That is what gives the case its edge. This is not only a fight over whether certain items should have appeared on SHEIN. It’s also a fight over how Selena’s estate can enforce rights it says are still active and protectable. For a company like SHEIN, the issue may look operational: listings, sellers, takedowns, and notices. For Selena’s estate, this issue is broader and more long-term. From its point of view, this is about protecting the licensed use of an image that still carries enormous cultural and commercial value. 

What Selena’s Estate is Arguing 

The complaint raises several claims, but the basic argument is simple. The estate says Selena-related merchandise was presented in a way that could lead consumers to think it was official or connected to Selena’s estate when it was not. Public trademark records also support the estate’s position that it owns and manages those rights. That is where the trademark infringement and false designation of origin claims come in. The estate is arguing that Selena’s name, image, and related branding were used in a way that could suggest an endorsement or affiliation. A consumer doesn’t need to know about trademarks or trademark law for that to matter. The estate is arguing that the way the product was presented could lead people to think it came from or was approved by Selena’s estate.

One of the claims made is for dilution, but not whether shoppers are confused right away. Instead, it’s about whether repeated unauthorized use of their mark can weaken the power of a famous name over time. In fashion, this matters because a name like Selena does not just identify a person, but style, memory, and cultural meaning. If that name keeps showing up on merchandise without approval, the estate can argue that the name loses some of its distinctiveness. Brand owners worry about that kind of erosion because, if a mark is not protected carefully, it can become weaker over time. In extreme cases, a name can even lose trademark protection altogether if it becomes generic (“aspirin” is the classic example in the U.S.). Even though dilution and genericide are not the same thing, both ideas show why owners try to stop repeated unauthorized use before the name loses value. 

The publicity rights claim may be the most important part of the case. California law protects a deceased person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, and likeness from unauthorized commercial use. That means this lawsuit is not just about a word or image on a product label. It’s also about whether Selena’s image and identity are still legally protected after her death. Public trademark records help support that position. USPTO records show the SELENA mark is live and registered, with Q Productions LLC listed as the current owner, including for Class 25 apparel goods. Separate USPTO assignment records show an ownership transfer, first from Selena’s father to Suzette Quintanilla and then to Q Productions LLC. That gives the estate a stronger footing when it says Selena’s name and image are still being actively managed, licensed, and protected; not treated as open for anyone to use.

The Seller, The Platform, or Both?

One interesting part of the lawsuit is that it does not appear to be built around a one-time incident. The estate is trying to show a pattern. Exhibit A to the complaint includes a cease-and-desist letter and screenshots showing Selena-related search results and listings on the SHEIN platform. The estate is not only saying that Selena merchandise appeared on SHEIN. It is also saying SHEIN was allegedly put on notice, yet the listings still remained. That matters because, once a platform has been warned, the focus shifts. The question is no longer just what was on the site, but what happened after the warning was given.

SHEIN has reportedly said that the merchandise was sold on their platform by third-party sellers, but that it was removed once flagged, and that they have launched an investigation. That may be part of SHEIN’s defense, but it does not completely settle the issue. The seller may have posted the item, but the platform still gives it visibility. It helps shoppers find the listing, and it benefits when people click and buy. That’s why the case matters beyond Selena merchandise. It gets at a bigger issue in fashion e-commerce: how much distance can a platform really claim when it profits from the demand generated by those listings? 

In fast fashion, speed changes everything. Products can appear quickly, spread quickly, and get bought quickly. By the time someone objects, the listing may already have done its job: being viewed, shared, or sold. That is part of what makes cases like this so important. They force courts to think about how much responsibility a platform should bear in a system built for speed.

Why Selena Makes This Different 

Selena remains one of the most influential Latina artists in music and popular culture, and her connection to fashion has always been part of that story. The GRAMMY Museum says her influence on music, fashion, and culture still inspires generations, and its current exhibit points out that Selena designed many of her own stage costumes. The Smithsonian has also recognized Selena’s cultural impact. They have continued to preserve her legacy, treating Selena as a living cultural force, not just a figure from the past. Describing her as the “Queen of Tejano Music,” the Smithsonian presents Selena as someone whose story and music continue to reach new generations today. That helps explain why her estate is treating this case seriously. Selena’s name and image still mean something to people, and that gives them commercial value. From the estate’s point of view, this is about protecting an image that is still very much alive in fashion, music, and community memory.

As the case moves forward, readers should watch how SHEIN responds, whether it continues to push liability onto third-party sellers, and how the court handles the estate’s trademark and publicity rights claims. For now, the lawsuit is already doing something important; it’s putting pressure on a broader question in fashion e-commerce: how much responsibility a platform should bear when protected names and images appear in online listings.  

Sources:

1. People, “Late Singer Selena Quintanilla’s Sister Sues Shein Over Clothing Line.”
2. Q Productions, Inc. et al. v. SHEIN Distribution Corporation et al., No. 2:26-cv-02588 (C.D. Cal.), case page and filings, accessed via PACERMonitor.
3. Q Productions, Inc. et al. v. SHEIN Distribution Corporation et al., No. 2:26-cv-02588 (C.D. Cal.), docket, accessed via Justia.
4. Lanham Act / 15 U.S.C. § 1125
5. USPTO Trademark Search, SELENA word mark, Reg. No. 5522456
6. USPTO Assignment Center records for the SELENA mark
7. California Civil Code § 3344.1 (post-mortem rights of publicity)
8. kiitv.com, “No results for ‘Selena’ on SHEIN after lawsuit filed by Q Productions.”
9. Remezcla, “SHEIN Removes All Selena Quintanilla Merch on Website – Here’s Why.”
10. GRAMMY Museum, “GRAMMY Museum Announces ‘Selena: From Texas To The World’ Exhibit.”
11. Smithsonian National Museum of American History, Selena materials/press release.

Author: Karla Galiano Herrera

Karla Galiano Herrera is a second-year J.D. candidate at New York Law School with interests in intellectual property, fashion law, and the legal issues that shape brands, media, and creative industries. Her perspective is informed in part by her background in immigration advocacy, which continues to shape the way she thinks about identity, protection, and access. Outside of law school, she enjoys blogging, content creation, and following the trends, stories, and cultural conversations that shape fashion and media.

The post Q Productions v. SHEIN: Trademark and Publicity Rights in Fast Fashion appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

When I was a child, the word “presentable” was not a suggestion but a family law. My mother – an exacting woman who measured the world in who wore what and whether or not they looked good in it – insisted that we never left the house unless we looked our best. The result was a paradoxical upbringing: on one hand, I learned the grammar of a well‑tailored suit, the poetry of a perfectly coordinated accessorized outfit, and the confidence that comes from knowing you have earned visual respect. 

On the other hand, the same regimen taught me the freedom of being able to “slum” as effortlessly as I could appear on a runway. I could and did glide from a quiet country kitchen in a thrifted pair of jeans to a glittering beauty‑pageant stage in a one-of-a-kind evening gown (even making the local newspaper) without feeling the slightest dissonance.

Now, more than four decades later, I find myself watching the very same world that once cherished sartorial etiquette devolve into what feels like a collective amnesia about the power of dress. Pyjamas have become streetwear, far too “weighty” exposed midriffs are glorified as rebellion, and cut‑off shorts that barely cover the posterior are celebrated as avant‑garde. The notion that something as simple as a dress code could still hold relevance seems, to many, antiquated. 

Yet, I am convinced that fashion events—perhaps the only remaining sanctuaries for those of us who still believe that clothing can communicate intelligence, intention, and respect—must cling to their dress‑code traditions.

The Historical Weight of Dress Codes:

The concept of a dress code is not a modern invention; it is a centuries‑old social contract. In the courts of Versailles, the “sumptuary laws” dictated who could wear silk, gold, or fur, creating a visual hierarchy that reinforced order.

In Victorian England, the “three‑piece suit” became a symbol of propriety, allowing a man’s character to be read at a glance. 

Fast forward to the twentieth century, and the “black‑tie” dress code emerged as a dashing shorthand for ceremony, dignity, and shared cultural understanding. Each of these moments illustrates a fundamental truth: clothing is a language, and dress codes are the grammar that keeps that language intelligible.

Fashion shows, galas, and industry mixers have historically been the most conspicuous arenas where this grammar is both taught and tested. By requiring attendees to adhere to a prescribed aesthetic—whether it is “cocktail attire,” “business‑formal,” or a specific thematic palette—organizers signal that the event is a serious forum for dialogue, critique, and the celebration of craft. In doing so, they protect the space from becoming a chaotic free‑for‑all where the message of design gets lost in a sea of mismatched patterns and colors.

Why Dress Codes Matter in Fashion:

Respect for the Designers’ Vision

Designers spend months, sometimes years, curating a narrative through fabric, cut, and movement. When an audience arrives dressed in a way that deliberately clashes with the show’s aesthetic—think bright orange sneakers at a minimalist monochrome runway—it diminishes the immersive experience the designer intended. A dress code ensures that the audience’s attire functions as a neutral backdrop rather than a competing visual stimulus.

Professional Credibility

The fashion industry is still a business. Investors, editors, buyers, and media professionals use these events to make high‑stakes decisions. 

When a buyer or even guest attendee shows up in an ensemble that appears to have been salvaged from a local dumpster, he/she sends an unintentional signal: “I do not take this event, the market or the industry seriously.” 

A well‑curated look, on the other hand, conveys that the attendee respects the stakes, understands the industry’s standards, and is prepared to engage on equal footing.

Cultural Cohesion

Fashion, unlike many other arts, straddles the line between the personal and the public. A shared dress code creates a fleeting community—a tribe of people who, for a few hours, are united by a common visual vocabulary. That sense of belonging can spark authentic conversation, mentorship, and collaboration that would be harder to achieve in a setting where everyone is shouting their individuality through clashing patterns and “anything‑goes” wardrobes.

The “Anything‑Goes” Counterargument:

Critics of dress codes argue that they enforce conformity, suppress self‑expression, and perpetuate classist gatekeeping. They point to the democratizing power of streetwear, the rise of gender‑fluid fashion, and the historical role of dress codes in excluding marginalized groups. 

These concerns are not without merit. 

The fashion world has a well‑documented history of gatekeeping—whether it is the horrific treatment of models forced to starve themselves, to designers who fuel the realm nightmares hail from, by looking askance at anyone deemed “not worthy.”

However, there is a distinct difference between a systemic exclusionary practice and a contextual expectation of attire. A dress code applied to a fashion event is not a blanket rule for everyday life; it is a temporary, situational standard that serves a specific purpose: to preserve the integrity of the event’s artistic and commercial objectives. Moreover, contemporary dress codes can be crafted with inclusivity in mind—allowing for gender‑neutral options, accommodating traditional dress, and providing clear guidance that does not rely on vague or outdated gender binaries.

When a dress code is articulated transparently—e.g., “business‑casual with an emphasis on clean lines; shoes must be closed‑toe; no visible logos larger than 2 inches”—it becomes a tool for equality, not oppression. It levels the playing field by letting everyone know exactly what is expected, thereby removing the guesswork that can penalize those without insider knowledge of fashion etiquette.

The Real‑World Cost of Abandoning Dress Codes:

Consider the last major fashion weeks that abandoned any semblance of a dress code. Reports from industry insiders noted a marked increase in “distractions” during runway presentations: bright neon accessories that reflected onto the catwalk, oversized handbags that blocked sightlines, and footwear that clanged on the platform, disrupting the designers’ audio cues. More importantly, buyers and editors complained that the chaotic visual environment made it harder to assess the garments themselves, leading to delayed purchasing decisions and, in some cases, lost orders.

The ripple effect extended beyond the runway. Media coverage shifted from a focus on collection details to sensational headlines about “the most shocking outfits.” 

While clickbait may boost short‑term traffic, it dilutes the seriousness with which the collection is treated and ultimately harms the designers whose livelihoods depend on thoughtful critique.

A Pragmatic Path Forward:

If we accept that dress codes have a legitimate role, the next question is how to enforce them without alienating the very audience we hope to engage. Here are three practical steps that event organizers can adopt:

Publish a Clear, Accessible Dress‑Code Guide

A one‑page PDF circulated with the invitation, posted on the event website, and highlighted in registration emails eliminates ambiguity. Include visual examples (e.g., “appropriate: tailored blazer; inappropriate: hooded sweatshirt”) and note any allowances for cultural or religious attire.

Offer a “Dress‑Code Concierge”

For emerging designers, students, or professionals from non‑fashion backgrounds, a short consultation (in‑person or virtual) can help them interpret the guidelines and assemble a suitable outfit, perhaps even providing rental options for items they do not own.

Enforce at the Door, Not the Gate

Rather than policing guests with confrontational security, employ friendly “fashion stewards” who greet attendees, verify compliance, and, if necessary, suggest quick adjustments (e.g., swapping a T‑shirt for a provided polo). This approach maintains dignity while upholding standards.

Conclusion: A Call to Preserve the Sanctity of Fashion Venues:

The world may be shifting toward ever‑more casual norms, and that evolution is not inherently negative. Streetwear has birthed iconic designers, gender‑fluid fashion has expanded the visual lexicon, and the self-expression of style has brought fresh perspectives to the runway. Yet, just as we reserve quiet reverence for a symphony hall and demand silence in a library, we must preserve a space where the language of fashion is spoken with intentionality, respect, and collective understanding.

A dress code at fashion events is not a relic of aristocratic snobbery; it is a deliberate instrument that safeguards the seriousness of the industry, protects designers’ artistic visions, and fosters professional credibility. 

Abandoning it in the name of “come as you are” risks turning our most vital showcases into abysmal costume parties, eroding the very platform that elevates talent and drives commerce.

So, to the organizers, sponsors, and attendees who still cherish the transformative power of well‑chosen garments: please enforce, and continue to enforce, dress codes at fashion events. Let us keep at least one bastion where elegance, thoughtfulness, and a dash of disciplined flair remain the default, not the exception. 

In doing so, we honour not only the heritage of fashion but also its future—one where style still matters, and where what we wear continues to speak louder than words.

Author: Andrea Dean Van Scoyoc

Andrea Dean Van Scoyoc is a burgeoning force of nature in the influencer‑fashion‑marketing arena—a true alpha businesswoman who shatters conventions with unapologetic clarity. Her “no‑holds‑barred” approach translates into campaigns that cut through the noise, holding high-end brands accountable while honoring the trend-craving palate of today’s consumers.  Van Scoyoc’s straight‑talk perspective guarantees results that are as impactful as they are authentic.

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hr42_consulting

The post Dress Code Debate: Should Fashion Events Still Have Them? appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Established in 2019, Dogue has carved out a niche in canine style, culture, and celebrity dogs. The magazine, like other fashion and pop-culture publications, features fashion editorials and interviews, providing its readers with an inside look at all things canine-related in a traditional fashion media approach. 

Condé Nast, parent company of Vogue, The New Yorker, GQ, Vanity Fair, Architectural Digest, and more, has been in the media and publication business since 1909 and is now considered a renowned global media company. Having acquired Vogue in the same year, Condé Nast has guided Vogue into becoming the household name it now is. The continued expansion of Vogue into areas of product sales (excluding magazines), podcasts, and live events, such as the MET Gala, makes it clear why Vogue is one of the top industry leaders in fashion and pop-culture editorial.

The current lawsuit, filed in the California District Court, makes primary claims related to the “deliberate choice of a confusingly similar mark” and its intended and likely result in consumer confusion and false endorsement. Condé Nast seeks judicial intervention, having previously attempted non-judicial avenues of resolving the matter.

The Core of the Complaint – Trademark Infringement

The trademark infringement and common-law trademark infringement complaints detail Condé Nast’s allegations that Dogue aimed to confuse or deceive purchasers into believing it has an affiliation with Condé Nast. At the heart of the dispute is Dogue’s editorial aesthetic, which closely mirrors the look and feel of Vogue, raising the question about how far parody can go before becoming infringement. Condé Nast also claimed that it “has suffered and continues to suffer and/or is likely to suffer damages to the Vogue” trademarks and its reputation, due to the continued use of the Dogue trademark. 

Confusing the Ordinary Consumer?

The false designation of origin complaint further alleges that the continued use of the Dogue trademark in conjunction with its misleading statements is likely to cause confusion and mistake among consumers, who believe that Dogue is affiliated with Condé Nast.

Trademarks Losing Distinctiveness

The trademark dilution claim explains that the Vogue trademark is distinctive and has “acquired distinctiveness through Condé Nast’s extensive, continuous, and substantially exclusive use of it.” It is also further alleged that the continued use of the Dogue trademark will likely dilute the distinctiveness of the Vogue trademark.

Friendly or Unfair Competition?

Condé Nast included claims alleging violations of California’s unfair competition laws and common law unfair competition laws. §§ 17200 of the California Bus. & Prof. Code defines ‘unfair competition’ as unlawful or unfair business acts or practices and/or deceptive and untrue advertising. Although not detailed in the complaint, Condé Nast will likely argue that due to Dogue’s continued use of similar editorial styles as Vogue, Dogue is participating in the willful deceptive acts of misleading consumers to believe it has an affiliation with Vogue or the Condé Nast name.

Currently, the case remains in the pleading stage, with no scheduled dates of commencement or litigation.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the boundaries between parodies and trademark infringement. The court will need to carefully balance the competing interests at play, and, depending on its ruling, it could set an important precedent on where to draw the line between parodies and infringement under trademark law. This case will provide clarity and guidance in the current blurry line between the two, aiding lawyers, courts, trademark owners, and businesses.

Condé Nast’s Legal Claims:

Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1114

False Designation of Origin – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)

Trademark Dilution – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)

Common Law Trademark Infringement

Unfair Competition – Cal. Bus & Prof. Code §§ 17200

Common Law Unfair Competition.

Sources Used:

Condé Nast v. Tasty Work, LLC (Dogue) – Complaint No. 2:25-cv-11579

About Us – Dogue Magazine

California Business and Professions Code – §§ 17200

Author: Alexis Curatola

The post Blurring The Lines Between Parody And Infringement: The Condé Nast V. Dogue Dispute appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

The event was staged as an immersive performance at the intersection of fashion, theatre, and art — a reflection of Bila’s 17-year theatrical career. In this space, garments become characters, and the runway transforms into a living stage.

The Show 

The evening opened with a live orchestral performance featuring excerpts from Modelle by Hans Zender. Actress Larisa Rusnak (Ivan Franko National Academic Drama Theatre) appeared in a short theatrical scene, blurring the line between performer and spectator.

The audience then witnessed a retrospective of MY THEATRE’s past collections, tracing the evolution of the brand. A highlight of the evening was a musical performance by Onuka, whose soundscape amplified the immersive atmosphere of the show.

As always, craftsmanship remained central to the brand: hand-crafted buttons, intricate embroidery, silk, velvet, brocade, and wool — each look representing dozens of hours of artisanal labor. The evening culminated with the unveiling of the new Collection №6.

About The Collection 

Collection №6 continues the core philosophy of MY THEATRE: conscious garment creation emphasizing craftsmanship, texture, and emotional depth.

The collection draws inspiration from the opera The Tales of Hoffmann, for which Dariia Bila previously designed stage costumes. Exploring love, illusion, and the inner world of a woman, the opera became the conceptual foundation of the collection.

The palette begins with shades of grey — initially unsettling, but ultimately forming the backdrop from which a new heroine emerges. At the heart of Collection №6 lies a sense of anticipation: the delicate moment between doubt and certainty, searching and equilibrium. The MY THEATRE heroine listens to herself, allowing transformation through the process rather than rushing toward it.

Dariia Bila— Comments

“This show is about emotion and the search for identity. It is a retrospective of MY THEATRE — a journey through collections, performances, doubts, and joys that have shaped the brand. Every detail matters, echoing the most subtle human emotions. The finale presents a new collection dedicated to hope — because even in the darkest night, dawn always comes.“

Instagram: @mytheatre.by.dariiabila

The post MY THEATRE by Dariia Bila — Paris Fashion Week Debut appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

The idea of circularity and sustainability is leading a transformative shift across various sectors, including the fashion sector. Sustainable fashion is reshaping the ethics behind production, consumption and disposal of fashion apparel. However, sustainable fashion practices, especially upcycled fashion, are surrounded by complex legal issues under intellectual property (IP) rights and are often questioned for their potential to cause infringement of IP. In order to proceed with fashion circularity, sustainable fashion practices need to be reconciled with the existing IP law framework.

By analysing sustainable fashion, notably upcycled fashion within the IP law framework, this research proposes to address the key issues of infringement surrounding sustainable fashion. It explores the idea of devising IP strategies to incentivize fashion brands to create sustainable fashion. In this regard, the research proposes to extend the scope of existing IP infringement exceptions, including transformative use under copyright’s fair use, the first sale (exhaustion) principle in trademark law, and the right to repair in the automobile sector, to sustainable fashion practices, in order to effect changes across the fashion sector supply chain. A nuanced distinction is also drawn between trademark infringement, which typically involves an unauthorized use of trademarked goods with the intent to cause consumer confusion, and upcycled fashion as a sustainable fashion practice, which is rooted in the idea of sufficiently transforming the original garment in order to prolong its lifecycle. This research aims to recommend policy and business reforms to mitigate the impacts ofthe fast-fashion industry on the environment and align the IP jurisprudence with sustainability imperatives.

Keywords: Circular Economy, Sustainable Fashion, Upcycled Fashion, Intellectual Property, IP Infringement, Transformative Use, Exhaustion Doctrine, Right to Repair

1. Introduction

Overproduction and overconsumption are widely recognized as major threats to environmental sustainability.[1] The textile and apparel industries are known to inflict adverse environmental impacts, spread across several stages in the supply chain, from using excessive non-renewable energy sources for weaving, dyeing, and finishing processes in textile manufacturing to the release of textile waste during the garment production process and emissions during the shipping of finished products globally.[2]

Fast fashion has recently been identified as an industry characterized by unsustainable overproduction and overconsumption. Fast fashion may be defined as readily available, inexpensive, factory-made products, which generally include garments and clothing.[3] They establish efficient supply chains and assembly lines across several countries to lower the investment costs. It is this practice in the fast fashion industry that has caused irrevocable and irreversible damage to environmental resources.[4]  It is based on a buyer-driven distribution channel that responds to consumer demands for the latest fashion trends within shorter lead times.[5] Since it relies upon a linear economy model of take, make and dispose, it tends to invest in manufacturing considerably inferior quality textile fabric.[6] 

Zara, H&M, Uniqlo, Gap, Forever21, Shein, and Temu are infamously known for converting haute couture into ready-to-wear fashion, which is both accessible and affordable. In a study by Stella Claxton of Nottingham Trent University’s Clothing Sustainability Research Group, falling prices, social media marketing, and the convenience of online shopping have led shoppers to buy twice as many items of clothing as they did a decade ago.[7] The rapid growth of fast fashion is seen as a threat to sustainable lifestyles as it promotes fragile and short-lived trends.

Today, fast fashion is embroiled in two major issues. Firstly, mass production in the garment supply chain industry impacts the quality of the garments, fabric, and textiles used in production and the value of the finished products.[8] Though yielding an immense profit, it is the most significant reason for unused and unsold garments, causing huge amounts of waste, clogging the supply chain not only with environmental pollution butalso with financial losses too.[9] There are enormous quantities of produced garments that remain unsold and are often burned instead of being recycled or treated in any sustainable manner. For example, in the year 2017, H&M was accused of burning 12 tons of unsold clothing.[10] Secondly, high consumption of garments further leads to a reduction in the life cycle of the garment, consequently reaching landfills while remaining underutilized.[11] The fashion industry is considered to be the second largest polluter, producing up to 10% of the world’s CO2 emissions and contributing to 20% of the industrial water pollution due to textile treatment and other dyeing processes.[12] As per recent data published by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [13], it is expected that the textile industry will emit 50% more carbon into the environment by 2030.[14]  Fast fashion has reduced the average number of times a garment is worn by 36% in the last 15 years.[15]  Globally, while only 12% of the garments produced get recycled and 1% is incinerated, the remaining 87% of the textile waste ends up in landfills.[16]

Several conventions based on building a sustainable environment have introduced the need to shift to a circular economy model [17] and adopt sustainable practices aimed at reducing the carbon footprint.[18]  A step towards building a sustainable environment is replacing fast fashion with sustainable fashion. According to Kate Fletcher, sustainable fashion is based on the principle of usership (rather than ownership) and stretching the use of existing resources in order to appreciate them in greater detail.[19] Sustainable fashion infuses the idea of circularity in the fashion industry by aligning fashion apparel production processes with increasing the use of recyclable techniques to reduce unwarranted consumption and reusing or repairing existing fashion goods. According to Henninger, sustainability in fashion has two stages. The first stage, sourcing and production, includes using durable, reusable, and recyclable materials to make products. The second stage, traceability and transparency, ensures that consumers understand the sustainable supply chain behind those products.[20]

Sustainable fashion includes slow fashion,[21] which could take various forms like recycling,[22] upcycling,[23] thrifting,[24] and swapping.[25] Several independent small and medium-sized enterprises have begun adopting slow fashion models to align with the objectives of a circular economy.[26] Among these, fashion upcycling, where existing garments are modified or repurposed to extend their lifecycle, has raised significant concerns from intellectual property (IP) owners. This is largely due to the exclusive rights granted under IP law to those who create original works or develop distinctive signs. However, it is important to clarify that while IP confers broad rights over reproduction, distribution, and commercial use, these rights are not absolute. Once a fashion item has been lawfully sold, doctrines such as the first sale or exhaustion limit the IP owner’s control over its downstream resale or use, provided there is no misrepresentation or confusion as to origin.[27]

Despite these legal limitations, some brand owners have taken action against upcyclers, particularly where they believe that their trademarks are being used in misleading or unauthorized ways. For instance, in Chanel, Inc. v. What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC, the luxury brand Chanel sued a reseller for allegedly modifying and marketing vintage items in a way that created a false impression of Chanel’s involvement.[28] Similarly, brands like Louis Vuitton have raised objections to upcycled goods that incorporated elements of their design or logos without consent.[29] While these reactions are not uniform across the industry, they reflect a common concern among certain IP owners when upcycled goods may affect brand integrity or consumer perception.

Nevertheless, the exclusive rights under IP cannot serve as a justification for actions that aggravate environmental pollution. At present, we are witnessing a growing awareness of the environmental harms caused by fast fashion on one side, and rising tensions surrounding IP enforcement in sustainable fashion practices on the other. The legality of sustainable fashion, particularly upcycling and resale, remains underexplored in the context of IP infringement or unauthorized use. It is therefore essential to examine whether certain sustainable fashion practices amount to trademark or other IP violations, and if so, is the case, whether the limitations and exceptions in IP law, such as the first sale exhaustion doctrine, transformative fair use, or right to repair, can be interpreted or extended to support circular fashion models and broader environmental objectives.

With the above approach, Section 2 introduces the debate between IP for fashion (how several aspects under fashion may be protected by IP) and IP for sustainable fashion (how IP can be used to promote the objectives of sustainable fashion). In Section 3, the authors propose a harmonious synergy between sustainable fashion and IP while articulating the need to consider sustainable fashion practices as non-infringing to IP, and justify adopting sustainable fashion in the long run.  The paper further proposes extending the scope of existing IP limitations, such as the transformative use concept from copyright’s fair use doctrine, the first sale (exhaustion) principle in trademark law, and the right to repair, to cover sustainable fashion practices. This paper seeks to distinguish between trademark infringement per se, which involves the direct unauthorized use of trademarked goods (or marks) in commerce, versus the upcycling of trademarked fashion goods to extend their lifecycle. Finally, Section 4 recommends several business model reforms to incentivise the use of IP by fashion houses and brands engaged in sustainable fashion. This may help resolve the questions of infringement against sustainable fashion under IP.

2. IP for Fashion and Sustainable Fashion by IP:  Analysing the role of IP in promoting Sustainable Fashion

Creativity and expression are universally accepted as the two very prominent driving forces behind the sustenance of the fashion industry. Interestingly, these words also imbibe within themselves the very structure of various forms of IP. The common thread which links both fashion and IP is the creative and novel expression of aesthetic and ornamental ideas applied to clothes, shoes, accessories, jewellery, etc. However, while IP grants exclusive rights to the creator for a considerable period of time, fashion is dynamic; it is new today and outdated tomorrow.[30] 

IP is based on granting exclusive rights and monopolies for intellectual creations by way of copyrights, patents, trademarks, designs, and trade secrets. Fashion as an industry benefits the most from the creation, use, application, protection, and enforcement of various forms of IP. However, the emergence of the circular economy has come to question the effectiveness of IP in promoting the objectives of sustainable fashion. The protection of fashion by IP and the use of IP to foster the objectives of the fashion industry may be considered through the following three approaches that help determine the interface of IP with sustainable fashion: The first is making use of IP to foster innovation in fashion, and the protection of fashion goods under IP. This includes all aspects of the fashion industry, including labels, brands, garments, and couture designs and other ancillary products produced, manufactured, and launched by the fashion brands, which are a protectable subject matter under various forms of IP. The fashion industry is a diverse market comprising items ranging from apparel, garments, textiles, and other accessories.[31] Owing to the specific attributes of fashion, a direct form of protection is available under the protectability criteria for IP.

In reference to the fast fashion industries, trademarks are used to protect the name, logo, or mark of a particular brand, and the trade dress or visual appearance of the product- essentially facilitating brand loyalty and consumer identification with respect to the nature, quality, and range of different fashion product lines launched by the brands. Several aspects of a brand can also be trademarked, including specific textile patterns, such as Burberry,[32] and specific colours, like Louboutin.[33]

Industrial designs[34] or design patents[35] protect the aesthetic or ornamental aspects of the fashion garments, such as three-dimensional features of a shape of a product or two-dimensional textile prints, which add value to the overall visual elements, thereby infusing garments with an original, distinctive identity. They are usually the result of a combination of features, including lines, contours, colours, shapes, patterns, textures, and materials. There are also several jurisdictional variations which need to be studied and accounted for. For example, India[36] and Singapore[37] provide for the protection of articles of clothing, accessories, jewellery, and bags under their respective industrial design legislations. However, aspects of functionality that overshadow the design, or give rise to such design, and simultaneous protection under both copyright and industrial design law are excluded from any form of protection under all these jurisdictions. In contrast to this, China[38] andthe  USA[39] follow the design patent and utility patent model, respectively. Under this, the overall shape of a product, or its part, pattern, colour, use, or any combination thereof, fit for industrial application and aesthetically appealing, is a patentable subject matter under design patents and techniques applied in the production of fashion products, and the production processes are registrable subject matters as utility patents.

In the case of fashion, copyrights are generally registered as complementary IP as they are obtained from two-dimensional artistic sketches or designs for garments. A copyright protects any original prints, graphic images, or photographs featured on textiles or garments infused with artistic craftsmanship. Also, fashion brands may make use of copyrights to protect their websites, lookbooks, brochures, sketchbooks, promotional materials or graphical user interface in their mobile applications.[40]  In countries like India,[41] China,[42] Singapore,[43] Japan,[44] Indonesia,[45] and Vietnam,[46] copyright for artistic work provisions are used to protect works exhibiting artistic craftsmanship or works of art. This way, protection can be sought for design artworks, sketches, drawings for fashion apparel, etc., under artistic works and works of art applied to fabric, or garments under the category of works of artistic craftsmanship.

Generally, the most sought-after IP for the protection of fashion designs is a combination of protection under copyrights for artistic works and industrial designs for finished garments, which is a widely accepted phenomenon.[47] While the US grants designs and utility patents for fashion industry design embodiments[48], the EU has established the Community registered and unregistered design directives that secure the new and/or original fashion designs and applications.[49] India, on the other hand, permits protection under both copyright and industrial designs law, provided the former precedes the latter in order to retain protection subsequently under design law.[50]

The second approach is sustainable fashion by IP. This caters to using IP for protecting technologies and innovations based on creating sustainable fashion while simultaneously encouraging conscious consumerism. This recent debate has gained traction due to the excessive environmental waste produced and dumped by fast fashion brands. Textile recycling technologies,[51] 3D printing and digital fabrication,[52] eco-friendly dyes,[53] finishes, and digital market platforms[54] are sustainable fashion technologies that have been protected under IP.

The third approach is IP for sustainable fashion. Sustainable fashion practices like reusing and repairing a fashion good without seeking permission from the fashion houses that own fashion goods attract several claims of infringement under IP.

Hence, currently, IP is limited only to the extent of protecting technologies supporting and implementing sustainable fashion.  Currently, IP laws do not explicitly incentivize fast fashion brands to reduce environmental impact, nor do they explicitly permit upcycling activities by third parties without permission, which are often viewed as infringements.

3. IP for Sustainable Fashion

As discussed above, sustainable fashion may take several forms, including recycling, upcycling, renting, thrifting and swapping. Recycling in fashion is considered a legitimate step towards a sustainable future and is generally not seen as an infringement of IP rights.[55] In the case of renting haute couture or luxury fashion garments, IP infringement typically does not arise when such rentals occur with the authorization of the IP owner. This often takes the form of franchise or licensing agreements with rental platforms or boutiques, under which the brand consents to the use of its trademark and may share in the revenue.[56] For instance, Rent the Runway has entered into official partnerships with several luxury designers, including Derek Lam and Proenza Schouler, thereby avoiding IP concerns through authorised collaboration.[57]

Further, swapping or thrifting, as sustainable fashion strategies, generally do not raise IP concerns when conducted transparently.[58] Participants in clothing swaps or resale platforms often disclose that the items are second-hand, used, and unaffiliated with the original brand, thereby reducing the likelihood of consumer confusion or misrepresentation.[59] Such disclaimers function similarly to the principles underlying the exhaustion doctrine in trademark law, which permits resale of trademarked goods after their first legitimate sale, provided that the resale does not suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the original brand.

However, it is fashion upcycling that is most often perceived as raising potential IP infringement issues, particularly under the trademark law. These concerns stem from the fact that upcyclers may alter or repurpose branded fashion items and resell them in the course of trade without obtaining permission or a license from the IP holder, thereby potentially invoking claims of unauthorised use, dilution, or misrepresentation.

Fashion upcycling in the textile industry refers to the process of improving, reworking, or modifying the existing product so as to make it more appealing to consumers and to extend the life-cycle of the garment.[60] Upcycling can take two forms: first, transforming original products into something new by adding details or material[61] (for example, using embellishments as patchwork, sewing crochet patterns, or deconstructing and reassembling the original garment)[62]; second, reusing still-intact components of otherwise discarded garments to create new items (such as repurposing an old kimono into a scarf).[63]

Intellectual property concerns, particularly under trademark law, may arise when the upcycled item bears an identifiable mark or logo and is offered for resale in the course of trade. In such cases, the legal issue does not hinge on the fact that the upcycler has added value or derived benefit from the repurposed product. Rather, trademark infringement depends on whether the upcycler’s use of the mark is unauthorized and whether it is likely to cause consumer confusion about the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the upcycled item.[64] The concern is that consumers might mistakenly believe the upcycled product has been approved or produced by the original brand, particularly when its trademarks or distinctive features remain visible or are deliberately re-applied in a way that preserves brand recognition.

Further, if the upcycler reuses visible trademark elements, such as cutting out logos or brand patches from one item and affixing them to another upcycled garment, the risk of infringement increases. Such practices may be viewed as misleading, especially if the reconfigured item appears to be an original product or one officially sanctioned by the brand. In these cases, the upcycled item may give rise to claims of trademark infringement, passing off, or unfair trade practices due to the likelihood of consumer confusion or misrepresentation.[65]Fashion upcycling can also include cases of customization of original goods. Customization may occur in two distinct forms. The first is brand sanctioned personalization offered at the customer’s request, such as Nike’s “Nike By You”[66] service, which permits customers to alter colours or add initials to their sneakers within pre-approved parameters. This form of customization is authorized and therefore does not raise intellectual property concerns.

The second involves the brand or a third party offering pre-customised versions of trademarked goods as first-hand products, for example, hand-painted Adidas sneakers or modified luxury handbags sold by designers unaffiliated with the original brand. This form of customization may raise trademark infringement concerns if it gives the impression that the original brand approved, endorsed, or produced the modified goods.[67] Such practices may fall within the doctrine of material alteration, whereby changes to a trademarked product are considered legally significant if they impair the brand’s ability to guarantee the product’s quality or origin.[68] Courts in several jurisdictions have examined such scenarios under the lens of source confusion, sponsorship misrepresentation, or trademark dilution. For instance, in Chanel, Inc. v. What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC, Chanel alleged that the resale of vintage Chanel items, modified and marketed as authenticated luxury products, created a false impression of Chanel’s involvement or endorsement.[69]

Customizations that merely repair or restore a product, such as resoling shoes, mending seams, or replacing damaged linings, are typically not considered infringing. These acts fall within the bounds of the right to repair or exhaustion doctrines, which permit the lawful owner of a product to maintain its usability. However, when the reconstruction is so extensive that it alters the product’s original identity or functionality, and if the modified item is marketed in a way that could mislead consumers into believing it is an original or endorsed product, the action may constitute passing off or trademark infringement.[70]

The authors argue that fashion garments customized with the goal of extending their life cycle, particularly in pursuit of sustainability, should be evaluated more leniently under IP law, provided such modifications do not result in consumer deception. Although no explicit “sustainability exception” currently exists under the trademark law, parallels may be drawn with the right to repair and the transformative fair use doctrines, which similarly limit brand control over lawful goods once sold. The adoption of a sustainability-conscious framework in assessing trademark use could allow for a better balance between protecting IP rights and promoting environmental goals.

Furthermore, trademark infringement can occur if a trademark is “used” in certain improper ways: for example, through wrongful affixation of the registered trademark to goods, placing goods on the market under the registered trademark without authorisation, or unauthorised use of the registered trademark in advertising.[71] For instance, in India, trademark infringement under Section 29 requires an element of misrepresentation that leads to a likelihood of consumer confusion or association, potentially deceiving the consumer.[72]

In the European Union, confusion regarding the commercial origin of goods or services may arise where a company uses an identical or similar sign as a trade name, creating an association with the trademarked brand. Article 9 of the EU Trade Mark affirms that a trademark is infringed where its essential functions, such as indicating origin or guaranteeing quality, are compromised.[73] The United Kingdom, having retained much of EU trademark jurisprudence post-Brexit, applies a similar test: infringement arises only where the use adversely affects the trademark’s core functions. Thus, upcycled goods that do not confuse consumers or undermine these essential functions may fall outside the scope of infringement.[74]

In the United States, remedies for trademark infringement are primarily injunctive, though monetary damages may be awarded in cases involving wilful infringement or dilution. Courts have equitable discretion to deny injunctive relief where the accused use, such as upcycling, does not cause substantial consumer confusion or harm the value of the mark.[75] Trademark infringement arises only when there’s clear consumer confusion about the source of goods. In the context of fashion upcycling, where there is no intent to mislead consumers and where sufficient disclaimers or alterations are made, such practices may not meet the threshold of infringement under these frameworks.

It is imperative to distinguish between unauthorised use or dealing with a fashion garment (which is what trademark law guards against) and upcycled fashion as a sustainable practice to extend a product’s life. Fashion upcycling of garments may be defended by invoking the principle of exhaustion of rights underlying the first sale doctrine[76] in trademark law, as well as the concept of transformative fair use[77] under copyright’s fair use doctrine.[78] While the first sale doctrine holds that the IP holder’s rights in a particular item are exhausted after the item’s first legitimate sale (thus the owner of that item can resell or otherwise dispose of it), the principle of transformative use negates infringement claims when the new work adds new expression or meaning and is not a mere substitute for the original. By analogy, if an upcycled product is sufficiently transformed and neither misrepresents its source nor confuses consumers, one could argue that an infringement claim should not succeed. However, this doctrine may only be applied when the transformation does not misrepresent or confuse the consumers with respect to the source of origin of the original product.[79]

Further, fashion upcycling can also be synonymized with the right to repair as an exception to IP infringement. Right to repair,[80]  as an extension of the exhaustion doctrine under IP and the ‘common law property’ doctrine, is often defended on the grounds of sustainability and the high costs associated with the manufacturers’ repair, and hence, it is non-infringing.[81] Under trademark law, offering independent repair services on branded goods might be seen as infringement if using the mark implies an official connection or if repaired goods are presented as new. Such an implied connection is likely if the independent repairer also manufactures or supplies replacement parts for the original product.[82] However, viewed through the lens of the first sale (exhaustion) doctrine, these repair activities would not constitute infringement.[83] This is because the goods would be considered to have been lawfully acquired from the market. In this case, if the independent repairer offers for sale or otherwise deals with such goods, it is not infringement, unless those dealings impair or alter the original condition of the goods.[84] Such ‘other dealings’ in the goods are contrary to the term ‘use’ and may include a ‘resale’. Additionally, a ‘resale after constructive modifications only to make it work provisionally’, without having to replace the original product with an unauthorised reproduction, cannot be regarded as an infringement.[85] The reason behind this is that the principle of exhaustion is applicable to the goods in circulation under the authorisation of the IP rightsholder.

As both fashion upcycling and the right to repair share a common objective, extending the life of the product and contributing towards sustainable living, an analogy can be drawn with regard to their interface with IP. While the right to repair focuses on minimising e-waste by allowing it to be repaired by an external agency, fashion upcycling seeks to extend the usable life of fashion items by adding or modifying their original look. Hence, as in the case of e-waste repairs, certified fashion upcyclers may be granted the right to modify fashion items to ensure they can be reused instead of being discarded. Such permissions to modify may be provided by the IP right holder to any interested upcycler. The upcyclers may be mandated to make a disclosure clarifying that the upcycled product has been made and assembled by them and that it has no affiliation with the original brand.  Such a disclaimer would make it easy to claim the exception to infringement under trademark law.[86]

Therefore, the cause of sustainable fashion may be encouraged under IP. Although sustainable fashion may not be able to adapt to IP, the limitations and exceptions under IP may be extended to sustainable fashion. The section below discusses some business model reforms that are based on applying the principles underlying IP to sustainable fashion in order to ward off any claims of infringement.

4. Recommendations

While the objectives of the circular economy alone may not fully drive fashion brands toward sustainable practices, targeted business model reforms can actively encourage and facilitate this transition. In order for IP to be used as a mechanism to promote sustainable fashion, the following business model reforms may be adopted:

a) Participatory Design Approach

Fashion houses and brands may launch their special limited-edition collection of upcycled garments by resorting to a license agreement that is based on sharing certain sewing or design patterns with fashion upcycling brands or private entities.[87] This is also known as the participatory design approach, as followed in the mid-20th century.[88] For example, Patagonia ReCrafted, an iconic outdoor clothing brand, launched its Worn Wear take-back program in 2019, where it collated its pre-owned gear and clothing from customers and re-crafted it into unique pieces that could be reused. The customers were motivated to trade in their old Patagonia wares by being rewarded with store credits based on the condition of the item being given back.[89] Similarly, under ReBurberry Services, Burberry has launched cashmere upcycle, which remakes cashmere scarves after signs of wear and tear, that can be visibly repaired through custom embroidery and darning. This infuses a new life into the damaged or older styles of cashmere upcycle, thereby re-creating unique, original Burberry pieces.[90] These examples show how brands embrace upcycling within their own operations and effectively license it to repurpose their products.

b) Voluntary Trademark Licensing

A business model encouraging the sharing of revenues and licensing out trademarks under a ‘voluntary license agreement’ between the fashion brands and sustainable fashion brands (upcycled fashion brands) is also another form of collaboration to promote upcycling while respecting IP. In 2014, for instance, Re/Done began with the concept of upcycling vintage Levi’s into modern fits by breathing new styles into preloved raw goods, thereby extending their life from just being a stagnating stock and adding to the head of landfill garment waste. Re/Done has since become a well-known upcycled fashion brand and has collaborated with major American brands like Dr. Scholl’s, Hanes, and even Ford, demonstrating the commercial viability of licensed upcycling partnerships.[91]

c) Collective Ownership Doctrine

IP can be used to promote sustainable fashion by providing for a collective ownership of the traditional knowledge and traditional cultural techniques used in the production and manufacture of textiles.[92] Several such methods, including regenerative fashion [93], biomimicry[94] and modular fashion [95], are collective ownership models that are based on the collaboration of fashion brands with traditional communities. This is a community-based social innovation for reusing and upcycling fashion apparel. These practices are central to upcycling and circular fashion systems, yet are often unrecognised within conventional IP frameworks.

Employing local artisans, weavers, and craftsmen (mostly women) in adopting sustainable methods of producing and manufacturing trend-setting fashion is a recent development in several countries.[96] Fashion brands seeking to engage ethically with traditional artisans may adopt models that share recognition, benefits, and authorship attribution with community creators, aligning with principles of benefit-sharing and cultural equity. Examples of brands imbibing traditional and cultural practices for upcycled fashion include House of Wandering Silk (India),[97] SukkhaCitta (Indonesia),[98] Harvest and Mill (USA),[99] AF aka Afsana Firdousi (Bangladesh),[100] CDK Fashion House (Bhutan),[101] UseDem by Common Objective (China)[102] Reina Ibuka (Japan)[103] Matter Prints,[104] and Artisan and Fox (Singapore).[105] These collaborations exemplify how cultural knowledge can enrich sustainable fashion, even as the legal frameworks to protect such knowledge continue to evolve.

d)Collective Social Responsibility (CSR) Mandates

As part of the CSR mandates, brands may collaborate with retail organisations and institutions that resort to upcycling unsold or unwearable garments collected by way of donations. Such solutions, however, seem to be equally distributed across the upstream side value chain (raw material extraction, textile production, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, and retail) butare insignificant for the downstream side (customer use, post-consumer garment collection, and transparency).[106] For example, in India, Project Revibe[107] and The Godadi Project [108], an initiative of India Recycle [109], are based on a model of collecting and selling pre-owned high-end items, mainly across underprivileged areas. The revenue generated is equally shared among the women workers who work for enterprises in slums that create upcycled products under pre-defined contract terms. This model not only diverts textile waste from landfills but also provides social benefits by empowering local communities.

e) Environment Impact Assessment and Extended Producer Responsibility

Fashion industries may otherwise be regulated through environmental impact assessment[110] (EIA) mandates under environmental laws requiring the mandatory use of biodegradable dyes and fabrics; however, the existing IP structure doesn’t incentivize fast fashion brands to adopt a sustainable fashion agenda. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)[111] is another such principle which may be read into incentivising products designed to promote circularity under patents or industrial designs. However, territorial differences around protectability criteria across countries further hinder a uniform application of such rules. Hence, in their current form, IP rights alone may be insufficient to achieve sustainable fashion objectives. Owing to the very essence of IP endowing monopolies, the objectives of circular fashion industry models, such as reuse, repair or recycle, can inadvertently be undermined. Although sustainable fashion practices can be defended under certain legal doctrines (e.g., exhaustion, fair use, or the right to repair), right holders may still choose to restrict participation unless they perceive direct benefits or legal safeguards.

f) Certification for upcycled goods

Additionally, brands may engage in a reformed concept of fashion upcycling, which has come to be known as Upmade.[112] Reet Aus, the ethical and sustainable fashion designer from Estonia, is credited for introducing a circular fashion business model aimed at cutting down the textile waste at the production stage. The project has been expanded to Asia, mainly Bangladesh and India, which face major environmental impacts. The idea is to channel the leftovers back into the design and production of new garments. This leads to maximizing the resources, thereby closing the loop by avoiding the use of virgin raw materials for first-hand production.[113] The Upmade business model comprises three components: the software, design, and certification process. While the software uses an algorithm to map and turn production leftover data into reusable designs, the certification process guarantees transparency and traceability.[114]

To supplement doctrinal reforms, legislative or voluntary adoption of a standardized symbol for upcycled goods, such as (U), could play a pivotal role in demarcating these products from original trademarked items. Much like © for copyright, for unregistered trademarks, and ® for registered marks, (U) would signal to consumers and enforcement authorities that a product has been consciously and materially transformed. However, it is important that the introduction of (U) should be non-compulsory to avoid burdening grassroots upcyclers, but recognized enough to offer evidentiary value in disputes. Additionally, this approach would avoid placing undue burden on grassroots upcyclers and ensure compliance with international trademark frameworks such as the TRIPS, which currently doesn’t provide for or recognize mandatory upcycling marks.[115] Over time, as the upcycling sector matures, such a demarcation can help strike a balance between trademark sanctity and socio-environmental innovation, reflecting a legal ecosystem that evolves with public interest.

g) Developing a “Similarity Index”

In light of the growing tension between trademark enforcement and sustainable fashion innovation, particularly through upcycling, legal systems must develop frameworks that balance brand protection with environmental imperatives. One such solution is the introduction of a similarity index: a context-sensitive, multi-factorial test to assess the degree of resemblance and legal impact of upcycled products in relation to original trademarked goods.

The similarity index draws inspiration from EU doctrines on average consumer perception and post-sale confusion, proposing a shift from binary infringement analysis to a more nuanced continuum. It considers factors such as transformation, consumer perception, and public interest in sustainability to determine whether infringement or dilution of a trademark has occurred.

• First, the change in the type of product is central. For instance, repurposing a Louis Vuitton handbag into a phone case suggests a functional shift and lowers the risk of consumer confusion. Conversely, converting it into another handbag with minor alterations maintains product parity and implies a higher likelihood of infringement.
•  Second, a change in colour may dilute brand identity. Transforming a monochrome Chanel jacket into a neon patchwork coat using added materials can significantly weaken brand association. However, since some brands protect colour as part of their trade dress, this factor must be weighed in context.[116]
• Third, the average consumer test evaluates if a reasonably informed, observant, and circumspect consumer would associate the upcycled product with the original brand.[117] A tote bag made from a collage of an old Nike t-shirt bearing only a partial “swoosh” logo, particularly if properly labelled as upcycled, is unlikely to mislead consumers. In contrast, shoes displaying the logo prominently in typical locations may suggest origin confusion.
• Fourth, a change in utility also signals transformation. If a Gucci scarf is turned into a lampshade cover, it serves a new functional and aesthetic purpose, distancing itself from the original product. Minimal modifications, however, such as cutting the scarf into a headband, retain both form and utility, increasing the risk of confusion.
• Fifth, price disparity can reflect market repositioning. A reworked Prada jacket sold at a fraction of its original price may indicate a lack of affiliation. Yet, price alone is insufficient; courts must assess it alongside branding, presentation, and disclaimers to rule out strategic counterfeiting.
• Lastly, the market impact must be weighed against the environmental benefit. If an upcycled product avoids harming the original brand’s market share while reducing textile waste, the equitable case for non-infringement strengthens. For instance, a label disclosing that a product is handmade from discarded garments, paired with data on waste diverted, enhances the sustainability argument.

Thus, a codified similarity index would provide judicial clarity, enabling courts to distinguish between exploitative use and transformative reuse. By embedding sustainability metrics within trademark adjudication, the law can evolve to accommodate circular economy goals while preserving the essential purpose of trademarks, that is, consumer protection and source identification.

5. Conclusion

While the rise of sustainable fashion presents a complex legal challenge, a shift towards the discussed strategies would foster a harmonious balance between IP law and sustainable fashion. By extending the scope of IP rights to the cause of sustainable fashion (through doctrines like exhaustion and transformative fair use) and encouraging voluntary mechanisms (like licensing and certification), the fashion industry can move towards circular models without stepping outside the bounds of IP law. The goal is to utilize the flexibilities within IP laws to make IP-protected goods more accessible, while reinforcing innovation in sustainability, rewarding creativity and maintaining brand integrity. An inclusive IP framework would balance the interests of both the right holder and society.

Authors: 

References:

[1] Deepti Nitin Kothari and Swati Nishant Sohoni, ‘Towards Sustainable Fashion: Managing Micro-trends and Reducing Overconsumption and Overproduction’ (2024) 82 Technological Innovation and Sustainability: Navigating the Future.

[2] Samantha Sharpe, Katarina Veem, Karina Kallio and M. Cristina Martinez-Fernandez, ’Opportunities for a Just Transition to environmental sustainability and COVID-19 recovery in the textile and garment sector in Asia’ (2022) 54 ILO Working Paper. Available at <https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@asia/@ro-bangkok/documents/publication/wcms_823229.pdf> accessed on 15 November 2025.

[3] R. Worth, The Hidden Life of Clothing: Historical Perspectives on Fashion and Sustainability (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2023).

[4] Stefano Abbate, Piera Centobelli, Roberto Cerchione, Simon Peter Nadeem and Emanuela Riccio, ‘Sustainability trends and gaps in the textile, apparel and fashion industries’ (2024) 26(2) Environment, development and sustainability 2837.

[5] Felipe Caro and Victor Martínez-de-Albéniz, ‘Fast fashion: Business model overview and research opportunities’ in Narendra Agrawal and Stephen A. Smith (ed.), Retail supply chain management: Quantitative models and empirical studies (Springer US, 2015).

[6] Arne Nygaard, Green Marketing and Entrepreneurship (Springer, 2024).

[7] Hamnett Katharine, Fashion tax is ‘stupid’ (BBC, 2019) <https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49248914> accessed on 10 November 2025.

[8] K. Pears, Fashion re-consumption: developing a sustainable fashion consumption practice influenced by sustainability and consumption theory (RMIT University, 2006) <https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Fashion-re-consumption%3A-developing-a-sustainable-by-Pears/f6c7a1ee84f06c24ddf8136e8f88fa1cb6fb85f0 > accessed on 20 November 2025.

[9] Upama Nasrin and SM Rakifull Alam. ‘Implementing circular economy principles in the apparel production process: Reusing pre-consumer waste for sustainability of environment and economy’ (2023) 6 Cleaner Waste Systems 100, 108.

[10] Elia Ariele, ‘Fashion’s destruction of unsold goods: Responsible solutions for an environmentally conscious future’ (2019) 30 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. LJ 539. See, FashionNetwork.com, ‘H&M Burns up to 12 Tonnes of Clothes per Year’ (14 October 2017) <https://ww.fashionnetwork.com/news/H-m-burns-up-to-12-tonnes-of-clothes-per-year,886882.html> accessed 7 November 2025. See, FashionUnited, ‘H&M Accused of Burning 12 Tonnes of New Unsold Clothing per Year’ (17 October 2017) <https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/h-m-accused-of-burning-12-tonnes-of-new-unsold-clothing-per-year/2017101726341> accessed 7 November 2025.

[11] Chen Xuandong Hifza A. Memon, Yuanhao Wang, Ifra Marriam and Mike Tebyetekerwa, ‘Circular economy and sustainability of the clothing and textile industry’ (2021) 3 Materials Circular Economy 1. See, A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning fashion’s future (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017) <https://emf.thirdlight.com/file/24/uiwtaHvud8YIG_uiSTauTlJH74/A%20New%20Textiles%20Economy%3A%20Redesigning%20fashion%E2%80%99s%20future.pdf>  accessed on 10 November 2025.

[12] Ellen MacArthur Foundation, ‘Fashion and the Circular Economy: Deep Dive’ <https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/fashion-and-the-circular-economy-deep-dive> accessed on 10 November 2025. Also see, Geneva Environment Network, ‘Sustainable Fashion’ <https://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/sustainable-fashion/> accessed 10 November 2025.

[13] A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning fashion’s future (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017) <https://emf.thirdlight.com/file/24/uiwtaHvud8YIG_uiSTauTlJH74/A%20New%20Textiles%20Economy%3A%20Redesigning%20fashion%E2%80%99s%20future.pdf> last accessed on 10th September 2024. See, Putting the brakes on fast fashion, (UN Environment Programme, 2018) < https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/putting-brakes-fast-fashion> accessed on 9 November, 2025

[14] See, FashionNetwork.com, ‘H&M Burns up to 12 Tonnes of Clothes per Year’ (14 October 2017) <https://ww.fashionnetwork.com/news/H-m-burns-up-to-12-tonnes-of-clothes-per-year,886882.html> accessed 15 November 2025. See, FashionUnited, ‘H&M Accused of Burning 12 Tonnes of New Unsold Clothing per Year’ (17 October 2017) <https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/h-m-accused-of-burning-12-tonnes-of-new-unsold-clothing-per-year/2017101726341> accessed 15 November 2025.

[15] Martina Igini, ‘10 Concerning Fast Fashion Waste Statistics’ (Earth.org, 21 August 2023) <https://earth.org/statistics-about-fast-fashion-waste/> accessed on 15 November 2024.

[16] Andrew Morlet, et. al., ‘A new textiles economy: redesigning fashion’s future’, (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017) <https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/A-New-Textiles-Economy_Full-Report.pdf> accessed 15 November 2025

[17] A circular economy is defined as an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by intention or design with the primary objective being to maximise the product value within the entire lifecycle of a product, notably during the production, distribution, consumption and disposal stage, thereby minimising waste. It is based on four principles that are looped together: product life extension, reuse/redistribution, remanufacturing, and recycling. See, Annukka Berg and others, ‘Circular economy for sustainable development’ (2018) Green Circularity <www.researchgate.net/publication/331523940_Circular_Economy_for_Sustainable_Development> accessed 15 November 2025; Also see, Andrea Urbinati & Davide Chiaroni, ‘Circular Economy Business Models: towards a new taxonomy of the degree of circularity’ (2016) 168 Journal of Cleaner Production 487.

[18] Irene Calboli ‘Pushing a Square Pin into a Round Hole? Intellectual Property Challenges to a Sustainable and Circular Economy, and What to Do About It’ (2024) 55(2) IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 237, 238. Also see, C. Palm, S.E. Cornell and T. Häyhä, ‘Making resilient decisions for sustainable circularity of fashion’ (2021) 1(2) Circular Economy and Sustainability 651.

[19] See., Kate Fletcher, ‘Usership: Fashion beyond Consumerism’ (YouTube, 31 May 2018) <https://youtu.be/iHIHvHsTmSA> accessed 15 November 2025

[20]  Claudia E. Henninger, Panayiota J. Alevizou, and Caroline J. Oates, ‘What is sustainable fashion?’ (2016) 20(4) Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 400.

[21] Slow Fashion is a global movement which was coined by Prof. Kate Fletcher in 2007 who is a notable professor of Sustainability, Design and Fashion at UAL, London. Slow Fashion as a concept is based on an intrinsic ethical construct of finding a workable solution against mindless consumerism and existing wasteful fashion ecosystems. It is based on quality productions rather than time-bound bulk quantity productions. See Kate Fletcher, ‘Slow Fashion’ (Ecologist by Nature, 1 June 2007) <https://theecologist.org/2007/jun/01/slow-fashion> accessed 15 November 2025

[22] Recycling of textile waste involves mechanical and chemical procedures whereas recovery involves incinerating fabric and garment waste. Three waste recycling methods are mechanical recycling, thermal recycling and chemical recycling. See Nattha Pensupa, Shao-Yuan Leu, Yunzi Hu, Chenyu Du, Hao Liu, Houde Jing, Huaimin Wang and Carol Sze Ki Lin, ‘Recent trends in sustainable textile waste recycling methods: current situation and future prospects’ (2018) Chemistry and chemical technologies in waste valorization 189.

[23] Fashion upcycling method has been identified by academics and practitioners as an upward reprocessing of waste by reliving the intrinsic value of clothing with recycling, recutting, refashioning, and closing the loop of the manufacturing system. See Sara LC Han, Priscilla YL Chan, Praburaj Venkatraman, Phoebe Apeagyei, Tracy Cassidy, and David J. Tyler, ‘Standard vs. upcycled fashion design and production’ (2017) 9(1) Fashion Practice (2017) 69.

[24] Thrifting is a popular phenomenon among the younger generation that involves purchasing second-hand clothes as part of an ongoing effort in fashion with the principle of sustainable fashion. This includes the practice of choosing and using second-hand clothes rather than buying new ones, as an alternative to reducing environmental impact. See Y. N. Zahro & H. R. Dhona, ‘The Meaning of Thrifting In # Tukarbaju Campaign in Zero Waste Indonesia’ (2023) 11(1) Lontar: Journal of Communication Science 1.

[25] Swapping is a form of collaborative fashion consumption (CFC) where consumers have access to already existing garments instead of purchasing new fashion products in order to acquire individual ownership. See R. W. Belk, ‘You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption online’ (2014) 67(8) Journal of Business Research 1595.

[26] Jagdeep Singh, Kyungeun Sung, Tim Cooper, Katherine West and Oksana Mont, ‘Challenges and opportunities for scaling up upcycling businesses–The case of textile and wood upcycling businesses in the UK’ (2019) 150 Resources, Conservation and Recycling 104439.

[27] See Prestonettes Inc v Coty, 264 US 359 (1924); Intel Corp v CPM United Kingdom Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 431; Trade Marks Act 1999 (India), s 30.

[28] Chanel, Inc v What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC, 2022 WL 902454 (SDNY 2022).

[29] Grace Browne, ‘What Happens When You Try to Upcycle a Louis Vuitton Bag?’ WIRED (23 March 2021) https://www.wired.com/story/what-happens-when-you-try-to-upcycle-a-louis-vuitton-bag/ accessed 15 November 2025.

[30] Christian Barrère and Sophie Delabruyère, ‘Intellectual property rights on creativity and heritage: the case of the fashion industry’ (2011) 32 European Journal of Law and Economics 305.

[31] Noam Shemtov, The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the Fashion Industry: From Conception to Commercialization <https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_webinar_cr_2023_7/wipo_webinar_cr_2023_7_www_615976.pdf> accessed on 15 November 2025.

[32] Burberry, as a brand name, has registered more than seventy trademarks under the USPTO and is also registered in India under The Trademark Act, 1999. See also; Christine Liwag Dixon, The Untold Truth of Burberry (Thelist, 2020) <https://www.thelist.com/186661/the-untold-truth-of-burberry/> accessed on 15 November 2025.

[33] Namah Bose, ‘Christian Louboutin and The Single Colour Trademark Battle’ (2021) Fashion Law Journal <https://fashionlawjournal.com/christian-louboutin-and-the-single-colour-trademark-battle/#:~:text=In%20the%20second%20case%20it%20was> accessed on 15 November 2025.

[34] India, the UK, the EU and Canada follow the Industrial Design IP regime to protect designs applied to an article such that it appeals to the eye by infusing it with an aesthetic and ornamental value.

[35] A US Model based on granting designs as Design Patents.

[36] The Industrial Design Act 2000, s 2(d) (India)

[37] The Registered Designs Act 2000 (India)

[38] Article 2 Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (amended up to October 17, 2020), China, <https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/21027> accessed on 15 November 2025.

[39] USPTO, Nonprovisional (Utility) Patent Application Filing Guide https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/apply/utility-patent accessed on 15 November 2025.

[40] IP in the Fashion Industry, (EU Factsheet) <https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-02/EU_IP_HD_Fact_Sheet_IP-fashion-industry.pdf> accessed on 15 November 2025.

[41] The Copyright Act 1957, s 2(c)(iii).

[42] Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2020 Amendment), art 3(4).

[43] Copyright Act 2021, subdivision (5)(20)(1)(a)(iii) (Singapore).

[44] Copyright Law of Japan, art 2(2).

[45] Law of the Republic of Indonesia (28 of 2014 on Copyrights), art 40(1)(g).

[46] Vietnam Intellectual Property Law – No. 50/2005/QH11, art 14(1)(g).

[47] Nuno Pires de Carvalho, The Intellectual Property of Textiles and Fashion: From the Medieval Loom to the New York Fashion Week: A Sourcebook (Kluwer Law International BV, 2021).

[48] Design patent application guide (USPTO) <(https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/apply/design-patent> accessed on 15 November 2025.

[49] European Parliament and of the Council Directive – 98/71 – EN – EUR-Lex (1998) OJ L 289

[50]  Indian Copyright Act 1957, s 15(2); Indian Designs Act 2000, s 2(a)

[51] Blend Re:wind – a polycotton recycling technology (Wipogreen Database, 2023) <https://wipogreen.wipo.int/wipogreen-database/articles/148761?queryFilters.0.field=TECH_FIELD_ID&amp;queryFilters.0.value=132&amp;type=BASIC&amp;query=&amp;pagination.size=10&amp;pagination.page=1&amp;sort.0.field=CREATED_AT&amp;sort.0.direction=DESC> accessed on 15 November 2025.

[52] 3D fully automated manufacturing method allowing for seamless and custom products grown from home compostable mushroom roots and other biomaterial (Wipogreen Database, 2023) <https://wipogreen.wipo.int/wipogreen-database/articles/148888?queryFilters.0.field=TECH_FIELD_ID&amp;queryFilters.0.value=132&amp;type=BASIC&amp;query=&amp;pagination.size=10&amp;pagination.page=1&amp;sort.0.field=CREATED_AT&amp;sort.0.direction=DESC> accessed on 15 November 2025.

[53] Sustainable lab-produced biosynthetic indigo dye for denim via bacteria fermentation, (Wipogreen Database, 2023) <https://wipogreen.wipo.int/wipogreen-database/articles/148945?queryFilters.0.field=TECH_FIELD_ID&amp;queryFilters.0.value=132&amp;type=BASIC&amp;query=&amp;pagination.page=0&amp;pagination.size=10&amp;sort.0.field=CREATED_AT&amp;sort.0.direction=DESC> accessed on 15 November 2025.

[54] Blockchain traceability platform for fashion and textile ecosystem, (Wipogreen Database, 2023) <https://wipogreen.wipo.int/wipogreen-database/articles/148782?queryFilters.0.field=TECH_FIELD_ID&amp;queryFilters.0.value=132&amp;type=BASIC&amp;query=&amp;pagination.size=10&amp;pagination.page=1&amp;sort.0.field=CREATED_AT&amp;sort.0.direction=DESC> accessed on 15 November 2025.

[55] Daryl Wander, ‘Trendsetting: Emerging Opportunities for the Legal Protection of Fashion Designs’ (2010) 42 Rutgers LJ 247.

[56] See, Trade Marks Act 1999 (India), s 30; Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark [2009] OJ L78/1, art 15; Prestonettes Inc v Coty, 264 US 359 (1924).

[57] Marc Bain, ‘Rent the Runway Is Slowly Winning Over Luxury Fashion’ Quartz (6 October 2018) https://qz.com/1414567/rent-the-runway-is-slowly-winning-over-luxury-fashion accessed 15 November 2025.

[58] Naeun Lauren Kim and Terry Haekyung Kim ‘Why buy used clothing during the pandemic? Examining the impact of COVID-19 on consumers’ second-hand fashion consumption motivations’ (2022) 32(2) The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 151.

[59] See also Chanel Inc v The RealReal Inc, 449 F Supp 3d 422 (SDNY 2020), discussing the importance of disclosures and disclaimers in luxury resale to avoid trademark liability.

[60] Péter Mezei and Heidi Hark̈onen, ‘Monopolising trash: a critical analysis of upcycling under Finnish and EU copyright law’ (2023) 18(5) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 360.

[61] This form of upcycling includes overtly adding various new aspects to the original piece of garment, thereby transforming it completely, for e.g., creating a customised bridal edition of branded converse shoes. See, Irene Calboli, ‘Upcycling, Sustainability, and IP: What It Means for the World of Fashion’ (WIPO Magazine, July 2023) <https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine_digital/en/2023/article_0022.html> accessed on 15 November 2025.

[62] This form of upcycling includes using the constituent elements to re-create a completely different piece of garment, for e.g., using the pieces of worn-out jeans along with its logo to a shirt. See, Irene Calboli, ‘Upcycling, Sustainability, and IP: What It Means for the World of Fashion’ (WIPO Magazine, July 2023) <https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine_digital/en/2023/article_0022.html> accessed on 15 November 2025.

[63] The popular techniques of upcycling in used garments are patchwork (adding decorative material), scraps (changing the design by bringing together different prices), and half-half (combining two or more materials).

[64] See Chanel Inc v What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC, 2022 WL 902454 (SDNY 2022); Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed [2001] EWCA Civ 732; Trade Marks Act 1999 (India), s 29(2); Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, art 9(1)(b).

[65] Anthony M. Keats, ‘Trendy Product Upcycling: Permissible Recycling or Impermissible Commercial Hitchhiking?’ 110(3) The Trademark Reporter 712.

[66] Nike, ‘Nike By You’ (Nike) <https://www.nike.com/in/nike-by-you> accessed 15 November 2025.

[67] Louis Vuitton Malletier v www.Haute.com (Delhi High Court, 16 December 2022); Louis Vuitton Malletier v Abdulkhaliq Abdulkader Chamadia, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8010; Seagate Technology Llc vs Daichi International (Delhi High Court, 24 January 2024); Satya Infrastructure Ltd v Satya Infra & Estates Pvt Ltd, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 508; Louis Vuitton Malletier v Capital General Store, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 613; Louis Vuitton Malletier v Javed Khan, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2897

[68] See Morrison Entertainment Group Inc v Nintendo of America Inc, 56 USPQ2d 1940 (ND Cal 2000); Champion Spark Plug Co v Sanders, 331 US 125 (1947).

[69] Chanel, Inc v What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC, 2022 WL 902454 (SDNY 2022).

[70] See Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed [2001] EWCA Civ 732; Trade Marks Act 1999 (India), s 29; Shenzhen Weituyi Technology Co Ltd v Lin [2023] SGIPOS 2.

[71] Section 29(6), Indian Trademark Act, 1999.

[72] Section 29 of TM Act.

[73] Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark [2017] OJ L154/1, art 9.

[74] Trade Marks Act 1994 (UK), s 10.

[75] Trademark Act of 1946, § 32 (15 USC § 1114).

[76] The ‘First Sale doctrine’ is an exception to infringement under both Copyright and Trademark Law. It postulates that after the first sale of a work protected under Copyrights or Trademarks, the right holder cannot control the further sale and distribution of such work.

[77] This principle has been derived from the ‘Fair Use doctrine’, which is a defence to infringement of Copyright works. Transformative Fair Use is considered an extension of the fair use doctrine. Upcycling is an example of Transformative Fair Use.

[78] Péter Mezei and Heidi Hark̈onen, ‘Monopolising trash: a critical analysis of upcycling under Finnish and EU copyright law’ (2023) 18(5) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 360.

[79] Irene Calboli ‘Pushing a Square Pin into a Round Hole? Intellectual Property Challenges to a Sustainable and Circular Economy, and What to Do About It’ (2024) 55(2) IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 237, 238.

[80] It is based on the notion of granting consumers the right to repair their lawfully purchased products directly, or by selecting a repair service of their choice, as opposed to returning to the manufacturer or manufacturer-approved providers for the repair. Only manufacturers or manufacturer-approved services are allowed to repair the product they sell. It is based on the notion of granting consumers the right to repair their lawfully purchased products directly or by selecting a repair service of their choice, as opposed to returning to the manufacturer or manufacturer-approved providers for the repair. It has been developing in the electronics spare parts and repairs market sector as an exception to trademark infringement.

[81] Irene Calboli, ‘The Right to Repair: Recent developments in the USA’, WIPO Magazine (August, 2023) https://www.wipo.int/web/wipo-magazine/articles/the-right-to-repair-recent-developments-in-the-usa-56378 accessed on 15 November 2025.

[82] Himanshu Arora, ‘“Right to Repair” vis－à－vis Indian Trade Mark Law: A Comparative Analysis’ 24(1-2) The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2021) 41-54.

[83] Section 30(3) and Section 30(4), Indian Trademark Act, 1999.

[84] Kapil Wadhwa v Samsung Electronics, 2013 (53) PTC 112 (Del.) (DB)

[85] Himanshu Arora, ‘“Right to Repair” vis－à－vis Indian Trade Mark Law: A Comparative Analysis’ 24(1-2) The Journal of World Intellectual Property (2021) 41-54.

[86] Anadi Keshari and Palak Thakur, ‘The Fashion Industry’s Dilemma: Balancing Upcycling and Trademarks’ (The IP Law Post, 15 December 2024) <https://iplawpost.wordpress.com/2024/12/15/the-fashion-industrys-dilemma-balancing-upcycling-and-trademarks/> accessed 15 November 2025.

[87] Heidi Härkönen, ‘The new era of home-made fake fashion: the phenomenon of home-sewn copies and the possibilities for fashion houses to take advantage’ (2018) 13(11) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 860.

[88]  Duan Wu, Mingyu Zhuang, Xinni Zhang, and Yuheng Zhao, ‘Towards circular fashion: design for community-based clothing reuse and upcycling services under a social innovation perspective’ (2022) 15(1) Sustainability 262.

[89] See, Patagonia Stories, ‘How we turn Scraps into New Gear’ (Patagonia, October, 2019) <https://www.patagonia.com/stories/second-stories/story-74520.html#:~:text=The%20ReCrafted%20process%20looks%20something%20like%20this:%20Through%20Patagonia%E2%80%99s%20Worn?msockid=3a6ed05a39c56f201833c55f386d6e82> accessed 15 November 2025.

[90] See, ReBurberry Services Burberry Official: It involves a range of services launched by Burberry in 2020 that demonstrates their commitment to Circularity <https://us.burberry.com/c/reburberry/> accessed 15 November 2025

[91] See, RE/SPONSIBILITY (Re/Done) was a mission led by Sean Barron and Jamie Mazur of taking the old denims and making them new again, bringing the revolutionary concept of up-cycling to the forefront of the industry. It was launched in 2014 in Los Angeles.  <https://shopredone.com/en-in/pages/our-responsibility> accessed 15 November 2025.

[92] Caroline Joelle Nwabueze, ‘Indigenous Knowledge Systems In Traditional Textile Techniques And Intellectual Property: Perspectives From Nigeria’ (2023) 4(1) Esut Public Law Journal 336.

[93] Regenerative agriculture is a farming practice of indigenous communities that is aimed at maximizing on-farm inputs and focuses on strategically planting diverse crops that support the growth of other crops while acting as cover crops and actively works to reverse the negative harm done to the environment. See, Regenerative Fashion: A Sustainable Approach – Fibre2Fashion <https://www.fibre2fashion.com/industry-article/10057/regenerative-fashion-a-sustainable-approach> accessed 15 November 2025.

[94] Biomimicry is based on creating sustainable designs inspired by nature. It prioritises design functionality and resource efficiency. Some examples of its contribution to the textile industry include the lotus effect, spider silk, camouflage, and butterfly wing patterns. See, S., M. Das Bhowmick, S. K. Chattopadhyay, and S. Basak ‘Application of biomimicry in textiles’ (2015) 109(5) Current Science 893.

[95] Modular fashion includes clothing and garments that can be dis/assembled into interchangeable component parts, like sleeves, collars, etc., thereby customizing the appearance of the same outfit. See, Xiaomeng Zhang, Aurelie Le Normand, Songyi Yan, Jane Wood, and Claudia E. Henninger ‘What is modular fashion: towards a common definition’ (2024) 204(9) Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

[96] Santosh Bommanavar & Shruti Malipatil, ‘New Culture Fashion: The Convergence of Slow Fashion, Sustainability and Fast Fashion’ (2024) 85(16) Madhya Bharti -Humanities and Social Sciences 133.

[97] See, House of Wandering Silk <https://www.wanderingsilk.org/our-team> accessed 15 November 2025.

[98] See, SukkhaCitta <https://www.sukkhacitta.com/> accessed 15 November 2025.

[99] See, Harvest & Mill <https://harvestandmill.com/pages/our-story> accessed 15 November 2025.

[100] See Afsana Ferdousi: Turning the language of protest into fashion (The Business Standard, February 2025) <https://www.tbsnews.net/feature/mode/afsana-ferdousi-turning-language-protest-fashion-135214> accessed 15 November 2025.

[101] See, CDK Fashion House in Bhutan <https://inspiredbybhutan.com/pages/cdk-bhutan> accessed 15 November 2025

[102] UseDem on Common Objective (https://www.commonobjective.co/usedem) accessed 15 November 2025.

[103] See Reina Ibuka <https://www.mariareina-paris.com/about> accessed 15 November 2025.

[104] See, MATTER <https://shop.matterprints.com/> accessed 15 November 2025.

[105] See Artisan & Fox | Our Story <https://artisanandfox.com/pages/our-story> accessed 15 November 2025.

[106] Hau-Ling Chan, Xiaoyong Wei, Shu Guo and Wing-Hong Leung, ‘Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in fashion supply chains: A multi-methodological study’ (2020) 142 Transportation Research Part E: logistics and transportation review 102063.

[107] See, Revibe, by India Recycles is a brand of upcycled products made from unsold items <https://revibe.me/> accessed 15 November 2025.

[108] See, The Godadi Project, by India Recycles, gogadis (quilts made of patchworks) are made of unwearable and faded clothes <https://www.indiarecycles.org/zero-waste-promise.html> accessed 15 November 2025.

[109] India Recycles is a campaign started with an aim to promote the sustainable model of various concepts surrounding the Reuse & Recycling of products through the collection of various pre-owned items as donations in Ahmedabad, a city in the State of Gujarat, India. <https://www.indiarecycles.org/our-model.html> accessed 15 November 2025.

[110] ‘Environmental impact assessment’ means a national procedure for evaluating the likely impact of a proposed activity on the environment;  ‘Impact’ means any effect caused by a proposed activity on the environment, including human health and safety, flora, fauna, soil, air, water, climate, landscape and historical monuments or other physical structures or the interaction among these factors; it also includes effects on cultural heritage or socio-economic conditions resulting from alterations to those factors (Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context) <https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/eia/Publications/2015/ECE.MP.EIA.21_Convention_on_Environmental_Impact_Assessment.pdf> accessed 15 November 2025.

[111] ‘Extended Producer Responsibility’ is a concept where producers (including manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers etc.) of products bear a significant degree of responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products throughout the product life-cycle, including upstream impacts inherent in the selection of materials for the products, impacts from manufacturers’ production process itself, and downstream impacts from the use and disposal of the products.  Producers accept their responsibility when designing their products to minimise life-cycle environmental impacts, and when accepting legal, physical, or socio-economic responsibility for environmental impacts that cannot be eliminated by design (UNEP Reducing Plastic Pollution through the Extended Producer Responsibility) <https://www.unep.org/reducing-plastic-pollution-through-extended-producer-responsibility> accessed 15 November 2025.

[112] Reet Aus, Harri Moora, Markus Vihma, Reimo Unt, Marko Kiisa, and Sneha Kapur ‘Designing for circular fashion: integrating upcycling into conventional garment manufacturing processes’ (2021) 8 Fashion and Textiles 1. See, Reet Aus <https://www.reetaus.com/pages/about-us> accessed 15 November 2025.

[113] See, Reet Aus <https://www.reetaus.com/pages/about-us> accessed 15 November 2025.

[114] The UPMADE software helps to map the textile waste in the given manufacture and uses a special algorithm to turn production leftover data into input information helping to design and produce upcycled garments. The software also carries out resource savings calculations. The UPMADE design approach, turning trash to trend, is a service helping the brand to upcycle its textile leftovers, maximising fabric use, while tailoring to the design criteria of the brand owner. A manufacturing company wishing to produce UPMADE products will need to go through the UPMADE certification process. See UPMADE: towards a circular fashion industry, SEI <https://www.sei.org/features/upmade-circular-fashion-industry/> accessed 15 November 2025.

[115] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (1994), art 15–21.

[116] Christian Louboutin SAS v Yves Saint Laurent America Holding Inc 696 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2012).

[117] Case C-342/97 Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV ECLI:EU:C:1999:323, para 26.

The post Exploring Business Model Reforms under Intellectual Property to Promote Sustainable Fashion: A Policy-Oriented Study appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

But here’s the question we rarely ask: Where do all these clothes go when we’re done with them? And what happens when we move on from trends faster than brands can anticipate, and they are left with mountains of overproduction?

One of those answers lies in the Atacama Desert,  now infamous as fast fashion’s graveyard.

The Hidden Cost of Cheap Trends

Between 2002 and 201,4 garment lifespans were cut in half while global clothing production doubled. During the same period, customers increased their purchases by 60%, accelerating the industry’s waste trajectory. Adding to this, a UN report dated 2019 revealed the fashion industry as responsible for 20% of global water waste, a figure that has likely only grown in the years since.

As garments became cheaper and trend cycles accelerated, brands began producing far more clothing than the market could realistically absorb. Fast production models weren’t designed to match supply with actual demand; they were designed to flood customers with options, banking on volume over longevity. 

It’s no surprise, then, that around three-fifths of all clothing ends up in landfills or incinerators within a year of being produced. On top of that, 12% of the material used in production is lost and discarded before it even becomes a garment, adding to the industry’s massive waste stream.

This leaves us with textile waste as a global problem, one with serious environmental and public health consequences. This global overflow becomes painfully visible in the Atacama Desert, where an estimated 40,000 tons of discarded clothing, much of it sourced from European and American channels, are dumped every year. 

There, the broader costs of fast fashion are exposed: massive dumps of clothes leach dyes and chemicals into the soil and air, while part of the waste is burned, dispersing pollutants that affect air quality and become a threat to respiratory health.  

Young Consumers Won’t Look Away

For years, both the media and consumers worldwide ignored this staggering illegal landfill affecting Chile, fueling the industry’s growth. However, in 2021, everything changed. Photographs taken by Martín Bernetti, and published by Agencia France-Presse, started circulating, giving the situation a social media presence. 

At the same time, the action that the people in Chile had been independently promoting to tackle these issues finally gained international recognition. Their work showcased the work of younger generations, who have led initiatives aimed at reducing textile waste and promoting circularity in the fashion industry.

An important example of the change taking root in Chile is the work led by Desierto Vestido, an NGO that has the mission to educate, raise awareness and promote the circular economy in the textile industry. This labor is executed through different impactful actions, such as teaching in the form of talks and workshops and organizing desert clean-up operations.

Rosario Hevia has also had a notable positive impact through her work. She began with a small project focused on reusing children’s clothes and later opened Ecocitex in 2019. The company produces textile goods made from yarn that comes entirely from damaged or discarded garments. Remarkably, the process requires no water or chemical treatments, therefore being one of the most sustainable and truly circular models in the region. 

Another striking private effort emerging from the region is Atacama RE-commerce, a project launched in March, 2025 turning desert’s textile waste into a circular model with a simple but powerful idea: garments dumped in Atacama, many of them brand new and with tags or barely worn, are recovered, cleaned, restored and offered online for free, with customers paying only the cost of shipping. In other words, you’re paying to pull a piece of clothing out of the desert. The initiative not only keeps usable clothes in circulation, but also raises awareness about the environmental cost of fast fashion’s overproduction. Every rescued piece becomes a reminder of the system that put it there, and a small step towards a future where clothes are valued rather than tossed aside.

Justice for the Desert: The Lawsuit Against Textile Dumping

Civilians didn’t just innovate their way around the crisis; they took the issue to court. In 2022, Paulin Silva, a Chilean lawyer, filed a lawsuit against the state of Chile alleging responsibility for the massive textile landfills in Alto Hospicio, Atacama. 

This lawsuit finally raises the fundamental question of who can be held accountable for the damage. So, who is legally responsible for the clothing dumps in Atacama? This question still isn’t fully answered; however, according to the ruling issued in September 2025, it is clear that the State bears a significant role in allowing the crisis to unfold.

The ruling ordered the government to prepare a six-month remediation plan that has yet to be presented. Moreover, the State appealed the decision, meaning the court’s ruling is not yet final, and the case remains unresolved. 

When Waste Becomes a Legal Issue: The Rise of Textile Regulation

Inevitably, the law had to intervene, and in Chile, that moment finally arrived. Even when the State has not accepted legal responsibility in court, law and policymakers have started to take steps towards a regulation of the textiles entering the country. In 2025, the Chilean government introduced a comprehensive national strategy to confront the country’s escalating textile waste disaster, and named the eradication of illegal textile dumps one of its central goals.

The plan marked a turning point. For the first time, textiles were formally recognized as a priority waste category, placing them under strict monitoring and management requirements. 

Building on this, the government announced that textiles will soon be incorporated into Chile’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework, a policy that obligates companies to take financial and operational responsibility for the waste their products generate. What this means in practice is that brands will be required to track the garments they bring into the country, report their volume, and contribute to systems for collection, reuse and recycling. The country is still developing clear, detailed policies and aims to have targets in place by 2029. The goal is to shift the burden of textile waste in Atacama away from the nearby communities, which have long absorbed the consequences of overproduction in fashion.

This strategy also seeks to promote and strengthen Chile’s growing circular economy. By supporting repair centers, upcycling initiatives and textile recyclers and including them as EPR fund recipients, policymakers aim to reduce the constant flow of garments, the constant arrival of garments into informal dumps, and create new opportunities for sustainable employment. The government recognized that EPR will deliver a positive social impact by involving informal workers in the circular fashion industry and securing fair work conditions for them. Importantly, Chile’s representatives acknowledge that organizing textile waste is only part of the solution, given that the problem arises from cultural and commercial forces that drive both overproduction and overconsumption.

While the regulatory process is still in its early development stage, the 2025 strategy signals the treatment of these issues as a national priority. Atacama’s textile crisis is no longer viewed solely as an environmental failure. It is now recognized as a legal and systemic issue that calls for a structural change. And although no single policy will delete the contamination and the damage overnight, Chile’s regulatory turn suggests that the era of massive unchecked dumping in the country’s desert is coming to an end.

Fashion’s Future Is Written in the Desert

Atacama serves as a global case study for what happens when overproduction and weak regulation collide. The desert exposes the true cost of a fashion system that is driven by speed, excess and profit built on volume, but it also highlights the rise of young innovators and a growing legal pressure that demands systematic change. 

Chile’s emerging policies now serve as a blueprint for other nations facing similar crises. If the industry pays attention, the path being built is unmistakable: a future marked by circularity and transparency. Now, the Atacama Desert stands as both a warning and a global compass, reminding us that fashion’s future depends not only on what we create, but on what we refuse to waste.

References

Bartlett, J. (2025, June 26). Chile targets fast fashion waste with landmark desert cleanup plan. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/26/chile-fast-fashion-waste-atacama-desert

EcoCITEX. (n.d.). EcoCITEX. https://www.ecocitex.cl/

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). A new textiles economy: Redesigning fashion’s future.https://content.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/m/6d5071bb8a5f05a2/original/A-New-Textiles-Economy-Redesigning-fashions-future.pdf

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2024). Pushing the boundaries of EPR policy for textiles.https://circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/sites/default/files/2024-08/Pushing%20the%20boundaries%20of%20EPR%20policy%20for%20textiles.pdf

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2024, September 25). EPR for textiles in Chile.https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/epr-for-textiles-in-chile

FRANCE 24. (2021, November 8). Chile’s desert dumping ground for fast fashion leftovers.https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211108-chile-s-desert-dumping-ground-for-fast-fashion-leftovers

Hevia, R. (2025, July 14). “Everything about recycling started from this vein of social action” [“Todo el tema del reciclaje partió por esta veta de acción social”]. Perfeccionistas, Diario Financiero. https://perfeccionistas.diariofinanciero.cl/rosario-hevia-todo-el-tema-del-reciclaje-partio-por-esta-veta-de-accion-social/

Ministry of the Environment, Chile. (2025). Textiles – Circular economy. https://economiacircular.mma.gob.cl/textiles/

Órdenez, J. (2024, February 22). ¿De quién es la culpa? La demanda contra Chile por los basurales de ropa en el desierto. La Tercera. https://www.latercera.com/que-pasa/noticia/de-quien-es-la-culpa-la-demanda-contra-chile-por-los-basurales-de-ropa-en-el-desierto/Z33D7O562REMJPNPDMGXNAC6UM/

Re-commerce Atacama. (n.d.). Our suppliers. https://www.recommerceatacama.com/suppliers

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2018, July 12). UN Alliance aims to put fashion on path to sustainability. https://unece.org/forestry/press/un-alliance-aims-put-fashion-path-sustainability

Author: Viviana Sofía Chavarría Medrano

Viviana is a law student at the University of Costa Rica (UCR). She is passionate about fashion law and human rights, and how these two fields connect through the legal promotion and oversight of sustainable production in the fashion industry. She loves books, learning, hiking, tennis, and, above all, fashion design.

The post Fashion’s Desert Graveyard: Atacama’s Textile Waste Crisis and Chile’s Move Toward EPR appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Rather than existing as a frozen subculture, goth clothing has proven remarkably adaptable. It absorbs change without losing its identity, which explains why designers, stylists, and everyday wearers continue to draw from it, often without explicitly labeling their references as “goth”.

A Style Built on Structure, Not Trends

One of the reasons goth clothing continues to influence modern fashion is its foundation. Unlike trend-driven aesthetics that rely on novelty, goth is built around structure. Long lines, sharp tailoring, heavy fabrics, and deliberate silhouettes form a visual language that remains effective regardless of the era.

Modern collections regularly revisit these elements. Dark monochrome palettes, elongated coats, fitted tops, and strong footwear appear season after season, sometimes stripped of overt symbolism, sometimes embraced more fully. The influence is subtle, but consistent. Goth clothing offers designers a vocabulary that feels serious, controlled, and timeless.

The Enduring Appeal of Black

Black plays a central role in goth clothing, but its influence goes far beyond color preference. In goth fashion, black is used to emphasize form, texture, and contrast rather than decoration. This approach has naturally found its way into contemporary fashion, where restraint and clarity are increasingly valued.

Modern minimalism, for example, often borrows from goth’s understanding of black as a foundation rather than a statement. The result is clothing that feels grounded, versatile, and intentional. Even outside explicitly goth contexts, this influence is evident in the way black continues to dominate runways and wardrobes alike.

Materials That Carry Weight

Another reason goth clothing resonates in modern fashion lies in its relationship with materials. Leather, lace, velvet, heavy cottons, and structured synthetics are chosen not for trend appeal, but for their ability to hold shape and convey presence.

Contemporary fashion frequently returns to these materials when seeking depth or seriousness. Whether softened or reinterpreted, they bring a tactile quality that contrasts with lighter, more disposable fabrics. Goth clothing’s emphasis on material weight aligns naturally with current discussions around longevity and quality.

A Focus on Silhouette Over Decoration

Goth clothing has always prioritized silhouette over surface-level detail. Clean lines, defined waists, elongated shapes, and controlled proportions create impact without relying on excess embellishment.

This principle has become increasingly relevant in modern fashion, where the overall shape of a garment often matters more than prints or logos. Designers influenced by goth aesthetics tend to focus on how clothing frames the body, moves, and occupies space. The result is fashion that feels intentional and enduring rather than ornamental.

From Subculture to Reference Point

While goth clothing originated within a distinct cultural context, its influence today extends far beyond subcultural boundaries. It has become a reference point rather than a fixed identity. Stylists may draw from goth silhouettes without adopting its full aesthetic, and wearers may integrate individual elements into otherwise neutral wardrobes.

This flexibility explains why goth clothing continues to feel relevant. It doesn’t demand total commitment. Instead, it offers components that can be adapted, layered, and reinterpreted. Specialized platforms focused on goth fashion, such as Killstar, Dollskill or Goth Apparel, reflect this evolution by presenting the style as a cohesive wardrobe rather than a costume or statement.

A Counterbalance to Fast Fashion

In a fashion landscape dominated by speed and constant renewal, goth clothing offers a counterbalance. Its emphasis on repetition, durability, and visual consistency stands in contrast to fast fashion cycles.

This doesn’t mean goth clothing rejects change. Rather, it integrates it slowly. Pieces are worn repeatedly, adapted over time, and valued for their staying power. This approach aligns with a growing desire for wardrobes built around continuity rather than constant replacement.

Why the Influence Endures

Goth clothing continues to influence modern fashion because it addresses something fundamental. It provides structure in an environment that often feels visually saturated. It offers seriousness without rigidity, and expression without excess.

Its influence is not always obvious, but it is deeply embedded in how contemporary fashion approaches color, silhouette, and material. Goth clothing doesn’t dominate trends, it underpins them.

Conclusion

The lasting influence of goth clothing is not accidental. It persists because it was never designed to follow fashion cycles. Built on structure, materiality, and consistency, it offers a framework that remains relevant regardless of shifting trends.

As modern fashion continues to balance expression with restraint, goth clothing remains a quiet but powerful reference. Not as a revival, but as a foundation that continues to shape how fashion looks, feels, and endures.

The post Why Goth Clothing Continues to Influence Modern Fashion appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Statement of Problem: The transition of the fashion industry to sustainability has led to an increase in environmental claims on marketing materials, product labels and corporate communication. However, such sustainability certification systems lack uniform legal criteria across countries, which facilitates greenwashing.

Research Objectives:

1. To explore current legal frameworks regulating eco-claims in major fashion markets.
2. To identify structural and enforcement deficiencies that allow deceptive greenwashing claims in the fashion industry.
3. To assess the effectiveness of recent legislative measures and formulate a comprehensive legal framework concerning greenwashing claims.
4. To analyse consumer psychology concerning environmental claims with regard to fashion products
5. To evaluate current certification standards of green claims in the fashion industry and their legal enforceability.

Hypothesis: The lack of a harmonized, binding legal framework defining and verifying environmental claims in the fashion industry creates a regulatory enforcement deficit that facilitates greenwashing and weakens consumer protection law.

Methodology: The study utilizes doctrinal research method, which encompasses comparative legal analysis of environmental marketing regulations in the EU, US, UK, and India and case study investigation of some of the latest greenwashing suits in the fashion industry. It also employs a critical analysis method to analyze and evaluate the law relating to greenwashing in various jurisdictions.

Findings: Findings reveal a big difference in regulations, with the EU’s Green Claims Directive setting a global standard for strict, uniform rules. India, on the other hand, doesn’t have any specific laws against greenwashing, which makes it easy for fashion brands to make false claims.  While India’s framework remains underdeveloped, the US model demonstrates the potent deterrence of class action lawsuits, which impose significant financial and reputational costs.  India could benefit from both creating strict laws and giving the courts more power to allow similar lawsuits by consumers.

Suggestions: The proposed legal framework encompasses augmented disclosure requirements for the evidentiary foundation of sustainability claims, harmonized cross-border enforcement mechanisms for internationally recognized fashion brands, and stringent penalties in the existing law to promote systemic compliance.

Introduction

Fashion purchasing encompasses cognitive and emotive dimensions (Cho et. al., 2014). Cognitive actions encompass strategic planning, which involves the reasonable assessment of one’s wardrobe and requirements to determine an appropriate item for purchase. Affective or emotional elements encompass pleasure, excitement, guilt, loss of control, and regret. Individuals purchase items to alleviate depressive moods, convey their identity, or simply for pleasure. They provide solace, assistance, and gratification through acquisitions. Individuals engage in compulsive purchasing when they perceive it as socially acceptable. Fashion media and social influencers significantly contribute to public education regarding social conventions. They are concurrently affected by the booming fashion public relations sector (Ekinci et. al., 2025). The fashion industry has a huge impact on this psychological landscape. Marketing doesn’t just sell a product; it sells an ideal, a story, and a sense of self. This story is becoming more and more green as people become more aware of the environment. Not only do consumers want style, but they also want luxury and fulfillment from purchasing things that are beneficial for our planet as well as ethical. This sturdy emotional appeal to be both sophisticated and responsible has popularized the environmental claims as a useful way to advertise products.

But this rise in eco-friendly marketing has also made it easier for producers and traders to deceive consumers (Ummar et al., 2023). As consumers these days are more influenced by social media handles like Instagram and Facebook, where influencer advertising with regard to green products moulds social norms, the brands are using it as an opportunity to showcase their environmental credentials. The fact that many sustainability certifications are voluntary and that there are no clear legal standards across all markets has given rise to an immense regulatory gap (De Freitas Netto et. al., 2020). This disparity has let the deceptive practice of greenwashing grow, in which the emotional appeal of an eco-claim is intentionally detached from its logical and factual basis (Dorfleitner, 2023).

This paper deals with the disjunction between emotional marketing and verifiable facts that constitute not only an ethical shortcoming but also a legal loophole. The law has had a difficult time keeping up with the fashion industry, which is full of green messages. This study delved into the existing laws that are meant to ensure that fashion brands are authentic about their environmental claims. It goes beyond the psychology of desire and looks at the laws against lying in big markets like the EU, US, UK, and India. The study finds important structural and enforcement gaps that let misleading greenwashing continue, looks at the potential of new laws like the EU’s Green Claims Directive, and suggests a complete legal framework to fill the gaps. At last, this research states that strong, uniform legal enforcement is the fundamental prerequisite for safeguarding consumer confidence, fostering genuine environmental innovation, and ensuring that the fashion industry’s green revolution is established on authenticity instead of mere marketing gimmicks.

Deconstructing Greenwashing in the Fashion Context

The fashion industry constitutes around $2.4 trillion and hires about 300 million people around the world(“What is the UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion?”, 2025). It has a massive impact on environmental resources. It makes up 20% of the world’s wastewater and costs $100 billion a year in lost profits because it isn’t used enough and isn’t recycled (Bailey et. al., 2025). It also causes 9% of the microplastics that leak into the oceans each year (Kounina et al., 2024). The industry makes about 92 million tons of finished goods every year, using up 79 billion litres of water (Centobelli et al., 2022). The carbon emissions from the product life cycle are similar to those of all 28 EU member countries put together and are higher than those of international shipping and aviation (Bildirici et. al., 2025). Fast fashion makes these problems even more unmanageable. As estimated, by 2030, the fashion waste is expected to reach 148 million tons (Chandana S, 2025).

Fashion industries are heading towards more accountable and sustainable measures as consumers are becoming more conscious regarding the products they buy. Also, the approach of lawmakers to exert liability on the fashion brands, ensuring that manufacturing meets carbon emission criteria and reinforcing the production of clothes manufactured through clean technologies, the brands see sustainability as a means to improve their reputation and gain a competitive edge. Some companies, on the other hand, do ‘greenwashing’, which means making environmental claims without really caring about them or being honest about them in order to make their brand look better (Schmuck, 2018). Greenwashing can take the form of symbolic actions that focus on small problems, draw attention away from practices that aren’t good for the environment, or misrepresent real efforts to protect the environment (Terra Choice Environmental Marketing, 2009). The H&M case in 2013, in which claims that products were ‘eco-conscious’ were found to be false and misleading, is a good example of this (Brinquis, 2023).

A lot of green claims around the world don’t have any evidence or reliable information to back them up, which confuses consumers and makes sustainable practices less trustworthy. For example, a report from 2009 said that 98% of products that made green claims were actually greenwashing, and that green advertising was growing a lot (Bender, 2011). The European Commission found that 53% of eco-claims give imprecise, deceptive and unverified information, and 40% of them don’t possess any credible information (“Green claims,” 2025). The rise of sustainability labels with different levels of transparency shows that consumers need standardized and clear practices to help them make decisions.

Greenwashing adversely influences consumers, stakeholders, as well as the environment by making people less likely to believe what companies say and possibly negatively impacting their finances and reputation, even when they are not acting deceitfully. Many certifications and indexes exist within the fashion world, such as the ‘Higg Index’ and ‘GOTS accreditation’, that indicate sustainable practices in the fashion sector (Gonçalves and Silva, 2021). Deplorably, the majority of these initiatives function as sustainability facades for fashion brands, endorsing extensive greenwashing accompanied by a substantial shortcoming in transparency. Moreover, these enterprises frequently employ ambiguous terminology, keywords (e.g., eco-friendly, chemical-free, organic, and sustainable), and strategies to disseminate deceptive marketing communications (Beard, 2008).  This perpetuates misunderstandings of environmentally relevant terms and creates a disparity between consumer expectations and the information provided by corporations. The paper, “Synthetics Anonymous: Fashion labels’ Addiction to Fossil Fuels”, analyzed around 50 prominent fashion labels, including ostensibly transparent entities such as Zara, Primark, H&M, and Burberry (Trunk et al., 2023). This study evaluated the quantity of fossil-fuel-derived raw materials in their collections and their pledges to diminish them.  H&M, ASOS, and M&S were recognized as the most egregious violators, with erroneous claims of 96%, 89%, and 88%, respectively (“Response: Charging Markets (Letter from Charging Markets to UK Government),” 2021). Additionally, it was found that the so-called eco-conscious collection of one of the leading fast fashion brands, i.e. H&M, comprised a large percentage of synthetics, i.e. 72% in contrast to its main selection (61%)(Riches, 2022).

Asidefrom the presence of certifications and programs to recognize eco-conscious fashion, misleading practices, ambiguous terminology and insufficient disclosures persist, which mislead consumers. It underscores the pressing requirement for improved accountability and a reconsideration of existing sustainability standards within the fashion industry. As global awareness meets the significant adverse effects of climate change, the fashion trade reaches a crucial moment, where the dialogue on sustainability evolves. The fashion trade comes third in the sequence after food, recreation and culture, which significantly exploits our water resources. In 2020, EU-27 homes utilized around 4,000 million m³ of water for the production of textiles (Chen et al., 2021). As per the data ofthe  European Environmental Agency, 2022, it is revealed that fashion exploits a large portion of our land, following food and housing, accounting for 400m² per person (European Environment Agency, 2024). The fashion sector, encompassing the entire life cycle of its products, is particularly rapid, leading to significant trash generation in a brief period and contributing to 35% of the main microplastics released into the environment (Aponte et al., 2024). In 2015, 195 countries recognized unified strategic objectives for mitigating carbon emissions under the Climate Protection Agreement (Bee, 2020). As a result, a substantial rise in interest has been observed among consumers in eco-friendly products.

Regulatory Frameworks Across Key Jurisdictions

The fashion industry around the world is incredibly steadfast in sustainability, but at the same time,e there has been a rise in the incidents of greenwashing. Such incidents have led various countries to come up with certain laws and guidelines to combat this unethical trade practice. Such regulations are based on three important ideas, e.g. specificity, evidence, and integrity. The European Union is becoming the undisputed leader, building a strong legal wall that goes beyond reactive enforcement to proactive, standardized rules. ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD)’, which bans misleading business practices, is at the heart of its approach (“Unfair commercial practices directive,” 2005). A document which was released by the European Commission in 2021 made it unequivocal as to how UCPD should be used to publish any environmental claims. It stated that all claims must be correct, precise, explicit, and backed up by strong, certifiable scientific evidence. It also warned against vague, unqualified claims like ‘eco-friendly’. ‘The Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive’, which was passed in February 2024, bans fashion brands from making any unsubstantiated claims in the form of terms like ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘sustainable ‘ unless they can provide any concrete evidence to prove their claim (Bank, 2024). This EU directive is expected to be enforced on September 27, 2026. The Green Claims Directive, which was proposed in March 2023, also wanted to make a consistent, detailed way to prove claims. It said that companies had to do a full life-cycle assessment and show proof for every claim, with independent verification and a QR code for easy digital linking (Bank, 2024). However, this directive faced political criticisms that led to a temporary hold in June 2025. As of August 2025, there had been no final adoption, which leaves a gap in the originally envisioned directive. Progress is still being made through the Empowering Consumers Directive and existing UCPD enforcement. Therefore, such directives as well as legislative frameworks are being introduced to put the burden of proof firmly on the fashion brands.

The United States of America, alternatively, has a more decentralized and litigation-heavy legislative framework to deal with greenwashing (Lorance, 2010). Such a system is mostly regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and its Green Guides. The Green Guides are not laws, but these are proposals that elucidate how the FTC sees existing law under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits misleading advertisements (Rotman and David-Pennington, 2024). The strength of the FTC Act comes from the fact that its provisions give a comprehensive as well as claim-specific assistance. For example, explaining when a fashion product can be considered as ‘recyclable’ or ‘compostable’, etc.  The provisions largely empower the FTC to prevent any unfair methods of competition in the market. However, the effectiveness of such a law has remained debated because of the several ambiguities in its provisions. Likewise, because these provisions haven’t been updated since 2012, there are huge gaps, especially when it comes to terms like ‘sustainable’ or ‘natural’. This Act does not clearly define the meaning of such terms. As a result of the weak enforcement of the FTC Act, the FTC started reviewing its ‘Green Guides’ again in December 2022. As of August 2025, no changes have been made because the new administration has other things to focus on (Basila, 2024). Enforcement mostly happens after the fact, through FTC investigations and civil penalties, or through expensive private class-action lawsuits where consumers say they were tricked into buying something by false advertising. Several lawsuits have been filed against vendors for making ambiguous eco-claims about the sustainability of rayon or recycled polyester. The recent actions of the FTC comprise settling with big stores in 2024 and 2025 over false claims. It shows that the FTC is taking a tougher stance, especially on claims about ‘recyclability’ and carbon offsets (Qanbar, 2025). Therefore, the US laws and regulations are still a combination of federal guidance and state laws. It relies on the threat of enforcement actions and lawsuits instead of pre-existing legislative standardization.

If we talk about the United Kingdom, after Brexit, it is at a regulatory crossroads. The UK is still using a system that is similar to the one it had when it was part of the EU. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is the main enforcer of greenwashing law in the UK. It derives its powers from the ‘Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008’(Romata et al., 2023). One of the major steps of CMA in implementing the greenwashing law in the UK is publishing the ‘Green Claims Code’. The green claims code is based on principles similar to the UCPD guidance of the European Union (Feijao et al., 2021). This code states that environmental claims must be accurate, honest and must prove the authenticity of such claims, taking into consideration the full product lifecycle. The CMA has backed this code by thoroughly inspecting the fashion brands and launching investigations into their green claims (Nagode, 2023). They have also made changes to make sure that companies follow the rules. ‘The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, 2024’, which was enforced on January 1, 2025, as well as on April 6, 2025, entrusts the CMA with the power to levy fines, i.e. up to 10% of the global turnover of the fashion company involved for contravening consumer law (Borthwick et al., 2025). Within this Act, the CMA can exercise its powers without referring the case to the courts. This change from a litigation-based to an administrative penalty-based model implies that the UK is moving toward a sturdier, EU-style enforcement system. It also suggests that the UK may want to position itself as a leader in the fight against greenwashing, even though it is going in a different direction than some EU laws.

India has made a huge and proactive move in South Asia by becoming a regulatory leader in the developing world. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, released the ‘Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing or Misleading Environmental Claims, 2024’ on October 15, 2024, following a draft that was released in February 2024 (Kishwar et al., 2024). Within such guidelines, the CCPA has introduced the important notion of ‘comparative claims’, which means that any environmental benefit claimed must be explicated in terms that an average person could understand (Bhat and Mohanta, 2025). For instance, instead of saying that ‘a number of percentages of electricity’ has been saved while manufacturing a particular piece of cloth, they should say about the ‘units of electricity’ which were saved. The CCPA straightforwardly address the issue of carbon neutrality by requiring that any such claim be substantiated by clear and specific information about the carbon credits bought, their source, authenticity, and ownership (Kaur, 2024). As per the guidelines, the businesses should also make it clear what the difference is between offsetting and reducing the product’s actual emissions. The rules also follow a principle of totality, which means that companies have to make sure that any specific green claim about an attribute doesn’t give the wrong idea about the product’s overall environmental impact. For example, a small recycled thread can’t be used to suggest that a garment is completely ‘sustainable’. They also require a ‘reliability’ test, which means that all claims must be true for the entire life of the product and under normal use conditions. They also don’t allow the use of misleading visual elements, like green logos or pictures of nature, that could make it look like the product has an environmental credential. The Consumer Protection Act of 2019 gives the CCPA the power to punish violations with large fines (up to INR 10 lakh for first offences and INR 50 lakh for repeat offences) and even jail time for repeat offenders (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, 2025). This makes India’s enforcement mechanism, in principle, as good as the best ones in the world, but its effectiveness in practice will depend on consistent enforcement.

Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, both countries, are emerging as major fashion manufacturing hubs that are still in their early stages of developing their legal regulations with regard to textile manufacturing (Das and Hewalage, 2025). As of August 2025, their legal frameworks are generally based on broader consumer protection laws and are just guidelines rather than imposing any stricter penalties for making false fashion eco-claims. They don’t have any specific, legally binding rules against greenwashing. For example, Bangladesh’s main organization, the Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution (BSTI), is more concerned with product quality and safety standards than with marketing claims (Ala Uddin, 2025). However, the pressure from international brands and export markets, especially the EU and the USA, reveals that such pressure is compelling Bangladeshi manufacturers to adopt environmentally friendly processes and be more transparent about their eco-claims. This makes it so that local supply chains follow global standards even when there aren’t strict laws in place in the country. This means that the EU’s Empowering Consumers Directive has an effect on South Asian manufacturing even though it doesn’t have any laws in place.

Greenwashing and Consumer Protection Laws: A Jurisprudential Critique

Experience of the fashion industry with greenwashing law in various places around the globe reveals a fundamental conflict between the aspirational language of marketing and the legal requirement for certifiable truth.  Consumer protection law, which was originally meant to stop upfront deception, is now in charge of a much murkier area: the implied promise of ecological virtue. The European Union, the United States, and India all have different ideas about how to govern this space. The EU’s approach is to standardise truth ahead of time, while the US’s approach is to react to lawsuits, and India’s new guidelines are more declarative and paternalistic.

The EU’s approach is a kind of legal instrumentalism, which means that it uses the law as a proactive tool to build a green market that people can trust. If the Green Claims Directive, which was brought up in 2023 in the European Union, were to become law, it would go beyond punishing deceptive advertising as it proactively defines environmental integrity through standardised Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies (Riordan, 2024). Environmental integrity in the fashion sector means minimizing the adverse impact of textile manufacturing by adopting responsible sourcing, minimizing waste, reducing water usage as well as pollution and promoting recyclability of the textiles. This directive, therefore, puts a positivist legal framework on the subjective world of sustainability, making it conceivable for claims to be assessed in a legally binding way.  It puts all the responsibility on businesses to prove their claims, requiring that any green claim be verified by a third party and made available online before a product can even be sold. This is a social democratic idea in which the government shapes the market to protect the common good and make sure that consumers have a real ‘right to know’.

Alternatively, the United States of America runs on a model of consumer sovereignty that is driven by legal realism and adversarial litigation. The Green Guide launched by the FTC are not a law that must be trailed, but they do show how the agency plans to enforce them (Basila, 2024). There have been no amendments to it since 2012, despite a review that started in 2022. However, the Green Guides represent a robust protection of consumers against deceptive fashion eco-claims because it heavily penalizes the fashion companies through class-action lawsuits. This particular code is in tune with the neoliberal idea that lawsuits and pecuniary damages act effectively in order to check the deceptive marketing of fashion articles. But this system naturally favors going after giant, wealthy brands and claims that are clearly false instead of just vague ones. It also acts as a minimalist state approach that inflicting the fashion brands from litigation will deter them from making any false environmental claims. This often fails to address more subtle forms of greenwashing because it is hard to win a lawsuit.

‘Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing or Misleading Environmental Claims, 2024’ in India depicts that the government is taking a strong stand against false eco-claims in the fashion sector (Kishwar et al., 2024). These guidelines are based on the Consumer Protection Act of 2019. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) is the state’s way of saying that it is a protector. The guidelines are strong because they make specific rules against things like ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘green’ claims that aren’t true, require clear information about whether a claim applies to the product or just its packaging, and check the use of green imagery (like leaves or earth tones) that might suggest a false virtue. This is not the EU’s way of making the truth, but a sovereign claim of power to make the story easier to understand and keep people from being manipulated. Therefore, it links consumer law directly to social justice.

 Important Case Laws in Fashion Greenwashing

1.  Abraham Lizama, et al. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP: 

H&M’s ‘Conscious Choice’ collection purportedly comprises clothing manufactured from eco-friendly materials. However, H&M’s claim is false, as alleged by the plaintiff in this class action lawsuit (Shendruk, 2022). The plaintiffs said that the environmental scorecards that came with products (like ‘This garment is made with 20% less water’) were misleading because they were based on an internal, undefined benchmark instead of a standard that could be checked by the industry (Rizzi, 2022). The suit claimed that this was not just a harmless lie, but a planned ‘marketing ploy’ to justify high prices and attract environmentally conscious customers. The court threw out the case in May 2023, saying that the relative claims (like more sustainable) were not inherently misleading. This case directly questioned the legality of self-defined, relative claims, which are the very basis of fashion greenwashing. The dismissal set a precedent that internal, comparative data can suffice if not outright false, but it has spurred calls for stricter external standards, influencing how brands approach substantiation in ongoing regulatory discussions.

1. Dwyer v. Allbirds Inc.: 

In this class-action lawsuit, Allbirds deceived consumers by making a false claim stating that its ZQ-certified merino wool shoes were ‘sustainable’ without disclosing the complete details about the full product lifecycle and manufacturing process (Shaak, 2022). It was upheld that the eco-claims of the subject brand were found to be false. In June 2022, the case was thrown out.

This case got to the bottom of the philosophical issue of greenwashing- is there really a product that can be called ‘sustainable’?  It made the law think about whether broad, absolute claims can ever be proven true or if they are always false advertising.  The dismissal exposed how important it is to use an unambiguous terminology as required under EU guidelines. It also displayed how the inclination is moving away from broader terms and toward specific, certifiable traits such as ethically sourced wool or grazed on regenerative land. In 2022, the Competition and Markets Authority of the UK started examining ASOS, Boohoo, and Asda (including George at Asda) for potentially making dishonest claims about being ecologically friendly. This could have led consumers to have confidence that those products were better for the environment without any obvious proof (Neate and Butler, 2022). The enquiry ended in March 2024 with no monetary penalty. Later on, the companies signed an agreement to make their environmental claims explicit. In this suit, the CMA acted as a watchdog on its own, contrasting the US litigation model. This suit makes it clear that regulators are not merely scrutinising the product tags but are meticulously examining the whole digital marketing process that fashion brands employ to advertise the eco-friendly nature of their products.

Conclusion

The evolution of a legal regime to deal with greenwashing in the fashion industry marks an end to the time when people could make deceptive environmental claims. The preventive standardization approach of the European Union through its regulations like the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Empowering Consumers Directive, the litigious enforcement through the Green Guides and class-action lawsuits in the USA, and the proactive investigations by the Competition and Markets Authority in the UK, are creating a multi-faceted response to the complex issue of greenwashing.  The ‘Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing or Misleading Environmental Claims, 2024’, formulated by CCPA in India, is a commendable move (“Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022,” 2022). It displays how India is coming out as a regulatory leader in the Global South. However, there is a long way to go to convert these guidelines enacted in various parts of the world into a stricter law against greenwashing. Especially for India, in order to reach its full potential, it requires moving beyond basic guidelines and creating a comprehensive code to penalize the phenomenon like greenwashing. The Bureau of Indian Standards and the CCPA could work together to create such a set of standards to deal with deception in fashion marketing. This would ensure that the brands follow a verifiable system of measurement instead of skewed marketing. Enforcement should become a multi-stakeholder ecosystem, with dedicated technical teams strengthening the CCPA and encouraging consumer groups and NGOs to file representative lawsuits under the Consumer Protection Act. This will promote shared vigilance. A centralized digital portal for the public to report false fashion claims would make the market more accountable.

India’s strategy should introduce sterner punishments for deceptive marketing, with the possibility of imprisonment for recurrence of misleading claims by the fashion brands. However, a government-recognised seal for claims verified by accredited third parties could help real, sustainable brands and build trust among consumers.  Global South nations like India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, which are emerging as a major manufacturing epicentre in the world, need to make sure that their legal framework supports smaller producers to meet global standards by giving them access to clean technologies and compliance advice. This would ensure verified sustainable manufacturingas a high-value export.  These countries should bring up a new enforcement model that protects consumers, permits ethical trade, and makes greenwashing law a global standard for environmental integrity by combining the rigorous standards of the EU, the market-driven accountability from the USA, and the proactive oversight of the UK. This may convert the promise of sustainable fashion into a reality.

References:

1) “Green claims” (2025) European Commission. Available at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/green-claims_en (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

2) “Response: Charging Markets (Letter from Charging Markets to UK Government)” (2021) Changing Markets Foundation. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63d01a3fe90e071ba1c26828/Changing_Markets_response.pdf (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

3) “Unfair commercial practices directive” (2005) European Commission. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-protection-law/unfair-commercial-practices-and-price-indication/unfair-commercial-practices-directive_en (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

4) “What is the UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion?” (no date) UN Alliance for Sustainable Fashion. Available at: https://unfashionalliance.org/ (Accessed: September 2, 2025).

5) Ala Uddin, M. (2025) “Consumer Justice in Bangladesh: An Insight into the Efficacy of the Consumer Rights Protection Act,” Human Rights Law Review, 4(4), pp. 491–512.

6) ASCI (2024) “Greenwashing No More: ASCI Introduces Guidelines to Ensure Honest Environmental Claims in Advertisements (PRESS RELEASE).” Available at: https://www.ascionline.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/PR-Guidelines-for-Enviormental-Green-Claims-Final.pdf (Accessed: March 27, 2024).

7) ASCI (2024) “Guidelines for Advertisements Making Environmental/ Green Claims.” Available at: https://www.ascionline.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Guidelines-for-Advertisements-Making-Environmental-Green-Claims.pdf (Accessed: March 27, 2024).

8) Bailey, K., Basu, A. and Sharma, S. (2025) “The Environmental Impacts of Fast Fashion on Water Quality: A Systematic Review,” Water, 14(7), p. 1073.

9) Bank, E. (2024) “Fashion’s Greenwashing Problem and How to Better Protect Consumers,” Rutgers University Law Review Comments, 76, pp. 125–142.

10)   Basila, S. (2024) “The FTC Green Guides and Recyclability,” The Regulatory Review. Available at: https://www.theregreview.org/2024/12/01/basila-the-ftc-green-guides-and-recyclability/ (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

11)   Beard, N.D. (2008) “The Branding of Ethical Fashion and the Consumer: A Luxury Niche or Mass-market Reality?,” Fashion Theory, 12(4), pp. 447–467.

12)   Bee, R.J. (2020) “Climate change and the global order,” Foreign Policy Association, pp. 7–18. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27161563.

13)   Bender, J. (2011) The Ins and Outs of Corporate Greenwashing. Master’s Theses. Fordham University.

14)   Bhat, S. and Mohanta, J. (2025) “Greenwashing law: A fresh start for green consumerism,” Bar and Bench. Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/columns/greenwashing-law-a-fresh-start-for-green-consumerism (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

15)   Bildirici, M., Türkkahraman, I., and Ömer Ersin, Ö. (2025) “Unraveling the Environmental Impacts of the Fashion Industry: A Fourier-Based Analysis of Pollution Dynamics and Causality Across Five Countries,” Sustainability, 17(1), p. 69.

16)   Borthwick, A., Jurkiw, A., Daun, S., Ferguson, V. (2025) “Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 explained: The CMA’s new enforcement toolkit,” Womble Bond Dickinson. Available at: https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/insights/articles-and-briefings/digital-markets-competition-and-consumers-act-2024-explained-cmas (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

17)   Brinquis, B.F. (2023) Examining Greenwashing In H&M´S Environmental Green Advertising on Instagram. Master’s Theses. Tampere University.

18)   Centobelli, P., Abbate, S., Nadeem, S.P., Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2022) “Slowing the fast fashion industry: An all-round perspective,” Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 38, p. 100684.

19)   Chandana S (2025) “Beyond fast fashion: How India can turn textile waste into a sustainable future,” India Today. Available at: https://www.indiatoday.in/environment/story/fast-fashion-slow-fashion-circular-economy-textile-waste-textile-pollution-2702866-2025-04-03 (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

20)   Chen, X., Memon, H.A., Wang, Y., Marriam, I. and Tebyetekerwa, M. (2021) “Circular Economy and Sustainability of the Clothing and Textile Industry,” Materials Circular Economy, 3(1), p. 12.

21)   Cho, E., Fiore, A.M. and Russell, D.W. (2014) “Validation of a Fashion Brand Image Scale Capturing Cognitive, Sensory, and Affective Associations: Testing Its Role in an Extended Brand Equity Model,” Psychology & Marketing, Wiley Online Library, 32(1), pp. 28–48.

22)   Das, S. and Hewalage, H.S.D.D.L. (2025) Enhancing Circularity in the Textile and Apparel Industry: Current Practices, Challenges and Opportunities from Manufacturers’ Perspective. Master’s Theses. The Swedish School of Textiles, University of Borås.

23)   de Freitas Netto, S.V., Sobral, M.F.F., Ribeiro, A.R.B. (2020) “Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review,” Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(19).

24)   Ekinci, Y., Dam, S. and Buckle, G. (2025) “The Dark Side of Social Media Influencers: A Research Agenda for Analysing Deceptive Practices and Regulatory Challenges,” Psychology & Marketing, Wiley Online Library, 42(4), pp. 1201–1214.

25)   European Environment Agency (2024) “Land use in the upstream supply chain of EU-27 household consumption domains, million km2, 2020,” European Environment Agency. Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/land-use-in-the-upstream (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

26)   Feijao, S., Havard-Williams, V. and Barrett, R. (2021) “UK CMA publishes Green Claims Code to combat ‘greenwashing,’” Linklaters. Available at: https://sustainablefutures.linklaters.com/post/102h6ul/uk-cma-publishes-green-claims-code-to-combat-greenwashing (Accessed: August 3, 2025).

27)   Gonçalves, A., and Silva, C. (2021) “Looking for Sustainability Scoring in Apparel: A Review on Environmental Footprint, Social Impacts and Transparency,” Energies, 14(11), p. 3032.

28)   Jaju, A. (2016) A study of the Impact of Green Marketing on Consumer Purchasing Patterns and Decision Making in Telangana, India. Master’s Theses. National College of Ireland.

29)   Kaur, A. (2024) “Pre-Requisite Caveats – CCPA Ring-Fences Greenwashing and Misleading Environmental Claims,” Khaitan & Co. Available at: https://www.khaitanco.com/thought-leaderships/Pre-Requisite-Caveats-CCPA-Ring-Fences-Greenwashing-and-Misleading-Environmental-Claims (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

30)   Kishwar, S.D., Saraswat, V., and Agarwal, R. (2024) “Exploring the True Shade of Green: A Critical Examination of the Central Consumer Protection Authority’s Guidelines on Corporate Greenwashing,” International Journal on Consumer Law and Practice, 12(3), pp. 1–23.

31)   Kounina, A., Daystar, J., Chalumeau, S. (2024) “The global apparel industry is a significant yet overlooked source of plastic leakage,” Nature communications, 15(1), p. 5022.

32)   Lorance, A. (2010) “An Assessment of U.S. Responses to Greenwashing and Proposals to Improve Enforcement,” Hofstra Law Student Works, 3, pp. 1–25.

33)   Maysonnave, A. and Delorme, N. (2013) Deceptive Advertising and Consumers’ Reactions. Doctoral Thesis. Halmstad University.

34)   Midha, A., Midha, S., and Mathur, Sanjeela. (2013) “Buying Behaviour of Consumers towards Green Buildings in Delhi-NCR,” Gian Jyoti E-Journal, 3(3), pp. 1–9.

35)   Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (2025) “Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) imposes penalty of Rs 10 Lakh on Rapido-online ride hailing platform for misleading advertisement,” PIB Delhi. Available at: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2158830 (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

36)   Mu, H. and Lee, Y. (2023) “Greenwashing in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Dual-Faceted Analysis of Its Impact on Employee Trust and Identification,” Sustainability, 15(22), p. 15693.

37)   Nagode, D. (2023) “Sense and Sustainability: Is the new Green Claims Directive going to advance the cause of green consumerism?” European Law Blog. Available at: https://www.europeanlawblog.eu/pub/sense-and-sustainability-is-the-new-green-claims-directive-going-to-advance-the-cause-of-green-consumerism/release/1 (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

38)   Neate, R. and Butler, S. (2022) “Asos, Boohoo and George at Asda investigated over eco-friendly claims,” The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/29/asos-boohoo-george-at-asda-investigated-over-eco-friendly-claims-sustainability (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

39)   Olivar Aponte, N., Hernández Gómez, J., Torres Argüelles, V., & Smith, E. D. (2024) “Fast fashion consumption and its environmental impact: a literature review,” Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 20(1).

40)   Qanbar, Y. (2025) “Made in USA Lawsuits Surge in 2025: FTC Enforcement and Class Actions Target False Labeling,” Rain Intelligence. Available at: https://www.rainintelligence.com/blog/made-in-usa-lawsuits-2025 (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

41)   Riches, A. (2022) “The Fashion Industry Is Not As ‘Green’ As It Would Like You to Believe,” Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, 33(1), pp. 83–111.

42)   Riordan, E.O. (2024) “All You Need to Know About the EU’s New Greenwashing Directive,” Earth. Org. Available at: https://earth.org/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-eus-new-greenwashing-directive/ (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

43)   Rizzi, C. (2022) “‘Greenwashing’ Class Action Alleges H&M Sustainability Profiles Contain ‘Falsified Information,’” ClassAction.Org. Available at: https://www.classaction.org/news/greenwashing-class-action-alleges-handm-sustainability-profiles-contain-falsified-information (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

44)   Romata, Z., Abrahams, D. and Gillett, T. (2023) “Greenwashing Claims in the UK: Greater Enforcement and Higher Penalties,” Steptoe. Available at: https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/greenwashing-claims-in-the-uk-greater-enforcement-and-higher-penalties.html (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

45)   Rotman, R.M. and David-Pennington, A. (2024) “Truth in Advertising for Environmental Sustainability,” UC Law Environmental Journal, 31(1), pp. 94–123.

46)   Russell, C.A. and Parguel, B. (2015) “Can Nature-Evoking Elements in Advertising Greenwash Consumers? The Power of ‘Executional Greenwashing,” International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), pp. 107–134. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.996116.

47)   Shaak, E. (2022a) “Class Action: Wool Shoe Manufacturer Allbirds Misled Consumers with Sustainability, Animal Welfare Claims,” ClassAction.Org. Available at: https://www.classaction.org/blog/class-action-wool-shoe-manufacturer-allbirds-misled-consumers-with-sustainability-animal-welfare-claims (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

48)   Shendruk, A. (2022) “USA: H&M faces ‘greenwashing’ class-action lawsuit over alleged misleading & false marketing of ‘sustainable’ clothing line,” Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Available at: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/usa-hm-faces-greenwashing-class-action-lawsuit-over-alleged-misleading-false-marketing-of-sustainable-clothing-line/ (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

49)   Trunk, U., Harding-Rolls, G., Banegas, X., Urbancic, N. and Nguyen, A. (2023) “Synthetics Anonymous Fashion Brands’ addiction to fossil fuels,” Changing Markets. Available at: https://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CM-Synthetics-Anonymous-online-format.pdf (Accessed: September 3, 2025).

50)   Ummar, R., Shaheen, K., Bashir, I., Ul Haq, J., & Bonn, M. A. (2023) “Green Social Media Campaigns: Influencing Consumers’ Attitudes and Behaviors,” Sustainability, 15(17), p. 12932.

Author: Saumya Verma 

The post The Law Behind the Label: Enforcing Truth in Eco-Claims in Fashion Marketing appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Tracing the Threads: From Runway to Folk Roots

In 2012, Andrea Tanasescu founded the online community La Blouse Roumaine Ia Association, dedicated to showcasing the modernity of Romanian fashion and its deep cultural connection to its heritage. In early June 2024, members began reporting that Louis Vuitton had seemingly replicated the design and style of traditional clothing from the Oltenia and Muntenia regions of Transylvania.

A comparison posted on La Blouse Roumaine’s Facebook page revealed a striking resemblance between a piece in Louis Vuitton’s collection and a blouse from the Marginimea Sibiului region, an ethnographic area in southern Sibiu County.

Through a series of online posts, La Blouse Roumaine community called on Louis Vuitton to withdraw the products, emphasising that folk costumes are more than clothing, they are living witnesses to a culture’s history and should not be used without consent. Following these appeals, even the Romanian Ministry of Culture reached out to the fashion house, requesting formal acknowledgement of the heritage and cultural value of the garment. On June 25, 2024, La Blouse Roumaine announced via Instagram, that Louis Vuitton had recognised the issue, apologised, and withdrawn the pieces inspired by the traditional Romanian ia from its 2024 beach collection. 

Although the matter never reached the courts, it provides an instructive opportunity to examine the legal dimensions of protecting folklore. 

The Essence of Folklore

Because folklore is highly diverse, it is difficult to find a general definition acceptable to everyone. According to UNESCO’s recommendation, folklore (also known as traditional cultural expression) is the totality of the tradition-based creations of a cultural community. It can be expressed by individuals or groups, and it reflects the community’s cultural and social identity. Its patterns and values are mostly passed down and spread through oral tradition and imitation. Its genres, among others, include language, literature, music, dance, rituals, customs, handicrafts, architecture, arts, costumes, and clothing.

So here comes the big question: who owns the IP rights to folk costumes?

Folklore Protection at the Crossroads of Heritage and IP Law

In the case of folklore, protection can be approached in two ways. From a cultural heritage point of view, protection means identification, preservation, and protection from disappearance. In contrast, from an intellectual property perspective, protection means something else; it is about providing legal protection against unauthorized, abusive use that could exploit the right holders, the communities behind these traditions.

Interestingly, the UN Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples combines both ideas. Article 11 declares the right of indigenous peoples to practice and revitalise their cultural traditions and customs. This includes, for example, the right to maintain, protect, develop, and express their designs and visual arts, not only from the past, but also in the present and the future. When it comes to intellectual property, Article 31 is particularly important. It states that traditional cultural expressions should be maintained, controlled, protected, and developed. However, there is one big limitation: this declaration is what we call soft law. In other words, it is more of a recommendation than a binding legal rule, therefore it has no actual legal force. 

The issue of the protection of folklore under the Berne Convention has repeatedly appeared on the international agenda since the 1967 Stockholm revision, which included a provision (Article 15(4)) said to settle this issue. Since then, several developing countries, mainly in Africa, have provided in their statutory law for “copyright” protection on folklore. Yet, despite these efforts, it seems that copyright is not the right means for protecting expressions of folklore…

Folklore at the Edge of Copyright Law

Among the various mechanisms available under intellectual property law, copyright often appears to be the most suitable for protecting folklore. This article, therefore, turns to the question at the heart of the debate: can copyright protect traditional cultural expressions? To explore this, it requires an examination of both the advantages and the challenges. Let’s look at both sides.

Copyright is actually quite flexible. It can cover many different forms of creativity, just like folklore does. Unlike some legal tools, it does not always require works to be written down or fixed in a tangible form. That means even practices such as rituals, dances, or ceremonies could, in theory, be protected. 

Another advantage is the set of moral rights it gives. For example, the publication of the work, the right to be designated as the author, or the right to integrity. Applied to folklore, this could help communities make sure their traditions are respected and not used in an offensive way.

However, there are also several difficulties in legal protection. The biggest drawback is the authorship. Copyright always needs a clear author, but folklore was created by communities over centuries. We simply do not know who the original “author” was, and when the work was created, so it does not fit into the individualistic system of copyrights. Even so, if a fashion designer creates an original garment that is inspired by traditional clothing or folk motifs, they may still be entitled to copyright protection.

Another problem is originality. Copyright protects works that have an individual and original nature. But many traditional expressions are ancient, shaped by generations, and do not meet this requirement anymore; therefore, they cannot be protected. 

The limited duration of copyright protection can be a serious obstacle to its enforcement. Copyright protection usually lasts for 50 to 70 years from the first day of the year following the death of the author, the creation or the publication of the work. On the other hand, folklore is timeless, and it does not have an expiry date. When the term of protection expires, works fall into the public domain, and anyone can use them freely, which, in the case of folklore,e often leads to cultural globalization and the loss of diversity. 

Finally, there is the problem of derivative works. If someone takes a traditional motif and turns it into something new, that new version can get copyright protection. This means that even someone from a completely different cultural background could obtain legal protection over something rooted in another community’s tradition. 

Bringing Together the Threads: Balancing Law and Heritage

The question of protecting folk art often comes up whenever a fashion designer bases a collection on traditional costumes. But do we really need to give folklore legal protection? This topic divides even the experts.

One argument against it is that strict protection could limit creativity. If designers are not allowed to use folk motifs freely, they might not be able to give them a fresh, modern twist. At the same time, there is no doubt that global brands can help introduce the art of a region or ethnic group to the wider world. For example, Dolce & Gabbana presented a Mexico-inspired capsule collection, and Yves Saint Laurent’s iconic Africa collection is also worth mentioning here, where traditional culture inspired something new. 

The problem is that often the people who enjoy protection over folklore have no connection to the communities that created it. One possible solution is what La Blouse Roumaine has long advocated: naming the source. That means the community of origin should be recognised, ensuring that their cultural interests are respected while still allowing designers to be inspired. 

To sum up, folklore inspires, enriches, and connects us. But it also deserves respect, and maybe, the best way to protect it is not always through strict legal rules, but through recognition, transparency, and fairness.

Author: Dr. Kata Zsófia Prém

Dr. Kata Zsófia Prém is a PhD candidate at the University of Miskolc, Deák Ferenc Doctoral School of Law. Her research focuses on Intellectual Property Law, particularly copyright originality in fashion products. Her academic interests also encompass trademarks, designs, and various aspects of Fashion Law. She obtained her law degree in 2022. Fashion is her passion, and in her free time, she loves reading, baking, traveling, and spending quality time with her family and friends.

The post Borrowed Threads – How Louis Vuitton Sparked a Romanian Folk Heritage Storm appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

It is the fashion industry’s open secret that new, unworn items are often shredded, burned, or dumped in landfills. The difference from general textile waste, which is harmful but often necessary in the production process, is that deadstock refers to unsold and returned goods that are destroyed before use. While one might think this is just a problem of fast fashion, luxury brands have also been called out for the same issue, and for a long time, this was both legal and largely invisible. Now, the law is finally catching up and drawing a line.

How big is the problem?

There are three main reasons why brands destroy clothes instead of taking alternative measures. The first is to protect exclusivity and brand image. This is especially true for luxury brands that do not have the option of putting unsold items up for sale. By destroying goods instead of selling them at a lower price, luxury brands maintain their ‘premium’ image, and also prevent their items from going to an ‘undeserving’ non-target audience. Even if the brand is not luxury, keeping prices within a price range is a crucial part of brand control. Secondly, keeping items in storage can lead to grey market and counterfeits. Because deadstock items are new, they can leak into and be sold in secondary markets-also called the grey market- where there is no quality control or brand oversight. Leaked items can also be the starting point for counterfeit production, meaning that deadstock left in warehouses or liquidation channels is vulnerable to both risks. The final reason is that it’s simply more economical. Keeping items requires storage fees, and if the brand were to resell said items, it would require additional costs in repackaging, repairing, and reselling. On the other hand, destruction contracts are less costly and more predictable in large batches- as opposed to storage fees that increase based on volume and time. For high-volume sellers, destruction is often the “smartest” choice.

On top of all the reasons to destroy deadstock, e-commerce’s generous return policies are only fueling the problem. E-commerce return rates reach over 20%, and are even higher for categories like eveningwear and athleisure. Many customers return garments after wearing them once for social media, causing hygiene seals or packaging to be broken, makeup, deodorant, and perfume marks on clothes, or just simply broken and in need of repair, steaming, or reprocessing. Such unsellable goods directly intensify deadstock creation, resulting in most returns being destroyed, not resold.

According to the 2024 EEA/ETC report, approximately 7% of all textiles placed on the EU market are destroyed before use, amounting to 264,000 to 594,000 tons per year. As for returned goods, up to one-third of returns are destroyed. This isn’t just a problem for clothing; shoes, accessories, mixed textile goods, as well as jewellery and perfume, are getting destroyed too. These figures make clear that deadstock destruction is a systemic issue, not a niche practice.

Deadstock destruction has become a problem in numerous cases, from luxury brands like Burberry to fast-fashion brands like H&M. In 2018, Burberry faced significant backlash for burning up to 28.6 million euros of unsold stock to “protect brand value”. Although the practice was legal, the reputational fallout was severe, urging Burberry to announce internal changes that would end the destruction of unsold goods. Amazon, an e-commerce site known for its generous return policies, underwent an investigation in 2021 for an alleged “millions” of unsold or returned items being destroyed yearly. While Amazon denied wrongdoing, the public pushed them to pledge expansion of donation and recycling programs. This case highlighted how high return rates can lead to massive destruction, even on platforms not traditionally associated with fashion. Investigations in Europe have shown that major fast-fashion brands are also routinely sending unsold goods to incineration plants or exporting them to countries with landfills. NGOs and journalists have traced tons of unworn clothing from Europe to countries like Ghana, Kenya, and Chile.

While none of these cases led to legal lawsuits, they sparked moral outrage and media debates, often leading to internal policy changes and constantly raising customer awareness on the issue.

The law wakes up

Until recently, destroying deadstock goods was perfectly legal under property law logic: brands own the goods, so they are free to destroy them. It was difficult to prove the destruction was causing direct consumer harm because environmental damage was considered too diffuse to attribute to a single actor. As a result, destruction was legal and unregulated.

However, the landscape is now changing. The EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) is one prime example of an environmental law affecting fashion, implementing a ban on destroying unsold textiles and footwear, along with mandatory reporting requirements. The ESPR aims to impose eco-design requirements on the entirety of the production and disposal process, ensuring product function and quality while also reducing environmental damage. Once the regulations take effect, textiles will be among the first product groups to be regulated and will require a DPP (Digital Product Passport) to be sold.

France’s Anti-Waste Law for a Circular Economy (AGEC, Anti-Gaspillage pour une Economie Circulaire) aims to transform the cycle of production, consumption, and waste into a more sustainable circular economy. The law consists of five main areas: moving away from disposable plastic, better informing consumers, fighting against waste and for reuse, taking action against planned obsolescence, and producing better. This means that the fashion industry is prohibited from destroying clothes and requires them to donate, reuse, or recycle instead.

Overall, the EU and several national governments are moving towards Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems, making brands financially and legally responsible for the entire lifecycle of their products. This makes deadstock destruction economically unattractive and lawfully risky.

These regulations and laws collectively shift deadstock destruction from “a cost of doing business” to a potential violation, urging businesses to come up with new, better solutions.

What this means for fashion’s future

Now that brands cannot rely on destruction as the easy, cost-effective solution, they will have to rethink realistic measures on:

• Overproduction levels
• Discounting and outlet strategies
• Inventory forecasting and supply chain planning
• Investment in recycling/repair/take-back programs
• Resale/rental infrastructure

The industry is already showing signs of change, with more brands investing in textile-to-textile recycling, launching repair programs, and exploring controlled resale. But this does not mean the end of fashion-related environmental problems, for new solutions bring about newer problems, from greenwashing to (another example).

Deadstock destruction has been a long-time secret of the fashion industry. Now, with new laws and increased public interest, the question is no longer “do brands destroy unsold goods?” but “what systems will replace destruction, and do they come with their own problems?”

Author: Sunwoo Kang

Sunwoo Kang studies Fashion & Textiles and Business Administration at Seoul National University. She is interested in the intersections of fashion, law, and finance- particularly how creative industries operate within the systems of regulation and capital. Having worked in finance and as a content creator, she developed a deeper interest in the structure surrounding the fashion ecosystem. Outside of academics, she enjoys curating fashion archives and exploring fashion trends and predictions.

The post Deadstock Destruction: Why Fashion Keeps Destroying Unsold Goods appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.