Chanel v. What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA) LLC, (1:18-cv-02253, (S.D.N.Y.):

One of the most impactful fashion law judgments of the year emerged in Chanel v. What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA), a case that sharply spotlighted the thriving luxury resale market. A jury awarded Chanel $4 million in damages after determining that WGACA engaged in unfair competition, sold counterfeit Chanel products under the brand’s trademark, and falsely suggested an official partnership with the iconic brand.

While reselling authentic luxury items is generally permitted under the exhaustion doctrine, this case clarified that implied affiliations, false authentication claims, and trademark misuse cross a legal boundary. Chanel has sought a permanent injunction to prevent WGACA from using its trademarks in advertising in a way that implies endorsement or approval by Chanel. The decision sends a clear message that resale platforms must operate transparently and cannot exploit the prestige of luxury brands without facing accountability.

Rahul Mishra & Anr. v. John Doe & Anr. (CS/COMM 1194/2024)

In a significant win for Indian fashion and intellectual property rights, the Delhi High Court recently ruled firmly in favour of celebrated designer Rahul Mishra, sending a clear message to counterfeiters operating in the digital space. Faced with rampant misuse of his name and designs through rogue websites selling look-alike products, the Court granted an injunction, a remedy tailored for the ever-shifting online world. This order not only restrained the infringing website from using the RAHUL MISHRA mark and copyrighted designs but also empowered authorities to block future mirror or redirect websites that might spring up to evade enforcement. The judgment recognises the unique vulnerability of luxury and designer brands online. It reinforces that creativity, reputation, and craftsmanship deserve robust legal protection, especially in an era where imitation can travel faster than originality.

Adidas v. Steve Madden & Aviator Nation, 3:24-cv-00740, (D. Or.):

Adidas continued the aggressive enforcement of its iconic three-stripe trademark, filing suits against Steve Madden and Aviator Nation for using allegedly confusingly similar four- and five-stripe designs. These cases revived long-standing debates about the scope of trademark protection for simple design elements.

In a notable counteroffensive, Steve Madden filed an antitrust lawsuit, accusing Adidas of attempting to monopolize standard design features and stifle competition. The litigation put trademark and competition law on a collision course, forcing courts to balance brand protection against the risk of overreach in monopolising basic aesthetic elements.

PIL for Protection of Kolhapuri Chappal in India (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2681):

In July 2025, the Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging Italian fashion house Prada for allegedly using a design “deceptively similar” to the GI-tagged Kolhapuri Chappal in its Spring/Summer collection, holding that such claims cannot be pursued by way of a PIL under Article 226 and that only the registered proprietors of the GI—Rohidas Leather Industries & Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDCOM) and Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDKAR)—are entitled to seek relief under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 through appropriate civil remedies. The Court emphasised that issues of GI infringement involve disputed questions of fact and statutory rights that must be enforced by the GI owners rather than through a PIL. However, it did not preclude the registered proprietors from initiating their own action under Sections 21–22 of the Act.

Birkenstock v. White Mountain Footwear LLC, 747 F. Supp. 3d 292:

In Birkenstock v. White Mountain Footwear, the German footwear brand accused White Mountain of producing “knockoffs” of its iconic clogs and sandals. The case spotlighted the challenges of trade dress protection for long-standing designs.

White Mountain’s defence- that Birkenstock waited nearly 30 years to enforce its rights- raised issues of delay, acquiescence, and laches. The outcome of this dispute has the potential to significantly influence how courts assess trade dress claims for legacy products that have existed in the market for decades without aggressive enforcement.

Hermès International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd 2025 (SCC OnLine Del 8581):

In a trademark infringement suit brought by Hermès International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court on 24 November 2025 recognised the three-dimensional shape of the iconic Birkin bag, the “Hermès” word mark and two associated stylised marks as well-known trademarks under Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, noting their extensive public recognition, long-standing use, global registrations and consistent enforcement efforts, and thereby granted the plaintiff’s prayer to have these marks formally declared well-known in India. 

Van Cleef & Arpels v. Silversmiths (2:25-cv-01204 (D.N.J.)):

Luxury jewellery also saw strong judicial protection in Van Cleef & Arpels v. Silversmiths, where Richemont sued for alleged copying of the iconic Alhambra motif. The case reinforced the value of protecting non-conventional and iconic designs, even when they are simple, repetitive, or inspired by historical forms.

It underscored how luxury brands rely heavily on visual identity and how courts are increasingly willing to recognise and protect such distinctiveness against imitation.

Conclusion: 2025 as a Turning Point for Fashion Law

Together, these cases defined 2025 as a transformative year for fashion law. They demonstrated that fashion is no longer legally confined to questions of design copying alone but now intersects with competition law, consumer protection, data privacy, resale ethics, and technological innovation.

As fashion becomes faster, more digital, and more global, legal frameworks are evolving to ensure accountability without stifling creativity. The jurisprudence emerging from 2025 will likely shape how brands, designers, and platforms navigate rights, responsibilities, and reputations in the years to come.

The post Fashion Law Cases that Defined 2025 as a Year of Fashion appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

The Fashion Metaverse Symphony 

The emergence of virtual fashion in the metaverse has given birth to a billion-dollar industry, beautifully amalgamating gaming, socialisation, and e-commerce. Virtual retail hubs have turned out to be thriving hubs for virtual retail destinations such as The Sandbox, Roblox, and Decentraland. In 2021, Gucci Garden on Roblox witnessed virtual goods sell for prices that rivalled, and even surpassed, their physical counterparts, which simply reflects the value that digital goods can accrue. Nike’s acquisition of RTFKT Studios, an early digital shoe pioneer with a focus on NFT collectable products, is a significant indicator of the intermingling of blockchain technology and fashion on a profound level. One way brand owners connect with consumers in the metaverse is by presenting unique digital duplicates of their products as NFTs through online games and marketplaces. One of the best examples of this is Dolce & Gabbana (D&G), which dropped a series of nine NFTs. There has been a substantial rise in the number of brands exploring the metaverse, driven by the goal of boosting consumer engagement and establishing a foothold in the virtual economy. Several companies are investing in virtual real estate to strengthen their presence in this emerging domain. Notably, in February 2022, Gucci purchased an undisclosed plot of land in The Sandbox to launch an innovative interactive project titled Gucci Vault.

However, with such exhilarating opportunities come tremendous legal hurdles, particularly in the areas of trademark protection, infringement, and navigating jurisdiction in non-hierarchical spaces.

Trademark Law and Virtual Goods 

Historically, trademark law protected the signs, names, and logos that differentiate brand names in the marketplace. But what if such identifiers have no existence beyond the computer network? Take the example of trademarking “handbags” traditionally in Class 18. The big question that arises from this is whether this extends to virtual handbags sold as NFTs. To catch up with this online development, brands such as Nike, Ralph Lauren, and Hermès have taken proactive measures and filed trademark applications for virtual products in Classes 9, 35, and 41, from downloadable virtual content to online store services and entertainment services.

This advance planning highlights an important epiphany: even in the nonphysical world of the metaverse, commerce generates real economic value and necessitates proper legal protection. In most jurisdictions, the first to file wins the trademark rights. Even in the United States, where first use in actual commercial use normally determines priority, there must be early filing of an intent-to-use basis. This makes the filing date equivalent to the first use date, although the product will be rolled out afterwards.

Tragically, the prospect of the metaverse has drawn out unscrupulous individuals who are hopeful of profiteering from this development by making preemptive or bad-faith trademark filings. Several fake filings for big-brand names, such as Prada and Gucci, have emerged, especially in the U.S. These rogue filings have proven to be significant headaches for genuine brand owners, resulting in expensive contests and depleting resources.

While others, such as Hermès, choose to stay grounded in the physical world, with an appreciation for the exclusivity and hand-craftsmanship that underpin their heritage, this has not protected them from online misuse. In late 2021, Hermès was embroiled in a scandal when unauthorised “MetaBirkins” NFTs that substantially resembled its legendary Birkin bag appeared on the OpenSea marketplace. Despite selling for staggering prices, reportedly reaching a total of around USD 1 million in sales, Hermès promptly lodged a lawsuit in an effort to counter this infringement and protect its brand integrity online.

Enforcement of Trademarks in The Metaverse 

Enforcement of trademark rights in the metaverse is not simple. Virtual spaces do not heed geographic boundaries and allow infringement from jurisdictions without a clear legal recourse for resolution. Many metaverse spaces also exist on distributed blockchain networks, making enforcement harder. For example, if a brand is registered in the US under classes 19 or 41, that does not provide protection in India. But the same metaverse can be accessed in the US and in India. What does it say about brand protection? This question is rather tricky to answer and can only be solved when there is a standardised regulation for the virtual world.

Brand Strategies for Intellectual Property Protection in the Metaverse 

While apparel companies continue to move deeper into the metaverse, it’s clear that conventional intellectual property protections will need to evolve in response to the unique threats posed by virtual commercialisation. The metaverse is an environment filled with imagination and unique customer engagement possibilities, but it also brings unprecedented threats such as counterfeit NFTs, digital plagiarisms, and unauthorised virtual products. To succeed in this new environment demands creative thinking and clever action. Virtual fashion in the metaverse holds tremendous promise. With proper trademark protection, companies can feel at ease entering this vibrant new universe with their identities in tow and their fans’ imaginations captivated.

The post Clothing in The Metaverse: Navigation Trademark Issues appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Picture this: you stroll into an H&M store and find a beautiful t-shirt adorned which comes along with a tag boasting sustainability. How do you feel? A normal person, just by purchasing that shirt, is likely to feel a wave of joy and pride, convinced that they are doing their part for the planet. This is the allure of green branding, an enticing promise that conjures up images of environmental harmony.  But here’s the twist: while some brands flaunt their eco-friendly claims, securing genuine green trademarks is no easy feat. This often represents a more authentic commitment to sustainability, setting them apart from mere marketing fluff. As consumers become increasingly savvy to greenwashing tactics, the need for truly sustainable brands has never been more critical. A ‘Green Trademark’ can help build a way to that authenticity, creating real impact while building a brighter future for our planet.

Understanding Green Trademarks

Green trademarks, sometimes referred to as eco-friendly marks, have become increasingly popular recently as a means of encouraging sustainable development and environmental preservation, especially among youth. Social media deserves some, if not all, of the credit for this. Green trademarks are distinctive in that they may contain single or combined words, slogans, and figurative representations about sustainability or environmental protection, even though they are not a type of trademark in the legal sense. In simple terms, a trademark which is likely to make the consumer believe that the product attached to it is environmentally friendly is a green trademark.

It is crucial to realise that eco-labels and certification marks are not the same as green trademarks. While certification marks like Fair Trade and PETA Approved Vegan require adherence to strict standards and validation procedures, green trademarks represent a brand’s identity. Green marks, specifically the “Ecomark” issued by the Bureau of Indian Standards, are recognised as certification marks in India. The Ecomark scheme encompasses products like soap, detergent, food items, electronic goods, plastic products, cosmetics, and other packaged goods, while ‘GreenPro’, granted by the Confederation of Indian Industry, indicates that a product is environmentally friendly.

Why are Green Trademarks Important for Sustainable Fashion Brands? 

According to a recent study conducted by Microsoft Advertising and Dentsu International, more than 90% of consumers are drawn to companies that are dedicated to and able to prove that they are prioritising sustainability.  It went on to say that businesses that don’t adopt this as a strategy will experience negative consumer feedback in the upcoming years.  More than half of Gen Z and millennial shoppers, according to other studies, will now pay more for these kinds of products.

Green trademarks are used to indicate that the fashion products sold under the brand, such as clothing, footwear, or accessories, are produced using environmentally responsible practices. This could include using organic materials, reducing carbon emissions, or engaging in circular fashion processes that replenish rather than deplete natural resources. The fashion industry contributes 2–8% of global carbon emissions and is the second-largest water-consuming sector. The industry’s environmental and social impact has gotten significantly worse with the rise of fast fashion, synthetic materials, and abusive labour practices. Let’s talk about green branding. Consumers of today, especially Gen Z and Millennials, are fuelling the demand for sustainable goods. A sustainable brand, if marketed properly, can lead you to success.

By allowing consumers to match their purchases with principles like sustainability, ethical sourcing, and environmental stewardship, these trademarks act as instruments for conscious consumption. For example, a consumer may choose Stella McCartney over fast fashion labels because of the brand’s commitment to cruelty-free and eco-friendly practices. Recently, sustainable Indian brands have also emerged, such as No Nasties, an organic vegan brand, and The Summer House, which promotes Indian craftsmanship and organic clothing, among many others.

Green trademarks are used by fashion brands to differentiate themselves from the competition and build strong moral and emotional ties with their clientele. By using an eco-friendly branding approach, you can gain a competitive advantage and improve public perception. For instance, Ecoalf is a sustainable fashion brand which came up with the campaign #BecauseThereIsNoPlanetB. This is an international initiative called “Upcycling the Oceans”, which aims to salvage marine debris from the ocean floor and turn it into high-quality yarn for clothing.

How to Get a Green Trademark in India?

Although the Indian Trademark Act does not contain any provisions specifically addressing green trademarks, businesses are still able to register a trademark with the Indian Trademark Office. Registering a green trademark in India follows the same legal process as any other trademark, under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.  This includes distinctiveness, which requires the mark to set the applicant’s products or services apart. Non-deceptiveness, the mark must not give false information to the public. It should be capable of graphical representation and should have the capability of distinguishing the goods and services of the proprietor from those of others.

Green brands are frequently granted trademarks in India when they are paired with other words that are either descriptive or unique. For instance, ‘Mamaearth’ has registered its trademark in India.  However, to avoid false sustainable claims and greenwashing, there are particular guidelines by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA).  Generic terms like “green,” “eco-friendly,” and “sustainable” are forbidden without sufficient qualifiers. The guidelines guarantee a shared understanding by clearly defining terms associated with greenwashing. Only and only if the trademark is distinct and void of generic terms will it be able to get protection. It can be challenging for fashion brands to get their green trademarks registered, but once that is achieved, it will prove to be a competitive advantage. With power comes responsibility; therefore, after registering a green trademark, the brand becomes responsible for its sustainable claims. If found deceiving, it will have to face legal consequences.

Key Suggestions for India’s Sustainable Fashion Sector

Indian fashion brands, particularly those which are led by artisans, cooperatives, and small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), hold a unique advantage in aligning with global sustainability trends. As many of these entities already engage in traditional, low-impact production methods, such as handloom weaving, natural dyeing, and organic textile use, they have not yet realised their power. By leveraging green trademarks, they can effectively communicate their environmental and cultural values to consumers both in India and abroad.

Traditional Indian artisans find it easier to make the deliberate and responsible journey necessary to fully harness the power of green branding in the sustainability space because of their working methods. Making green claims alone is insufficient; they must be convincing and unambiguous. It’s critical that claims about sustainable practices, such as using organic cotton, putting zero waste procedures into place, or becoming carbon neutral, be supported by concrete data. By directing customers directly to the source, relevant technologies like blockchain or QR codes can guarantee transparency right away.

Furthermore, establishing legal protection and exclusive rights in both domestic and foreign markets depends on obtaining green trademarks under the Trade Marks Act of 1999. Green marketing may be effective, but a green trademark is authentic and can therefore work wonders. Recall that sustainability is more than just a fad, a catchphrase, or a short-lived campaign. It should be woven into the very fabric of the brand, embodying authentic Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) values that pervade every aspect of the business’s operations. Make sustainability a central part of what your brand wants to be, and you’ll see your brand flourish in a conscientious consumer base.

Conslusion

Imagine purchasing a product and seeing a bright green trademark. This is more than just a logo; it is a powerful statement of a fashion brand’s commitment to sustainability and environmental stewardship. Green branding must be supported by promises that are real, legally binding safeguards, if the fashion industry is to fully embrace sustainability. Incorporating responsibility into every fabric and brand is just as important to the future of fashion as creating innovative designs. It is highly likely to achieve great success if one is prepared to launch such a fashion brand at this time. However, it shouldn’t end here. Customers must learn to distinguish between companies that actually care about sustainability and those that are just following the trend of green marketing to increase sales. Let’s give ourselves the ability to choose wisely and back companies that are changing the world!

The post The Green Tag Effect: Build A Sustainable Fashion Brand With The Help of Green Trademarks appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Just consider the mesmerising Medusa dress by Schiaparelli; it’s hard to see it as anything less than an artistic masterpiece. Or think about Victor & Rolf’s gravity-defying upside-down fashion, where models strutted down the runway in clothes styled diagonally, horizontally, and even upside down. These striking designs transcend traditional fashion; they embody the very essence of art itself. Fashion undeniably belongs in the realm of art, but not all of it. The innovative techniques and creativity that go into crafting fashion items are nothing short of breathtaking. With each piece, designers push the boundaries of imagination, making it clear that fashion is a true form of artistic expression deserving of our admiration.

Image: Viktor & Rolf Spring Couture 2023
Source

BACKGROUND

Fashion has always danced on the delicate line between inspiration and imitation, and the ongoing struggle to protect designs has brought some high-profile cases to the forefront. One striking example is the case of Ritika Private Limited vs. Biba Apparels Private Ltd.( CS(OS) No.182/2011), where renowned designer Ritu Kumar found herself unable to defend her unique creations after BIBA replicated them. The catch? Ritu had not registered her designs under the Design Act of 2000, leaving her vulnerable in a competitive industry.

Now Fast fast-forwarding to a more recent showdown, wherein a celebrated Indian designer known for dressing various celebrities, Gaurav Gupta, has taken a stand against alleged copyright infringement (M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. & Anr v. Abdus Salam Khan (CS(COMM) 278/2024)). The Delhi High Court heard the case where Gaurav was claiming that his signature ‘sculpted boning’ technique was unlawfully mimicked by the respondents. In a twist of fate, the court sided with Gupta, noting that the handmade nature of his work and the sale of less than 50 copies meant the protections under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act didn’t apply. Additionally, the court highlighted that Sections 14(1)(c) and 51 of the Copyright Act shield his innovative designs from being replicated in other forms. These cases not only shine a light on the complexities of design protection but also underscore the importance of safeguarding creativity in the fashion world.

To understand this, one must understand the conundrum of section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act of 1957 addresses the overlap between copyright and design protection. It guarantees that copyright does not last forever for industrial designs that can be registered under the Designs Act of 2000, but have not been registered. It simply means:

• If a design is capable of being registered under the Designs Act (i.e., it has visual appeal and can be applied to an article by an industrial process),
• And it is not registered,
• Then, copyright protection ends after 50 reproductions of the design.

Image: M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. & Anr v. Abdus Salam Khan.

Source

TEST TO RESOLVE THE DILEMMA

In a recent and significant ruling, the Supreme Court tackled a pressing conflict in the case of Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited & Ors (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 426). The court introduced an intriguing twin test to address these kinds of disputes, shedding light on how to navigate such challenging situations. This decision promises to have important implications for future cases.

Inox India Limited claimed that LNG Express India and Appellant-Cryogas Equipment had violated its copyright in engineering drawings and books about cryogenic semi-trailers used to transport LNG. The appellants asserted that the drawings were unregistered ‘designs’ under the Designs Act, 2000, and hence, ineligible for copyright protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act following industrial usage, while Inox maintained that the drawings were original ‘artistic works’ under the Copyright Act.

The question at hand revolves around an intriguing dilemma: when does a piece of artistic work lose its copyright protection because it’s being used on an industrial scale? This shift raises the fascinating possibility that it might be redefined as a ‘design’ under the Designs Act. It’s a captivating intersection of creativity and legality that sparks essential conversations about ownership and innovation. The Bench stated:

“(i) Whether the work in question is purely an ‘artistic work’ entitled to protection under the Copyright Act, or whether it is a ‘design’ derived from such original artistic work and subjected to an industrial process based upon the language in Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act;

(ii) If such a work does not qualify for copyright protection, then the test of ‘functional utility’ will have to be applied so as to determine its dominant purpose.”

The Court made an important observation: the fact that a work is used solely for commercial purposes doesn’t automatically strip it of its copyright protection. However, what’s important to consider is its functional utility. As the Court stated, if the main feature of a work is its utility or practical use rather than its artistic charm, it won’t meet the criteria for protection under the Designs Act. In order to emphasise the absence of a unified worldwide strategy, the verdict used international treaties like as TRIPS and the Berne Convention in addition to comparative law from the United States, including the US Supreme Court’s decision in Star Athletica LLC v. Varsity Brands Inc. Therefore, question of Copyright and Design overlap is a matter of National policy.

This decision revealed that the parliament aimed to have stronger safeguards for works of pure artistic expression, like paintings and sculptures, while offering only limited protection for designs driven by commercial interests. Hence, it is important to classify fashion also into these two categories.

CONCLUSION

In the world of fashion, distinguishing between artistic expression and commercial intent can be quite a challenge. At its core, the answer is straightforward: runway designs that showcase originality and artistic flair can be safeguarded as works of art through copyright protection. On the flip side, fast fashion, driven entirely by commercial motives, won’t find refuge under the Copyright Act in India. Instead, it must look to the Design Act of 2000 for the protection it seeks. Fashion is not just about creativity; it’s also about knowing where and how to defend that creativity!

References:

• https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-lays-down-twin-test-to-resolve-copyrightdesign-conflict-under-s152-of-copyright-act 289433?fromIpLogin=68967.24709069477
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/10/16/from-art-to-industry-decoding-the-clash-between-copyright-and-design-in-indian-law/
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1223274/overlap-between-copyrights-and-designs-in-india
• https://spicyip.com/2025/04/part-i-cryogas-judgment-supreme-court-stops-copyright-from-gaslighting-design.html
• https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/copyright-vs-design-protection-supreme-court-ruling-cryogas-inox/
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1493464/indian-fashion-industry-intersection-of-copyright-and-design-law
• https://aarnalaw.com/insights/copyright-in-fashion-safeguarding-designers-creative-works

The post Protecting Fashion In India: Supreme Court Revisits The Copyright–Design Overlap appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.