Boohoo has successfully defended a Court claim that it had allegedly infringed five clothing designs of Sonia Edwards. Ms Edwards started designing clothes in 2010 and promoted her designs via social media. This led to recognition for her in Vogue and Drapers and exhibiting at the NEC (Birmingham) in 2011.
Unregistered design rights protect the shape or configuration of the whole/part of an article that is sufficiently original. Ms Edwards argued that Boohoo had infringed her unregistered design rights in the shape and configuration of: (1) a bikini multiway top, (2) organza rib puff-sleeve high neck fitted top, (3) two high waist ruched skirts, and (4) high waist half ruched leggings. Ms Edwards represented herself at the trial.
A closer look at the claims
The Court considered the alleged infringements in relation to the following designs.
(1) Bikini multiway top
This bikini top design could be worn in multiple ways as the strap could be threaded through the panels in various ways. However, it was not protected as an unregistered design from the claimed March 2016 date, 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.
(2) Puff sleeve fitted top
Ms Edwards relied on “an organza puff sleeve made from rib fabric…” and “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 held 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/elbow of a wearer as this will depend on the person. Therefore, the remaining (narrow) design was a puff sleeve connected to an extended cuff. Due to the lack of evidence for longer cuffed sleeves, it was found to be “borderline” whether the remaining design was sufficiently original but valid.
(3) High waist ruched skirts
The two skirt designs 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/fastenings (which are features which cannot be seen) are not protected by unregistered design rights. This also applied to features that relied on an individual wearer’s exact shape. The Court was “prepared to accept” there was sufficient originality for the remaining parts in the chevron shape at the back/front of the waist, the hem, the ruching gathered in the centre on the front/back and the draping at the leg..
(4) High waist ruched leggings
The Court found that unregistered design rights could not subsist in a concealed waistband or a high fitting waistline (for the same reasons as above). 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
Infringement of unregistered designs requires copying a design to produce articles that are exactly or substantially to that design. We provide examples of the allegedly infringing designs below.
The Court found that on the balance of probabilities there was not enough evidence of copying for there to be infringement. The 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’ profile had been relatively low (e.g. her Instagram had 268 followers in 2020). 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.
Practical takeaways
The judgment has many practical takeaways for fashion designers, particularly those who operate in the fast-fashion industry or market themselves using social media.
- Unregistered design rights can exist in photos shared on social media, but relying on a photo in social media as evidence of a design is too vague. Fashion designers will get stronger protection if designs are 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.
- Always keep detailed records to prove the ownership of your unregistered designs. This is also important if you are accused of infringing a third parties design rights.
- 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.
How we can help
This case highlights the complexities of relying on unregistered design rights—particularly in fast-moving industries like fashion. Whether you’re a designer seeking to safeguard your creative work or a brand facing potential infringement claims, our specialist Intellectual Property (IP) team is here to help. Get in touch with our experts today to discuss how we can support you.
Related News
Authors
Related legal expertise
Connect with us
