Introduction

On 16 May 2026, Audemars Piguet (“AP”), one of Swiss horology’s most fiercely independent luxury houses, launched the “Royal Pop,” an eight-piece bio ceramic pocket watch collection produced in collaboration with the Swatch Group. The launch is simultaneously a marketing masterstroke and a jurisprudential event. It arrives at the precise moment that AP’s decade-long campaign to register the three-dimensional configuration of its iconic Royal Oak as a protectable trademark has collapsed across three jurisdictions, the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the Japan Patent Office and its IP High Court, and the Court of Milan. This article argues that the Royal Pop is not merely a commercial collaboration; it is a deliberate strategic response to the failure of formal IP protection, deploying cross-segment licensing as a substitute for registration and a new trademark architecture as a defensive instrument.

The Royal Oak as IP Asset: Design History

In 1972, AP’s managing director Georges Golay commissioned Gérald Genta, the pre-eminent freelance watch designer of the era, to sketch a luxury steel sports watch overnight, for presentation at the Basel Watch Fair the following morning. [1]The result was the Royal Oak, an octagonal bezel secured by eight exposed hexagonal gold screws, inspired by the brass helmets of Swiss deep-sea divers, integrated into a seamless tapered steel bracelet. Launched at 3,300 Swiss francs, more expensive than a contemporary gold Patek Philippe, the Royal Oak initially baffled the market. Over the following decade, it established an entirely new product category of the luxury sports watch.[2]

A structural tension shapes the design’s IP significance. The Royal Oak is the creation of an identifiable author, sketched in one evening; it has an undeniable artistic personality. Yet Genta’s inspirational sources were explicitly functional. Exposed screws replicate the structural necessity of sealing a diver’s helmet; the octagonal form echoes naval porthole geometry. This tension between artistic originality and functional referentiality would prove legally fatal to AP’s registration campaign.

Genta compounded the problem by designing cognate vocabulary for competitors. The Patek Philippe Nautilus (1976), the IWC Ingenieur SL (1976), and the Cartier Pasha (1985) all deploy integrated bracelets, geometric bezels, and exposed architectural hardware.[3] The result is a crowded field in which no single manufacturer can credibly argue that the design grammar of the luxury sports watch uniquely identifies its source.

The Multi-Jurisdictional IP Collapse

When examining the jurisdictional record, it is necessary to establish the doctrinal standard that governed each proceeding, a standard that Indian trademark law articulates with particular clarity and that is directly relevant to the comparative analysis this article undertakes. Under Sections 9 and 32 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a product’s shape cannot be treated as inherently distinctive. It requires proof of acquired distinctiveness through long and exclusive use before it is eligible for registration. The Delhi High Court stated this principle with precision in Knitpro International v. Examiner of Trade Marks (2022)[4], holding that a shape mark must be immediately identifiable with the source of the product by itself, without any accompanying name or logo, and that only shapes which consumers have come genuinely to read as identifying a particular legal entity, rather than as a functional or ornamental feature of the product category, can qualify as trademarks. The court was explicit that generic or functional shapes, however familiar to consumers, cannot serve as source identifiers. The earlier decision in M.R.F. Limited v. Metro Tyres Limited (1990) [5]shows the same court acknowledging the doctrine’s obverse: a distinctive tyre tread pattern had, through sustained and exclusive use, moved sufficiently beyond mere functionality to signal a specific commercial origin in the consumer’s mind, and on that basis warranted protection. Together, these decisions draw the line that every jurisdiction has consistently applied to the Royal Oak’s design, a shape that is generic, functional, or associated in consumer perception with a word mark rather than with the configuration itself will not cross the threshold; a shape that consumers have genuinely learned to read as a brand signal, independent of any textual accompaniment, can. It is against this standard, consistent across the U.S., Japan, Italy, and India, that AP’s multi-jurisdictional record must be assessed.

United States: TTAB (2025)

AP filed two USPTO applications seeking registration of the Royal Oak’s three-dimensional configuration, encompassing the watch face, octagonal bezel, eight hexagonal screws, case, and integrated bracelet. The examiner refused both on grounds of functionality and absence of acquired distinctiveness. Rather than narrowing its claims to the bezel and screwheads, the elements the USPTO found potentially distinctive, AP appealed to the TTAB, seeking protection for the full design system as a unitary mark. In a decision of 2 January 2025, subsequently incorporated into the USPTO’s Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) update of June 2025, the TTAB affirmed the refusal on both grounds.[6] The functionality analysis found that round watch faces are utility-driven and ubiquitous. The distinctiveness analysis delivered the more damaging blow. AP’s own advertising systematically foregrounded the “Audemars Piguet” and “AP” word marks alongside product images, meaning consumers associated the design with a word mark and not the design configuration itself. The TTAB further noted that AP’s catalogues feature Royal Oak variants that lack one or more claimed design elements, thereby precluding proof of a consistent unitary mark.

B. Japan: JPO and IP High Court (2020–2024)

AP filed a Japanese trademark application for the Royal Oak shape in February 2020. The JPO examiner rejected it under Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law as lacking inherent distinctiveness because the design fell within customary wristwatch shapes. The JPO Appeal Board affirmed in June 2023 and additionally found AP’s secondary-meaning evidence insufficient. Only eleven official stores in Japan, no market share data, and publications that invariably paired the Royal Oak with its word mark. AP’s suit before the Japan IP High Court was dismissed on 28 March 2024.[7] In a separate proceeding decided in October 2024, the JPO dismissed AP’s opposition to registration of the word mark “ROYAL OAK” by a Japanese whisky maker, finding insufficient general consumer recognition, illustrating the limits of an IP strategy that had never penetrated mass-market consciousness.[8]

C. Italy: Court of Milan (2015)

The erosion of AP’s IP position predates these proceedings. In March 2015, the Milan Business Court rejected AP’s preliminary injunction against a domestic start-up selling a Royal Oak-influenced steel sports watch at approximately €150.[9] The Court found that the individual design elements, octagonal bezel, exposed screws, and integrated case form were common across the industry and thus lacked the particularised distinctiveness required for interim relief. The Court notably held that AP’s extreme price-point separation (€20,000 versus €150) did not automatically establish the distinctiveness necessary to ground a trade dress claim.

The Royal Pop: Strategic Mechanics

The Royal Pop’s IP architecture was assembled over two years in deliberate sequence. On 15 January 2024, Swatch AG filed “ROYAL POP” as a Swiss trademark in Class 14.[10] On 28 March 2024, the Japan IP High Court dismissed AP’s design appeal. On 18 June 2024, Swatch filed the mark internationally under the Madrid Protocol. On 17 December 2024, the U.S. registration was confirmed. On 2 January 2025, the TTAB published its refusal of AP’s configuration marks. The Royal Pop launched on 16 May 2026. The sequence is consistent with a collaboration conceived precisely as AP’s IP position collapsed, using it to generate new registered trademark rights (“ROYAL POP”) that AP could not obtain for the design elements themselves.

The commercial structure reinforces this reading. AP confirmed that 100% of its proceeds from the collaboration will flow directly to a non-profit initiative to preserve watchmaking savoir-faire, funding training for the next generation of Swiss horological craftspeople. This commitment neutralises the narrative of brand dilution. AP cannot be characterised as selling its design language for profit, and converts the collaboration from a revenue play into a philanthropic instrument. Industry analysts estimate the royalty pool at CHF 25–50 million based on MoonSwatch volume comparisons; AP has declined to retain a single franc of it.

The pocket watch format is equally deliberate. The Royal Oak’s identity is inseparable from the wristwatch format; a pocket watch wearing Royal Oak design elements occupies a categorically different product space, preventing any product-line confusion between the Royal Pop and the luxury original. It borrows the design vocabulary of the Royal Oak without replicating its category, a form of controlled artistic quotation that declares its own secondary status while requiring recognition of the original for legibility. This is an IP strategy through product architecture rather than registration.

The Royal Pop’s most underappreciated legal risk, however, lies not in what it says but in how it is structured. Secondary meaning in trademark law is not a free-floating asset; it attaches to a specific applicant. For AP to successfully re-file for protection over the Royal Oak’s design configuration, it must demonstrate that the relevant consuming public associates the octagonal bezel, the eight hexagonal screws, and the tapisserie pattern with Audemars Piguet as a single, identifiable source, not with watches generally, and critically, not with Swatch. The Royal Pop’s distribution architecture makes this genuinely difficult. The collaboration is retailed exclusively through Swatch boutiques; every consumer touchpoint, the retail environment, the packaging, the sales staff, and the store’s brand identity is Swatch. Over hundreds of thousands of transactions, this architecture builds an association between the Royal Oak’s design vocabulary and the Swatch retail experience that may, over time, compete with AP’s single-source design claim rather than reinforce it. A design that consumers learn to associate simultaneously with AP and Swatch is, for registration purposes, arguably associated with neither as a sole source indicator, since secondary meaning demands that consumers understand the shape to mean “this came from one specific maker.” Co-branding, by definition, signals two makers. This risk can be managed; marketing communications that consistently frame the Royal Pop as “Swatch’s interpretation of the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak design,” preserving AP as originator and Swatch as manufacturing partner, maintain a cleaner attribution structure. Still, it cannot be eliminated, and it represents the collaboration’s most consequential unresolved legal tension.

Economic Analysis: Democratisation and Dilution

The MoonSwatch (March 2022) provides the closest commercial precedent. Omega and Swatch,, both Swatch Group members,, launched a bio-ceramic wristwatch referencing the Speedmaster Moonwatch at $260 retail. [11]Over two million units were sold across 36 models. Secondary market prices averaged $900 within the first week, a 250% premium. Omega’s brand metrics improved. The MoonSwatch became the most-traded watch release in StockX history at launch. Former AP CEO François-Henry Bennahmias praised it publicly as “innovative,” a statement whose prescience became apparent when AP announced its own analogous collaboration.[12]

The brand dilution counterargument is structurally serious. The Royal Oak’s value rests not merely on material quality but on its symbolic economy of decades of controlled scarcity, limited annual production of approximately 50,000–53,000 pieces, multi-year waiting lists, and secondary market premiums that derive from the perception that the Royal Oak is inaccessible. That perceived inaccessibility depends on social distance, the distance between Le Brassus and the Swatch boutique on the high street, which the Royal Pop explicitly closes. Luxury economists in the tradition of Dubois and Laurent would argue that aspirational desire is most powerful when the aspirant possesses a physical talisman that sustains rather than discharges the desire; [13] the $400 Royal Pop may function as precisely such a talisman for a generation priced out of the Royal Oak. The decisive empirical question of whether Royal Pop buyers become Royal Oak buyers, or whether the $400 encounter discharges aspiration rather than intensifying it, will take years to answer. What is already clear is that the Royal Pop creates an audience-development infrastructure that AP’s own distribution model of under 100 mono-brand boutiques, at an average transaction price of CHF 51,000, cannot structurally build.

Jurisprudential Synthesis

The Royal Pop exemplifies what this article designates the “Collaborative IP Laundering” (CIL) model, where a luxury house facing the failure of formal IP registration, enters a controlled licensing arrangement with a mass-market manufacturer to accomplish what registration denied namely enforceable trademark rights in the collaborative context, controlled deployment of the design in a defined product category, and cultural narrative ownership that formal registration cannot provide. Through the Royal Pop, AP generates a registered mark (“ROYAL POP”) around the collaboration; channels proceeds to a philanthropic purpose that neutralises dilution critiques; and creates a legal record of voluntary, controlled use that complicates future copycat claims of abandonment or field saturation.

The deeper jurisprudential lesson is that formal IP law is structurally inadequate to protect the kind of value that defines luxury goods. The Royal Oak’s market power derives from accumulated social capital. The story of Genta’s overnight sketch, the waitlists, the wrists it has graced, none of which is registrable. AP has understood this. The Royal Pop operates not at the level of trademark registration but at the level of cultural narrative, using the collaboration to extend the Royal Oak’s story, recruit new participants into its mythology, and reinforce, through the very act of controlled democratisation, the aspiration that sustains the original’s pricing power. It is an IP strategy conducted through narrative rather than registration, through cultural events rather than litigation.

For practitioners, the TTAB’s January 2025 ruling signals that luxury brands whose advertising foregrounds word marks over design elements will face structural difficulty establishing that consumers recognise the design itself as a source indicator. Brands relying on product configuration as a primary competitive asset should urgently document “look for” advertising directed specifically at design elements, and should not assume that global fame substitutes for jurisdiction-specific secondary-meaning evidence independent of word-mark association.

Conclusion

The Royal Pop is the most significant jurisprudential event in fashion law since the MoonSwatch demonstrated that accessible luxury collaborations need not destroy the luxury original. But unlike the MoonSwatch, an intra-group affair managed within a single corporate governance structure, the Royal Pop is a cross-group licensing transaction between an independent luxury house and a mass-market conglomerate, executed at the precise moment that the luxury house’s formal IP campaign has collapsed across three continents. It is simultaneously an acknowledgement of legal limits and a demonstration that those limits need not be fatal. AP could not trademark the Royal Oak’s design. It has instead trademarked something arguably more powerful, the story of what the Royal Oak means, extended to an audience that couldn’t have afforded it, funded in a manner that makes the extension impossible to criticise. The oak has left Le Brassus. The legal and economic consequences will unfold for years.

Author: Aleena Mary Joseph

Refrences:

[1] Audemars Piguet Heritage Department. (n.d.). The Origins of the Royal Oak. Audemars Piguet Archives.

[2] Foulkes, N. (2022). Royal Oak: From Iconoclast to Icon. Assouline Publishing.

[3] See generally Genta, G. (Design Patents/Historical Archives for Patek Philippe Nautilus and IWC Ingenieur SL).

[4] 2022/DHC/002720

[5] 1990 (10) PTC 101 (Mad)

[6] In re Audemars Piguet Holding S.A., 2025 USPQ2d 18 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2025); see also U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) § 1202.02 (June 2025 ed.).

[7] Audemars Piguet Holding SA v. Japan Patent Office, Case No. Reiwa 5 (Gyo-Ke) 10119 (Japan IP High Ct., Mar. 28, 2024).

[8] Japan Patent Office (JPO) Opposition Decision, Opposition No. 2024-900016, Oct. 16, 2024.

[9] Court of Milan, Business and IP Specialized Section, Order of March 12, 2015, Audemars Piguet Holding S.A. v. The One Watches S.r.l.

[10] Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IGE/IPI), Trademark Application for “ROYAL POP” in Class 14, filed Jan. 15, 2024 (International filing date June 18, 2024).

[11] Swatch Group. (2022, March). Bioceramic MoonSwatch Collection Press Release. Swatch Group Archives.

[12] Bennahmias, F.-H. (2022). Interview with François-Henry Bennahmias. Luxury Tribune (as cited in WatchPro).

[13] Dubois, B., & Laurent, G. (1994). Attitudes toward the concept of luxury: An exploratory analysis. Asia-Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 1(1), 273-278.

The post When The Oak Leaves Le Brassus appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Pay Me What You Owe Me: Power and Control within Modelling Agencies.

Imagine being 23, believing you have finally realised your dream of becoming a model. You think you will earn money and help your family move out of one of the world’s largest refugee camps. You practise your runway walk in heels, preparing for the fashion weeks that await you. Now, picture this: your dream has turned from sweet to sour. You are now on a plane back home after being a model for only six months. Here’s the kicker: not only have your dreams been shattered, but you also owe your agency €3,000. This was the reality of Achol Malual Jau. Jau was the subject of a Sunday Times investigation revealing how some agencies recruit new talent directly from the Kakuma refugee camp. It was revealed that a Nigerian businesswoman named Joan Okorodudu, also known as “Mama” or “Auntie Joan”, scouted potential models at the refugee camp, then signed them to her agency. Okorodudu would later advertise these models to larger agencies such as Select Model Management.

Achol is not an isolated case. Other models have also been recruited from Kakuma refugee camp in northwestern Kenya. The pathway for them to start a modelling career in Europe is relatively straightforward. The potential models undergo initial recruitment, then travel to Nairobi to obtain passports and visas. This is followed by them receiving their accommodations and a weekly allowance of €70 to €100 to cover their expenses. However, models who fail to secure enough work or are deemed unsuitable due to industry pressures or malnourishment return to their homes at the camp. In Jau’s case, Select Model Management claimed that her client feedback was “less than favourable”. CEO Matteo Puglisi stated, “We lost thousands of euros on her. We have never asked for reimbursement. I am truly sorry she did not succeed. It was not for the want of trying on our behalf.” He also described her debt statement as a “fiscal obligation” and confirmed no legal action would be taken. Jau herself stated, “I worked hard but came back with no money. A lot of people think I have money because I went to Europe. I say I have nothing.” This reflects the financial and emotional precarity of international recruitment models.

Besides human trafficking legislation, there are currently no specific laws protecting models recruited from refugee camps or similar vulnerable environments. This creates a significant regulatory gap around informed consent, financial transparency, and safeguarding. Stronger protections could include mandatory pre-contract education, clearer disclosure of debt structures, and limits on relocation until consistent earning potential is established. Jau’s case highlights how structural vulnerability can be embedded from the very start of a modelling career, particularly where bargaining power is minimal. However, agency control is not limited to new faces. It also appears in disputes involving established models.

In 2018, Adwoa Aboah sued her former agency, The Lions Model Management (LMM), for approximately $190,000 in unpaid wages and damages. She claimed that between 2015 and 2017 she earned around $670,000 dollars but received only half. She alleged that unpaid earnings were withheld as “ransom” after she left the agency. She later signed with DNA Model Management, stating, “fashion models are not indentured servants.” The case followed earlier litigation in 2017 when The Lions Model Management sued DNA Model Management co-founder David Bonnouvrier, CLM founder Camilla Lowther, and Aboah’s mother, alleging they conspired to remove her from her contract early. LMM claimed that Aboah’s mother and Lowther pressured the agency, including threats to damage its business. They also highlighted Aboah’s success during her contract, which included a Vogue cover and campaigns for Fendi and Calvin Klein. DNA denied wrongdoing, arguing that Aboah left after her contract ended due to dissatisfaction and that agencies are permitted to compete fairly. They also argued there was no personal liability for Bonnouvrier as his actions were within his corporate role. They further noted that under New York law, certain contracts operate on an “at will” basis unless otherwise specified. Lions ultimately dropped its lawsuit. Aboah later pursued her unpaid wages claim. There has been no major public update on the outcome.

This case was significant because it marked a rare instance of a model challenging an agency legally. However, such action remains uncommon due to fears of blacklisting and the financial burden of litigation. It also highlights how outcomes are shaped not only by legal rights but by economic and social capital. More recently, the Fashion Workers Act came into effect in New York on June 19, 2025. Championed by the Model Alliance, it closes legal loopholes that previously limited agency accountability. It introduces payment deadlines, transparent contracts, fee disclosure, protections against harassment, safeguards against unauthorised use of likeness or AI-generated imagery, and requires agency registration to improve oversight.

Home Is Where the Heartless Is: Precarious Living, and Body Surveillance Within Modelling Agencies.

Physiological needs are listed as the first tier of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This includes basic necessities such as food, water, and shelter. These are fundamental to human survival and must be met before higher-level needs such as safety, love, and self-esteem can be meaningfully pursued. Modelling agencies should treat these as non-negotiable basics for anyone entering the industry, right?  Wrong, this is not always reflected in their practices. Many models face expensive and crowded living conditions, alongside environments that can encourage disordered eating and extreme body standards.

A model apartment is accommodation owned or rented by a modelling agency. The agency will often initially cover rent, but once a model starts booking work, these costs are deducted from their earnings. New faces or models placed abroad at short notice often rely on these apartments as they are the only immediate housing option. They are also easier to access due to visa processes, making agency-backed accommodation the most practical option at the start of an international placement. However, this system quickly becomes complicated. Many models arrive already in debt to their agencies, meaning housing costs immediately deepen financial pressure. Even established models can struggle to cover rent due to the freelance nature of the industry, where work is unpredictable, and income is inconsistent. As Rue (@Ruebarbx) explains on TikTok:

“Some of these girls will stay in a country for six months, eight months, or even a year. And it can be really hard in the first few months to just go and get accommodation, especially if you haven’t actually started seeing any of the money you’re earning.

One of the biggest negatives about model apartments is that work is never guaranteed in the modelling industry because you’re freelance. So you could essentially get into months of debt staying in these places and then never earn enough money to pay your agents back.”

Therefore, housing shifts from being a form of stability to a mechanism of financial pressure. Rather than functioning as a safe space, model apartments can become sites of control, particularly where agencies benefit from inflated occupancy costs. In a Vogue video titled “10 Models Explain the Dangerous Power Dynamics in the Modelling Industry”, 19-year-old Selena Forrest stated: “Agencies don’t have their models’ best interests at heart, because if they did, they probably wouldn’t make as much money.” She described living in a two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment shared with seven other models, each paying $1,200 per month. She noted: “$1,200 times seven, that’s a pretty good chunk of change. I mean, we could afford another bedroom in there.” This totals approximately $8,400 per month, enough for significantly larger accommodations in cities such as New York, London, or Milan. Another account given by Rue further highlighted the overcrowded living conditions in these kinds of apartments, sometimes involving up to twenty models in one apartment with limited privacy. In her video, Rue also explained an instance where she decided to leave model housing, entirely opting for an Airbnb. She said, “You may not think this looks that bad… It’s like 900 to share a bed with someone, and the place was just. It wasn’t great.” This raises a broader structural concern about whether housing arrangements in modelling operate as part of a wider system of financial dependency. It also raises legal questions around transparency of deductions, contractual fairness, and the extent of agency responsibility for basic living standards. 

Alongside housing, body surveillance represents another major pressure within the industry. “We’re looking for a girl who’s lanky and skinny because that’s really what the designers want.” This statement was made by the owner of Premier Modelling Agency, Carol White, in a 60 Minutes Australia video, which investigated the pressures placed on young models. Despite legislation in some countries, industry expectations continue to prioritise extreme thinness. Former model Victoire Maçon Dauxerre has stated: “The hard truth is you need to almost disappear to appear at Fashion Week.” Israel was the first country to regulate underweight models. In 2013, the Model Law prohibited models with a BMI under 18.5 from runway shows and advertising. France followed in 2017, requiring medical certification confirming models are healthy enough to work. Doctors assess health using weight, age, and body shape rather than BMI alone. Agencies can face fines of up to €75,000 and six months of imprisonment for non-compliance. Digitally altered images that change body shape must also be labelled as “retouched photographs”. French law also criminalises the promotion of extreme thinness, including content that encourages anorexia. During the same period, an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 people in France were affected by anorexia, with around 90% being women, many of them adolescents. These laws represent an important step in linking industry standards with public health concerns, particularly around eating disorders.

However, the pressure to be extremely thin remains deeply embedded within some modelling agencies. Edan Mackney, who was 15 years old during her modelling career, was told she needed to lose inches from her legs due to muscle definition. She later stated: “I would go to bed all the time hungry, but I was so scared of eating because I thought that that’s what was making me not get that inch off my hips.” This reflects a wider pattern where weight loss becomes associated with professional success, creating harmful effects on mental health and self-esteem. This constant reminder of being told to lose weight, combined with efforts to maintain an increasingly unhealthy level of thinness, operates as a form of psychological pressure that can severely affect self-esteem and mental health. This is echoed in Caroline Trentini’s statement in Vogue’s “The Models” docuseries, where she recalls, “I went to meet with the agency and they measured me, and they told me that I needed to lose, I think it was like two inches off my hips and maybe two off my waist. I was a perfectionist. So I associated doing a good job with modelling with losing weight.” Similar pressures are reflected in Victoire Maçon Dauxerre’s experience, where she explains that agents never directly told her to lose weight. Instead, her hip measurements were altered on her comp card and recorded as 87cm instead of her actual 92cm. She was told she needed to be under 90cm, effectively requiring her to lose two clothing sizes within two months. In order to do this, Dauxerre further stated: “That’s why I actually stopped eating and ate three apples a day.” This form of measurement manipulation and implicit pressure contributes to a culture where weight loss becomes equated with professional success. Her heartbreaking experience, along with the experiences of the other models mentioned, further showcases how informal pressures operate alongside formal regulation.    

Behind the glamour of the runway and the eye-catching appeal of fashion editorials lies a complex system of labour, power, and control that is often overlooked. While modelling is frequently presented as a pathway to success and opportunity, I hope my article has highlighted the structural vulnerabilities that exist beneath that narrative. From financial precarity and exploitative housing arrangements to the regulation of bodies and health, the cases discussed demonstrate how easily power can become concentrated within modelling agencies, often at the expense of those they represent. Although recent legal developments, such as the Fashion Workers Act in New York, signal progress towards greater accountability, significant gaps in protection remain. Ultimately, these examples raise deeper issues of responsibility within the fashion industry and who is held accountable when the pursuit of beauty and profit comes at a human cost. The question that still lingers for me is this: Would you ever sign away your own agency to an agency, and at what cost?

References:

1) Vitkute, Demi.  “Modelling Agencies Recruit Refugees From One of the World’s Largest Camps.” The Urban Watch, October 16, 2013. https://theurbanwatch.com/fashion/modeling-agencies-recruit-refugees/

2) Matera, Avery. “Adwoa Aboah Sues Modeling Agency Claiming She Wasn’t Paid Nearly $190,000.” Teen Vogue, March 23, 2018. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/adwoa-aboah-sues-modeling-agency/

3) Tate, Crystal. “Adwoa Aboah Is Suing Former Management Company for Unpaid Wages.” Essence October 24, 2020. https://www.essence.com/fashion/adwoa-aboah-suing-former-management-company/

4)    Hays, Kali. “Adwoa Aboah Opens Up About Her ‘Heart in Legal Fight’ With Former Management.” September 15, 2017. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/adwoa-aboah-heart-legal-fight-202203293.html

5)    Hays, Kali. “DNA Says Models Aren’t ‘Indentured Servants’ in Row Over Adwoa Aboah.” Yahoo Life, October 6, 2017. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/dna-says-models-aren-t-215723779.html

6) Rue. @Ruebarbx on Tiktok. “Model Apartment Experience.” TikTok, January 7, 2024. https://www.tiktok.com/@ruebarbx/video/7386625515865656608

7)    BBC News. “France Bans Extremely Thin Models.” BBC News, May 6, 2017. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-3982103 

8)    France 24. “France Cracks Down on Anorexia.” France 24, April 16, 2008. https://www.france24.com/en/20080416-france-cracks-down-anorexia-france-health

9)    60 Minutes Australia. “Young Models Say Unapologetic Industry Nearly Killed Them.” YouTube, October 18, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt2Jaa82Yog

10) Vogue. “10 Models Explain the Dangerous Power Dynamics in the Modeling Industry.” YouTube, October 3, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e9C-VX6GfE

11) Vogue. “9 Models on the Pressure to Lose Weight and Body Image | The Models.” YouTube, April 23, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKd38G338Qw

Author: Déjà Danielle

Hailing from Nassau, Bahamas, Déjà Danielle is a fashion enthusiast interested in the intersection of fashion, culture, and law. She holds a BA (Hons) from York University’s Glendon College, an MA from Parsons School of Design Paris, and will begin legal studies at St George’s, University of London. Her areas of interest include intellectual property, brand protection and model rights within the fashion industry. In her free time, she enjoys photography, reading, travel, languages, and the arts.

Instagram: @deja.danielle

The post From Dreams to Nightmares: Exploring Exploitation within Modelling Agencies. appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

The interplay between fashion and sport has always been commercially vibrant. Coco Chanel’s innovative application of jersey fabric in her 1916 sportswear designs and Virgil Abloh’s significant Off-White collaborations with Nike illustrate the mutual influence of the fashion and sports sectors on each other’s aesthetic lexicons and economic aspirations throughout consecutive generations. However, as that relationship has intensified, characterized by the surge of luxury-athletic collaborations, billion-dollar apparel licensing agreements, and the swift ascent of athlete-established fashion ventures, the legal framework supporting it has not adapted accordingly. The athlete, positioned at the commercial nexus of this confluence, faces legal vulnerabilities that current doctrine is fundamentally unprepared to address.

Two subsequent developments have rendered this vulnerability a matter of significant legal concern. The initial aspect is the restructuring of athlete remuneration in American collegiate athletics resulting from the House v. NCAA settlement, which received final court endorsement from Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 6, 2025.[i] The settlement establishes direct permissive institutional revenue-sharing between NCAA universities and student-athletes, while maintaining the existing framework of third-party Name, Image, and Likeness agreements, including fashion endorsement contracts, that have been in effect since the NCAA’s July 2021 suspension of its NIL restrictions and were explicitly endorsed by the settlement’s provisions.[ii] It does not, however, address the disputed issue of athlete job categorization, nor does it create a cohesive federal framework for NIL regulation. Its impact is more accurately described as a rearrangement of the compensation framework rather than a complete legal demolition of the amateurism concept. The second aspect is the rapid incorporation of generative artificial intelligence into the fashion design process, a progression that, as recent academic research and the US Copyright Office’s definitive guidance have increasingly highlighted, poses essential and unresolved inquiries regarding authorship, originality, and the extent of intellectual property protection applicable to algorithmically generated clothing design.[iii]

Each development, when evaluated in isolation, poses a discernible theological difficulty. Together, they create a structural condition of significantly greater severity: one in which the athlete’s identity has become commercially essential across the overlapping domains of fashion and sport, while the legal frameworks designed to safeguard that identity remain reactive, fragmented, and theoretically underdeveloped. This article delineates the precise parameters of that state and advocates for a focused response.

The NIL Contractual Paradigm and Its Structural Inadequacies

The settlement in House v. NCAA, designating roughly $2.8 billion in back-pay damages to reimburse former Division I collegiate athletes who participated from 2016 onwards for forfeited NIL, video game, and broadcast-related opportunities, and permitting direct institutional revenue-sharing of up to $20.5 million annually per institution starting in the 2025 to 2026 academic year- signifies the most significant reconfiguration of athlete compensation rights in American legal history.[iv] Fashion companies face immediate and economically important implications: a new class of viable endorsers, sometimes legally inexperienced and lacking professional legal representation, has emerged in the contractual market at scale.

The structural imbalance inherent in NIL endorsement agreements in the fashion sector is well documented in literature and athlete advocacy discussions; however, it remains conspicuously underexamined in academic legal studies. Fashion firms regularly pursue extensive, long-term licenses for an athlete’s name, image, and likeness, agreements whose duration and geographical reach players sometimes accept without fully understanding the limitations they are relinquishing.[v] Practitioner opinion and athlete advocacy groups have regularly observed that the lack of standardized contractual instruction in collegiate athletic programs renders players more susceptible to clauses that would be readily recognized as excessive by seasoned legal counsel. Exclusivity clauses exacerbate this vulnerability: an athlete who enters into an exclusive apparel contract with Brand A may discover, upon being drafted or recruited by an institution or professional franchise endorsed by Brand B, that their NIL agreement directly conflicts with their new institutional commitments.[vi] The pragmatic resolution of that dilemma, in the absence of explicit contractual exceptions, consistently favours the brand.

Standard IP assignment clauses in NIL contracts often aim to transfer not only the right to utilize an athlete’s existing likeness but also to generate derivative works inspired by or referencing the athlete’s visual identity, such as artworks, illustrations, digital renders, and increasingly, synthetic imagery, without explicit restrictions on the production methods.[vii] Prior to the advent of generative AI, such clauses were of limited practical significance, as their effective range was constrained by the costs of custom creative output. In the age of generative AI picture creation, identical contractual language possesses potentially boundless practical possibilities. An athlete who relinquishes “the right to create imagery inspired by or derived from the Athlete’s appearance and persona across all media now known or hereafter developed” has, upon a straightforward interpretation of that clause, authorized a fashion brand to incorporate their photographic archive into a generative model, thereby generating an unlimited quantity of photorealistic synthetic representations, at minimal marginal cost, without additional consent, and without further remuneration.[viii]

This is a tangible issue. The right of publicity, the primary legal framework for safeguarding personal identities in American business law, functions on a state-by-state basis, without a federal norm and exhibiting considerable variance in extent, duration, and assignability. Koski contends in a comprehensive analysis of deepfakes and the right of publicity that the transformative use test employed by courts is fundamentally insufficient for assessing AI-generated digital replicas, as it was designed for a context where imitation necessitated discernible human creative input.[ix] An AI-generated image of an athlete, photorealistic, commercially viable, and produced in seconds from a generative model trained on thousands of reference images, may adequately fulfil the transformative use criterion, as no individual source image is directly replicated, despite serving the same commercial purpose as an authorized photograph and completely undermining the athlete’s economic interest in managing their own image.

The institutional framework of the House settlement exacerbates this vulnerability rather than alleviating it, and the particular mechanisms of that framework warrant more rigorous examination than they have received so far. The settlement established a specialized clearinghouse mechanism, NIL Go, managed by Deloitte on behalf of the College Sports Commission, to evaluate third-party NIL agreements for adherence to the settlement’s dual criteria of ‘valid business purpose’ and ‘fair market value’.[x] Deloitte’s evaluation system appraises agreements based on twelve evaluation criteria, encompassing the athlete’s social media reach, sports performance metrics, regional market, deal term, and the existence of possible pay-for-play signs. The system is substantive rather than just procedural: reports from early 2026 indicate that the College Sports Commission was rejecting a significant percentage of filed agreements, illustrating that the NIL Go review had authentic enforcement authority.

The enforcement weight is calibrated only to one compliance objective: identifying remuneration arrangements that represent disguised pay-for-play, contravening the settlement’s amateurism-related stipulations. It is not calibrated nor intended to analyze the intellectual property framework of the contracts it examines. A fashion NIL agreement that includes a broadly defined IP assignment provision, valued at authentic fair market value for the athlete’s endorsement services, will successfully pass NIL Go review without alterations. The clause’s ramifications in the age of generative AI, specifically, its provision of a license to utilize the athlete’s likeness for training synthetic image models, are wholly beyond Deloitte’s assessment scope. The disparity in legal sophistication between a first-generation collegiate athlete and a specialist in intellectual property counsel for a fashion business is not a mere accidental aspect within this institutional framework. It is integral to the system’s design.

The Authorship Vaccum: Generative AI And the Deterioration of Design Protection

The integration of generative AI into fashion design is now a reality. According to a study, designers at the 2024 New York Fashion Week, including Collina Strada, showcased garments created with AI image-generation tools for prints and silhouettes, a practice the authors suggest may establish a new standard in fashion practice.[xi] The legal ramifications of this normalization are significant and undervalued. The fundamental premise regulating this domain was delineated by the US Copyright Office in its official guidance that copyright protection necessitates human authorship. Works generated only by AI systems are not eligible for registration, irrespective of their artistic or commercial worth. This is not a disputed fringe stance; it is the established interpretative view of the Office and has been validated by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.[xii] The normative rationale for this regulation, that copyright stimulates human creative labor, is logically consistent in theory. Its application to the intersection of fashion and athletics, however, results in a significant oddity.

The consequences for sportswear are twofold. A fashion business utilizing generative AI for team kit creation may discover that the design lacks copyright protection, rendering it susceptible to replication by competitors. Secondly, and more critically for the athlete, an AI model trained on an athlete’s appearance, movement, aesthetic, and stylistic associations might generate fashion designs imbued with that athlete’s commercial identity, without those designs invoking any intellectual property protection in favor of the athlete.[xiii]

The Spanish case Vegap v Mango, extensively analyzed by Niyompatama and Lapatoura, serves as a pertinent analogy: it included the digitization of copyrighted artworks and their conversion into NFT fashion wearables without the consent of the original creators.[xiv] The court needed to evaluate derivative authorship within a human-AI creative continuum, a challenge for which copyright theory was clearly ill-equipped.[xv] Apply the reasoning to sports: a fashion company develops a generative model with archive video, advertising images, and branded material that showcases a particular player. The model creates a sportswear line ‘inspired by’ the visual identity of that player. No assignment clause is activated, no likeness is explicitly replicated, and no copyright exists in the result. The athlete possesses no entitlement.

No-Man’s Land: The Juridical Void at the Fashion-AI Nexus

The athlete entering a NIL fashion endorsement agreement in the post-House environment faces:

(a) extensive IP assignment clauses significantly broadened by AI-driven creative tools, and

(b) a structural inability to invoke the primary legal doctrines, copyright, trademark, and the right of publicity, that could otherwise limit a fashion brand’s use of its identity.

The outcome is not only insufficient protection; it is a state of compounded legal invisibility. The athlete is, in the strictest sense, a persona non grata within the business ecosystem that their identity has established.

The structural characteristics of this double exposure are most effectively demonstrated by examining the operational mechanics of a sample case. Consider a collegiate basketball player, a post-House NIL signatory, who enters into a conventional fashion brand endorsement contract that confers upon the brand a “global, non-exclusive license to utilize the Athlete’s name, image, likeness, and persona, including the authority to produce derivative works inspired by or referencing the Athlete’s visual identity, across all media currently known or subsequently developed”. This phrasing, or a similar version, is standard in fashion endorsement practices. Prior to 2023, its practical use was constrained by the costs of custom creative production, generating a derivative image necessitated a photographer, a creative director, and a post-production spend. Currently, the identical clause permits a fashion brand to incorporate an athlete’s photographic archive into a generative model like Midjourney or DALL-E, generate an infinite number of photorealistic synthetic images of the athlete adorned in the brand’s apparel, and disseminate those images through digital and print media, all in accordance with the explicit terms of the license, at minimal marginal cost.[xvi] A subsequent issue lies in the drafting of the contract itself. Most current fashion endorsement contracts lack AI-specific clauses, including explicit permissions to utilize an athlete’s appearance for training generative models, to create new representations from historical materials, or to generate prompt-based variants.[xvii] Instead, they depend on ambiguously phrased historical terminology- ‘derivative works’, ‘all media now known or hereafter devised’, established long before generative AI became a commercially significant issue. The resulting interpretative uncertainty is significant and remains legally unresolved. In practice, the ambiguity is not impartial. Brands with a dominant bargaining position and substantial legal resources have continuously leveraged it to their advantage, transforming contractual silence into a de facto license.

The right of publicity, intended to serve as a primary safeguard against such exploitation, is deficient on several fronts. The existing state-law patchwork results in irreconcilable jurisdictional inconsistencies: California’s Civil Code Section 3344 establishes a strong statutory protection against unauthorized commercial use of an individual’s likeness, whilst several other states give only common law remedies of ambiguous extent.[xviii] Secondly, and more significantly, the transformative use defense, the principal mechanism by which defendants in right of publicity cases evade liability, is inadequately aligned with AI-generated material. In Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., the Supreme Court of California determined that a work is deemed transformative and so protected when it incorporates substantial creative features that alter the original.[xix] An AI-generated image of an athlete, created by a model that has analyzed thousands of reference photographs to generate a credible likeness, can be deemed ‘transformative’ since it does not replicate any single source image, despite being commercially indistinguishable from an authorized photograph and fulfilling the same commercial purpose.[xx] The transformative use test, intended for the age of human imitation, was not constructed for statistical synthesis.

The institutional framework of the House settlement exacerbates, rather than alleviates, this vulnerability. The NIL Go clearinghouse, managed by Deloitte for the College Sports Commission, was established with a singular compliance aim- to evaluate third-party NIL agreements for pay-for-play disguised as endorsement activities, thereby fulfilling the settlement’s criteria of ‘valid business purpose’ and ‘fair market value’.[xxi] It was not intended as an intellectual property protection system, nor does it serve as one. The clearinghouse evaluates the business content of a transaction, whether the remuneration corresponds to the athlete’s authentic market worth as an endorser, rather than being based on the contractual framework. A clause for unrestricted IP assignment inside a contract that values the athlete’s endorsement at a fair market price positively undergoes clearinghouse review without alterations. The disparity in legal sophistication between a first-generation collegiate athlete and a specialist in intellectual property counsel for a fashion business is not accidental to this system; it is fundamental to it.

At the professional level, the situation is only slightly more advantageous. Collective bargaining agreements in the National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA), and Major League Baseball (MLB) provide group licensing structures managed by player associations, the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA), National Basketball Players Association (NBPA), and Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) respectively, which provide players with collective power over the commercial utilization of their likenesses.[xxii] These frameworks were negotiated in a pre-generative AI context, and they embody the assumptions of that context. The NBPA’s Group Licensing Programme regulates the utilization of player names, numbers, and photos in legally licensed items, specifically tailored for replica jerseys and trade cards, rather than for AI-generated fashion imagery.[xxiii] No existing major-league collective bargaining agreement includes explicit clauses regulating the utilization of player identity as training data for generative models, the creation of AI-generated fashion designs closely associated with particular players, or the obligations of attribution and compensation related to such usage.

Legislative acknowledgement of the fundamental issue is there, but remains incomplete. At the federal level, two legislative proposals have sought to establish a framework for protecting individual identity against AI-generated reproduction. The No AI FRAUD Act (H.R. 6943, 118th Congress, 2024) provides each individual a federal property right over their voice and likeness, imposing penalties for the unauthorized creation or distribution of digital copies.[xxiv] The NO FAKES Act (S. 4875 / H.R. 9551, 118th Congress), endorsed by prominent media and music industry organizations, aims to establish government safeguards against the unauthorized manufacturing and dissemination of replicas. Both legislative proposals, however, function at a level of abstraction that leaves substantial areas unaddressed. Neither examines the intersection of fashion and sport as a unique legal issue, nor do they address the particular challenge that emerges when AI training is not only allowed but explicitly sanctioned through contractual provisions in NIL endorsement agreements, a deficiency that current legislative drafting has not yet addressed. The Tennessee ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. §47-25-1101) was created in direct response to AI voice cloning in the music business and expands the state’s current personality rights framework to encompass AI-generated imitations.[xxv] Both instruments indicate authentic legislative cognizance. Neither is customized for the intersection of fashion and sport. It neither tackles the particular issue of AI-assisted fashion design informed by athlete identity, the extent of allowable contractual assignment of likeness rights for AI applications, nor the interplay between NIL endorsement agreements and the right of publicity within the context of generative design.

The economic implications of this legislative stagnation are evident. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, the DC District Court upheld that a work generated independently by an AI system, devoid of human creative contribution, is ineligible for copyright registration, a decision that, in the context of fashion, indicates that AI-generated sportswear designs lack protection from their inception.[xxvi] A rival brand may replicate a kit design generated by artificial intelligence, depriving the original brand of any anticipated uniqueness. For the athlete, the situation is particularly pressing: when a brand engages an AI model to create designs inspired by an athlete’s unique aesthetic, including their tattoos, signature colors, and documented stylistic choices, and these designs are subsequently replicated by third parties. The athlete’s legal standing in this situation is, upon further analysis, notably tenuous. According to Thaler, an AI-generated work lacks copyright protection without human authorship, hence nullifying any copyright claim from the beginning. In the absence of a registered mark, trademark law provides no additional recourse. In most countries, the lack of precise likeness duplication precludes any significant right of publicity claim. The athlete’s tattoos, being unique creative works fixed in a physical medium, provide no protection unless copyright has been explicitly granted in writing; without such assignment, the rights belong to the tattoo artist.

At the 2024 Paris Olympics, NBC utilized AI-generated replicas of presenter Al Michaels’ voice for personalized athlete recaps disseminated to millions of viewers, an initiative well covered yet executed without a definitive legal foundation for such usage beyond a contractual license.[xxvii] The episode serves as a definitive model for the future of athlete identity within the fashion-sport intersection- the methodical, scalable, and commercially profitable extraction of personal identity via AI synthesis, facilitated by broadly formulated contractual agreements and unregulated by doctrinal frameworks established for a previous technological epoch. The tolerance of fashion law for this situation, in relation to the fast commercial deployment of generative AI, is increasingly emerging as its most significant unsolved issue.

Suggestions and Conclusion

The intersection of post-amateurism, NIL commercialization, and the integration of generative AI in fashion design has revealed a structural protection gap that is insufficiently covered by both intellectual property law and publicity rights doctrine. This article contends that the athlete faces dual vulnerabilities- from contractual frameworks that excessively extend in the AI era, and from authorship principles that inadequately safeguard against non-human creative outputs.

Three improvements require immediate attention:

1. a) NIL standard-form contracts in the fashion industry must incorporate obligatory IP carve-out stipulations: any provision claiming to license an athlete’s likeness for AI training data, generative model input, or synthetic image production must obtain explicit, separately executed consent, delineating clear restrictions on territorial scope and duration. The NCAA’s clearinghouse architecture is a suitable mechanism for enforcing this rule at the undergraduate level; professional leagues’ collective bargaining processes should have analogous clauses.
2. b) The federal right of publicity, as proposed in the No AI FRAUD Act, should be expanded to include a distinct sportswear design right: the authority to prohibit the commercial exploitation of AI-generated fashion designs that are significantly associated with a particular athlete’s visual identity, irrespective of the reproduction of any copyrightable elements. Koski’s idea for a likeness license repository offers a viable framework for managing this right on a large scale.
3. c) The requirement for human authorship in AI-assisted fashion design necessitates reevaluation, considering the normative framework establishing a minimum threshold of human creative involvement, instead of a binary classification of human versus non-human, would enable both designers and athletes to secure protection for hybrid creative works while upholding the principle that entirely autonomous AI-generated outputs should not grant monopoly rights.

In 2026, the athlete at the convergence of fashion and sport is both the most economically lucrative and the most legally precarious individual in that domain. The law, in its current form, has rendered them alien to their own narrative. That circumstance is neither unavoidable nor permissible.

References:

[i] House v. NCAA (US District Court for the Northern District of California, 6 June 2025).

[ii] Douglas A. Smith, ‘The Evolution of the NCAA’s Antitrust Challenges: NIL, Revenue Sharing, and the Professionalization of College Sports’ (2025) 50 (1) Journal of Education Finance and Law 70, 95.

[iii] US Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Report on the Copyrightability of Outputs Created Using Generative AI (Part 2, January 2025).

[iv] Whitney K. Novak, ‘College Athlete Compensation: Impacts of the House Settlement’ (CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11349, Version 2, 15 August 2025).

[v] Jeffrey F Brown, James Bo Pearl, Jeremy Salinger and Annie Alvarado, ‘A Proposal for Group Licensing of College Athlete NILs’ (2021) 12(1) Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law, 1, 36.

[vi] ‘Explaining Exclusivity Clauses in Athlete Endorsement Contracts’ (CG Sports Team, 2025) <https://www.cgsportsco.com/cejih-explains/explaining-exclusivity-clauses-in-athlete-endorsement-contracts> accessed 30 April, 2026.

[vii] Ho Keat Leng and James J. Zhang, ‘Emerging Trends in Sport Sponsorship and Branding: An Introduction’: In Sports Sponsorship and Branding: Global Perspectives and Emerging Trends (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group 2024).

[viii] Jonty Cowan, ‘How Generative AI Is Impacting Athlete Image Rights and Endorsement Agreements’ (LawInSport, 2 April 2025) <https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/how-generative-ai-is-impacting-image-rights-practical-tips-for-athlete-endorsement-agreements#:~:text=Whilst%20the%20birth%20of%20artificial,brands%20when%20negotiating%20endorsement%20deals> accessed 30 April 2026.

[ix] Reid M. Koski, ‘Warhol, Drake, and Deepfakes: Monetizing the Right of Publicity in the Generative AI Era’ (2024) 40(4) Georgia University Law Review 981 <https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3277&context=gsulr> accessed 30 April 2026.

[x] David P. Weber, ‘Capping the Market: NIL Income Limits and The Shadow of Antitrust Law’ [2026] Forthcoming in Volume 64 of the Houston Law Review (2027) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6390018> accessed 30 April 2026.

[xi] Mark Jetsaphon Niyompatama and Ioanna Lapatoura, ‘Generative AI in Fashion Design Creation: A Copyright Analysis of AI-Assisted Designs’ (2025) 20(10) 654, 666 <https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaf045> accessed 30 April 2026.

[xii] Runhua Wang, ‘The Copyright Requirement of Human Authorship for Works Containing Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content’ (2024) 13(2) IP Theory <https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ipt/vol13/iss2/2> accessed 30 April 2026.

[xiii] Suji Kim, ‘The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Sport Industry:  The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Sport Industry:  Trademark Challenges and Legal Issues for Sport Brands’ (Doctoral Thesis, University of South Carolina 2025) <https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9250&context=etd> accessed 30 April 2026.

[xiv] Lucia González, ‘VEGAP v MANGO: Transformation of Works of Art into NFTs Constitutes Copyright Infringement’ (World Trademark review, 2025) <https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/article/vegap-v-mango-transformation-of-works-of-art-nfts-constitutes-copyright-infringement> accessed 30 April 2026.

[xv] ‘Art, Fashion Campaigns and NFTs: EU Orthodoxy Restored for Web3 Uses’ (2025) 74(12) GRUR International 1186 <https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaf128> accessed 30 April 2026.

[xvi] Jonty Cowan (n 8).

[xvii] Mackenna Dunn, Ariana Benitez Colon and Laura Ganoza, ‘How AI, Digital Doubles and New Laws Are Rewriting Fashion and Beauty’ (The Global Legal Post, 2026) <https://www.globallegalpost.com/news/how-ai-digital-doubles-and-new-laws-are-rewriting-fashion-and-beauty-1113297119#:~:text=New%20York’s%20AI%20Transparency%20in,built%20around%20’resurrected’%20icons.> accessed 30 April 2026.

[xviii] CA Civ Code § 3344.1 (2025).

[xix] Comedy III Prods.v. Saderup, 25 Cal. 4th 387, 391 (2001). 21. Cal. CivilCode§ 3344 (West 2001); Gil Peles, ‘Comedy III Productions v. Saderup’ (2002) 17(1) Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 549.

[xx] ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing, Inc., 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003).

[xxi] College Sports Commission, NIL Go Portal: Submission and Vetting Requirements (2025); Callan G. Stein and Christopher M. Brolley, ‘“NIL Go”: Deloitte Establishes Basic Framework to Review Third-Party NIL Deals’ (NIL Revolution, 20 May 2025) <https://www.nilrevolution.com/2025/05/nil-go-deloitte-establishes-basic-framework-to-review-third-party-nil-deals/> accessed 30 April 2026.

[xxii] Athletes.org, ‘College Athletics Collective Bargaining Agreement Framework’ (Discussion Draft, 28 January 2026).

[xxiii] Chris Smith, ‘AI Avatar Platform Genies Adds Deal with NBPA’ (Sports Business Journal, 6 March 2026)<https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2026/03/05/ai-avatar-platform-genies-adds-deal-with-nbpa/> accessed 30 April 2026.

[xxiv] No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas and Unauthorized Duplications Act of 2024, HR 6943, 118th Cong (2024); Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2024, S 4875, 118th Cong (2024).

[xxv] Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act 2024, Tenn Code Ann §47-25-1101 (effective 1 July 2024); Dennis Crouch, ‘DC District Court: AI-Created Works Ineligible for Copyright’ (Patently-O, 18 August 2023) <https://patentlyo.com/patent/2023/08/district-ineligible-copyright.html> accessed 30 April 2026.

[xxvi] Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 22-1564 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023).

[xxvii] Benjamin Mullin, ‘Now Narrating the Olympics: A.I.-Al Michaels’ (The New York Times, 26 June 2024) <https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/business/media/nbc-olympics-ai.html> accessed 30 April 2026.

Author: Saumya Verma 

The post Post House v. NCAA: Persona Non Grata & The Unprotected Athlete in the Age of Fashion Branding and Generative AI appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

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.

Why is there a clothes graveyard in the Atacama Desert? Chile imports huge volumes of secondhand and unsold clothing through the Iquique free trade zone. Garments that cannot be resold, an estimated 39,000 to 40,000 tons a year, are trucked into the desert near Alto Hospicio and dumped or burned, creating one of the world’s most visible fast fashion waste sites.

How Did Cheap Trends Create a Desert Full of Clothes?

Today’s consumerist culture demands thousands of new garments every single day. We have been sold the idea that staying fashionable requires constantly renewing our wardrobes, trend after trend, haul after haul. The question we rarely ask is where all of these clothes go when we are done with them, and what happens when consumers move on from trends faster than brands can anticipate, leaving mountains of overproduction behind.

Between 2000 and 2014, garment lifespans were cut roughly in half while global clothing production doubled, and customers increased their purchases by around 60 percent. As garments became cheaper and trend cycles accelerated, brands began producing far more clothing than the market could realistically absorb. Fast production models were never designed to match supply with actual demand. They were designed to flood customers with options, banking on volume over longevity.

It is no surprise, then, that a large share of all clothing ends up in landfills or incinerators within a year of being produced. On top of that, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation estimates that around 12 percent of the material used in production is lost before it even becomes a garment. This leaves us with textile waste as a global problem with serious environmental and public health consequences.

That 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, arrive every year. Massive dumps of clothes leach dyes and chemicals into the soil, while part of the waste is burned, dispersing pollutants that degrade air quality and threaten respiratory health in nearby communities.

Why Do So Many Clothes End Up in Chile Specifically?

Chile is one of the largest importers of secondhand clothing in South America. Bales of used and unsold garments enter through the free trade zone at Iquique, where traders sort them for resale across Chile and neighboring countries. A significant share of each bale is unsellable, and because formal disposal is costly and municipal landfills refuse textile loads, the leftovers have for years been dumped or burned in the desert outside Alto Hospicio.

The Atacama’s dry climate preserves what arrives. Synthetic garments made largely of polyester do not biodegrade on any human timescale, so the piles simply accumulate, visible even in satellite imagery. The dump is not an accident of geography. It is the end point of a global supply chain that produces more clothing than anyone can wear and exports the surplus to countries with fewer resources to manage it.

Who Is Working to Reverse the Damage on the Ground?

For years, media and consumers worldwide ignored this staggering illegal landfill. In 2021, everything changed. Photographs taken by Martin Bernetti and published by Agence France-Presse circulated widely, giving the crisis a social media presence and international recognition. That attention showcased the work of younger generations in Chile, who had already been leading initiatives to reduce textile waste and promote circularity.

An important example is Desierto Vestido, an NGO with the mission to educate, raise awareness and promote the circular economy in the textile industry through talks, workshops and desert clean up operations.

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

Another striking private effort is Atacama RE-commerce, launched in March 2025. Garments dumped in the Atacama, many of them brand new with tags or barely worn, are recovered, cleaned, restored and offered online for free, with customers paying only shipping. In other words, you pay to pull a piece of clothing out of the desert. Every rescued piece becomes a reminder of the system that put it there, and a small step toward a future where clothes are valued rather than tossed aside.

Can Anyone Be Held Legally Responsible for the Dumping?

Civilians did not 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.

The case finally raised the fundamental question of who can be held accountable for the damage. According to the ruling issued in September 2025, the State bears a significant role in allowing the crisis to unfold. The court ordered the government to prepare a remediation plan within six months. The State appealed the decision, and as of mid 2026 the ruling is not yet final and the case remains unresolved. Whatever the final outcome, the litigation has already shifted the conversation from individual consumer guilt toward institutional responsibility.

What Is Chile Doing About Textile Waste Under Its EPR Law?

Even while contesting legal responsibility in court, Chilean policymakers have moved toward regulating the textiles entering the country. Chile’s framework law on waste management and extended producer responsibility, known as the REP law, has been in force since 2016 and already covers products such as packaging, tires and electronics. In 2025, the government introduced a comprehensive national circular economy strategy for textiles and named the eradication of illegal textile dumps one of its central goals.

The strategy marked a turning point. For the first time, textiles were formally recognized as a priority product, the legal step that brings a waste stream under the REP framework. In practice, this means importers and brands will be required to track the garments they bring into the country, report volumes, and finance systems for collection, reuse and recycling. Detailed targets are still being developed, with the government aiming to have binding collection and recovery goals in place toward the end of the decade. For a deeper explanation of how the Chilean scheme is being designed, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation has published a useful explainer on EPR for textiles in Chile.

The strategy also seeks to strengthen Chile’s growing circular economy. By supporting repair centers, upcycling initiatives and textile recyclers, and by including them as recipients of EPR funding, policymakers aim to slow the constant arrival of garments into informal dumps while creating sustainable employment. The government has recognized that EPR can deliver social benefits by formalizing the work of informal waste pickers and securing fair conditions for them. Chilean officials also acknowledge that organizing textile waste is only part of the solution, since the problem arises from cultural and commercial forces that drive both overproduction and overconsumption.

How Does the EU’s Textile EPR Push Compare?

Chile is not acting alone. The European Union, one of the main sources of the clothing that ends up in the Atacama, agreed in 2025 on a revision of its Waste Framework Directive that makes extended producer responsibility for textiles mandatory across all member states. Producers selling clothing in the EU, including online sellers based outside the bloc, will have to fund the collection, sorting and recycling of textiles, with fees modulated so that longer lasting garments pay less. Member states have a transition period of roughly two and a half years after the revised directive entered into force to set up their national schemes, so as of mid 2026 most countries are still building them, with France’s longstanding scheme serving as the working model.

The EU is also attacking overproduction directly. Under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, which entered into force in 2024, a ban on the destruction of unsold apparel and footwear begins applying to large companies in July 2026, with medium sized companies following after a transition period. Together, these measures target the same dynamic that fills the Atacama: garments produced in volumes no market can absorb.

What Does the Atacama Tell Us About Fashion’s Future?

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

Chile’s emerging policies, together with the EU’s regulatory turn, now serve as a blueprint for other nations facing similar crises. No single policy will erase the contamination overnight, and enforcement will decide whether these laws change outcomes on the ground. Still, the direction is unmistakable: a future marked by circularity, transparency and producer accountability. The Atacama Desert stands as both a warning and a compass, reminding us that fashion’s future depends not only on what we create, but on what we refuse to waste.

Frequently Asked Questions

Where exactly is the clothes graveyard in the Atacama Desert?

The main dumping grounds sit outside Alto Hospicio, a municipality near the port city of Iquique in northern Chile, close to the free trade zone through which most secondhand clothing enters the country.

How much clothing is dumped in the Atacama each year?

Estimates commonly cited by researchers and local organizations put the figure at roughly 39,000 to 40,000 tons of discarded textiles per year, a share of the far larger volume of used clothing imported through Iquique.

What is extended producer responsibility (EPR) for textiles?

EPR is a legal principle that makes producers financially and operationally responsible for their products at end of life. For textiles, that means brands and importers must fund collection, sorting, reuse and recycling instead of leaving the cost to municipalities and communities.

Has Chile’s textile EPR scheme taken effect yet?

Not fully. As of mid 2026, textiles have been designated a priority product under Chile’s REP law and a national strategy is in place, but the detailed decree setting binding collection and recycling targets is still being developed.

Will EU rules actually reduce dumping in places like the Atacama?

They can help. Mandatory EPR fees and the ban on destroying unsold goods raise the cost of overproduction, and the EU is also moving to tighten rules on exporting textile waste disguised as secondhand clothing. Enforcement, both in Europe and at receiving ports, will determine the real impact.

References

• Bartlett, J. (2025, June 26). Chile targets fast fashion waste with landmark desert cleanup plan. The Guardian.
• Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). A new textiles economy: Redesigning fashion’s future.
• Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2024). EPR for textiles in Chile.
• European Commission. Waste Framework Directive and Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation resources.
• FRANCE 24. (2021, November 8). Chile’s desert dumping ground for fast fashion leftovers.
• Ministry of the Environment, Chile. (2025). Textiles, circular economy strategy.
• Ordenez, J. (2024, February 22). De quien es la culpa? La demanda contra Chile por los basurales de ropa en el desierto. La Tercera.
• Re-commerce Atacama. Our suppliers.
• United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2018, July 12). UN Alliance aims to put fashion on path to sustainability.

Author: Viviana Sofia Chavarria 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 Waste and Chile’s 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.