still banning functional features of garments like cuts and outlines. The European Union and India offer similar protection for cloth designs and embellishments, but don't extend this to the overall structure of garments unless it's easily distinguishable from their mileage. 

In the United States, design patents and in the EU and India, registered designs guard the cosmetic, non-functional characteristics of fashion particulars, similar as the specific shape or face pattern of a handbag or shoe. Nonetheless, the fast- paced nature of the fashion assiduity complicates the practical operation of these protections due to their fairly high costs and lengthy operation processes. Accordingly, they're frequently underutilized by small and mid-sized contrivers. Trademarks and trade dress give some of the most effective and constantly employed legal protections within the fashion sector. Trademarks are generally employed to cover ensigns, distinctive color schemes, and brand identifiers. Trade dress, which is a subset of trademark law, safeguards the overall appearance and sense of a product or its packaging, handed it has gained distinctness or secondary meaning in the minds of consumers. This is particularly profitable for well- established brands but necessitates a substantial marketing presence and consumer recognition, which can circumscribe access for arising contrivers. Trade secrets may offer protection for nonpublic manufacturing processes, personal ways, or undisclosed unborn designs. Still, given that fashion exists in a largely visual and public sphere, the connection of trade secret law is limited, particularly for securing aesthetic rudiments intended for public display. Eventually, mileage patents, although uncommon in the fashion assiduity, are occasionally employed for inventions like wearable technology or advancements in accoutrements and construction( for case, humidity- wicking fabrics or tone- conforming closures). These patents tend to be prohibitively expensive, bear strict novelty criteria, and have limited connection for designs that are purely aesthetic. In conclusion, while colorful intellectual property mechanisms are available to guard fashion invention, each possesses distinct limitations that dwindle its practical utility for contrivers — especially those working

singly or in presto- fashion surrounds. 

1. Trademark precedence the maturity of contrivers concentrates on straight forward and cost-effective trademark registration. 

2. Financial and temporal considerations Patent and design registration is generally

avoided unless on a large scale. 

3. Brand misconceptions numerous believe that brand innately protects 

designs. 

4. Disinclination to apply Many individualities take legal action; they depend on social

media to discourage infringers. 

5. Limited mindfulness the adoption of registered design in India and the EU is low

due to insufficient education.

• The developer council indicates EU charity regarding significant copying. 

• The Star Athletica case has clarified U.S. brand law, yet narrow and functional

Rejections persist. 

• The Birkenstock case may broaden protections in Germany; a decision is forthcoming. 

• The demurrers by Maison de Sabre against Sports girl in Australia punctuate the absence of vertical protection.

Interpretation

Intellectual property laws offer multiple layers of protection; still, their practical operation by small and independent contrivers is still relatively limited. While trademarks are fairly accessible, the costs and detainments associated with registered designs and patents frequently render them unaffordable.

Comparative Outlook 

• European Union A balanced system that encompasses EU-wide designs and brand

protections. 

• India Although the legislation is progressive, the practical perpetration and enforcement remain low. 

• United States A focus on trademarks, with protectable rudiments defined hardly. 

• Australia The lack of protection for unrecorded designs negatively affects independent contrivers.

Implications

 • Contrivers are encouraged to apply a multi-faceted approach to intellectual property, 

exercising cost-effective tools and proper attestation. 

• Policymakers should concentrate on the requirements of contrivers by lowering freights, creating expedited systems, and furnishing legal conventions within educational institutions. 

• The relinquishment of technology, similar to blockchain for evidence of creation, can enhance the substantiation for low- cost enforcement.

Limitations 

• The qualitative nature and limited sample size circumscribe the generalizability of the findings. 

• The focus on specific authorities suggests that broader geographic exploration could give more comprehensive perceptivity.

Although intellectual property rights fabrics theoretically encompass protection for 

fashion design, their practical mileage is hindered by factors similar as cost, complexity, speed disagreement, and a lack of mindfulness. Trademarks continue to serve as primary tools still, there's a pressing need for further nuanced support for design patents, registered designs, and brand protections.

 Recommendations

1. apply expedited design enrolment processes and figure quitclaims for small contrivers. 

2. produce legal backing conventions for intellectual property within fashion programs. 

3. Promote the adjustment of global systems through trade agreements and transnational design registries. 

4. Encourage the use of indispensable technology- grounded attestations, similar to blockchain instruments. 

5. Initiate mindfulness juggernauts and training programs concentrated on comprehensive intellectual property strategies.

Future Research 

• Conduct quantitative studies on the issues of IP enforcement and cost- benefit analyses. 

• estimate the relative impacts of IP reforms, particularly following India’s 2021 design

emendations. 

• Explore IP fabrics applicable to digital fashion and AI - Generated designs.

• Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. ___ (2017).

• Designer Guild Ltd. v. Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd., [2001] E.C.D.R. 10 (U.K.).

• Taco Cabana, Inc. v. Two Pesos, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992).

• Birkenstock copycat litigation, pending before Fed. Ct. Just. (Ger.), Jan. 9, 2025.

• Maison de Sabre v. Sportsgirl, Allegations of knockoffs, news.com.au (May 5, 2025), https://www.news.com.au/.

• Jessica et al., The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in the Fashion Industry, 65 IDEA 1 (2024).

• IJNRD, IPR Challenges in Indian Fashion, Int’l J. Novel Res. Dev., 2024.

• Lawctopus, Copyright Infringement in Fashion, Lawctopus (2023), https://www.lawctopus.com/.

• WTR, Designs — Protecting Fashion in U.S. with IP Rights, World Trademark Rev. (2020), https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/.