Over time, university apparel has become far more than simple campus merchandise. The American collegiate aesthetic, often referred to as the “preppy” or “Ivy League” look, has evolved into a recognizable global style. From varsity jackets to cotton hoodies, these pieces now live comfortably in everyday wardrobes across continents. But behind the relaxed appearance of campus fashion lies something far more structured: a carefully managed system of branding, licensing, and intellectual property.

The Birth of the Campus Aesthetic

The roots of collegiate style trace back to the mid-20th century, when elite American universities developed distinct visual traditions tied to student life and athletics. Varsity jackets, originally awarded to athletes for sporting achievements, became coveted symbols of belonging. Letterman sweaters, rowing blazers, and tailored chinos formed part of a broader campus uniform that balanced casualness with quiet elegance.

Over the decades, this aesthetic moved beyond university grounds. Designers and fashion brands began to reinterpret the collegiate look for a wider audience. Among the most influential was Ralph Lauren, whose collections in the late twentieth century popularized the romantic image of Ivy League campuses. Through crisp shirts, cable-knit sweaters, and rowing blazers, Ralph Lauren transformed academic tradition into a global lifestyle narrative.

Other brands followed suit. Labels such as J.Crew, Brooks Brothers, and Tommy Hilfiger incorporated collegiate references into their collections, reinforcing the connection between academia and fashion. What began as campus dress codes gradually turned into an aesthetic language recognized around the world.

Universities as Merchandising Powerhouses

What many people overlook is the scale of the industry surrounding university merchandise. American universities operate sophisticated licensing programs that generate significant revenue each year. Through partnerships with manufacturers and retailers, institutions authorize the production of clothing and other goods bearing their names and logos.

One of the central organizations managing these relationships is the Collegiate Licensing Company, which represents hundreds of universities and facilitates licensing agreements with apparel brands and retailers. According to industry estimates, collegiate licensed merchandise generates more than $4 billion annually in retail sales in the United States alone.

Institutions such as Harvard University and Yale University license their names and insignia across a wide range of products — hoodies, caps, jackets, tote bags, and even household items. The result is a thriving marketplace where academic identity meets commercial opportunity.

Yet this system is tightly controlled. Universities do not simply allow anyone to print their name on a sweatshirt. Every authorized product must pass through licensing channels designed to protect institutional reputation and ensure compliance with brand guidelines.

The Legal Backbone: Trademarks and Licensing

The legal foundation of university merchandise lies in trademark law. Universities register their names, logos, seals, and sometimes even mascots as trademarks, giving them exclusive rights over how those identifiers are used commercially.

In practice, this means that a company cannot legally produce and sell a “Harvard” hoodie without permission. Instead, manufacturers must obtain licensing agreements that grant them the right to use university trademarks on approved products. In return, the university receives royalties from each sale.

This structure effectively turns universities into brand owners. Like any commercial brand, they manage visual identity, control distribution, and monitor unauthorized uses of their marks. Trademark protection also allows institutions to take action against counterfeit merchandise that could dilute their reputation or mislead consumers.

The system highlights an intriguing overlap between academia and commerce. Universities, traditionally seen as centers of knowledge, now operate in many ways like global brand custodians.

When Academia Meets Fashion

Occasionally, the relationship between universities and fashion becomes even more explicit. A notable example emerged in 2022, when Ralph Lauren partnered with Morehouse College and Spelman College to create a collection inspired by the traditions of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs).

The collaboration celebrated the elegance and cultural heritage associated with HBCU campuses, drawing inspiration from archival photographs and mid-century collegiate style. Beyond clothing, the project highlighted the deeper cultural narratives embedded in academic fashion traditions.

Moments like these illustrate how university style extends beyond simple branding. It carries history, identity, and community.

The Global Export of the Campus Look

Today, collegiate style travels far beyond American campuses. Walk through fashion districts in Paris, Tokyo, or Lagos, and you are likely to see vintage university sweatshirts or varsity jackets styled as everyday fashion pieces.

In many cases, the wearers have no academic connection to the institutions printed across their chests. Yet the symbolism remains powerful. Names like Harvard or Yale evoke ideas of intellectual prestige and cultural heritage, transforming simple garments into global signifiers.

Fashion has a way of circulating symbols across borders. What began as campus apparel has become a universal visual shorthand for education, ambition, and tradition.

When Education Becomes Identity

In the end, universities do not merely sell merchandise. They sell stories — stories about excellence, history, and belonging. A sweatshirt may appear casual, but it often carries a deeper narrative about aspiration and identity.

In a world where clothing communicates who we are and what we value, campus apparel has found an unexpected second life beyond lecture halls. The collegiate look no longer belongs solely to students or alumni. It has become a cultural language — one stitched with tradition, protected by law, and worn far beyond the gates of academia.

———————————————————————

References

• Collegiate Licensing Company – collegiate licensing data and industry reports
• Harvard University Trademark Program guidelines
• National Collegiate Athletic Association merchandising and licensing information
• Coverage of the Ralph Lauren HBCU collaboration with Morehouse College and Spelman College
• Reporting on collegiate fashion influence

Image credits

• Princess Diana wearing a Harvard sweatshirt, London, 1990s — Photo: Tony Harris / PA Images via Getty Images.
• Ralph Lauren, Exclusively for Morehouse and Spelman Colleges Collection, campaign imagery photographed by Nadine Ijewere (2022).
• Yale University merchandise — Yale Campus Store.
• Ralph Lauren, Morehouse College Sweater, Polo Ralph Lauren HBCU Collection (2022).

The post From Campus to Closet: How Universities Became Fashion Brands appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

At AFCON 2025, kits from Nigeria, Morocco, Senegal, Mali, Cameroon and others drew attention for more than performance. Senegal’s vibrant patterns, Nigeria’s brushstroke motifs, and Morocco’s geometric references all became part of the tournament’s visual identity. Fans now wear these jerseys with pride, and designers regularly push their creative boundaries. Yet behind that enthusiasm lies a legal reality that’s far from straightforward.

Official Kits and the Chain of Rights

At the core of every national team kit is a contractual relationship between a football federation and a supplier. Unlike club football, where global brands dominate, AFCON 2025 showcased notable brand diversity: seventeen different kit makers outfitted the tournament, with Puma leading the pack and traditional giants like Nike and Adidas appearing less often than expected.

These agreements typically grant the supplier rights to manufacture, distribute, and market jerseys bearing national colours, crests, and associated IP. The football federation generally owns the trademarks and symbols (often registered locally and internationally) and licenses them to the kit maker in exchange for royalties or fixed fees.

In practice, this creates a layered intellectual property ecosystem:

1. Federations control team identity: emblem, colours, and official marks.
2. Equipment brands own kit designs and related technologies.
3. Licensees and retailers generate revenue by selling replicas to fans.

Trademark and industrial design law form the legal backbone of this ecosystem. By registering and enforcing their marks, federations maintain control over team symbols and colours and can prevent unauthorized commercial use. In practice, this is their main defence against infringers. Yet, the level of protection varies significantly from one country to another, depending on registration habits, institutional capacity, and political will.

Cultural Arrival: When Tradition Leads the Way 

Before a single match was played in Morocco, AFCON 2025 delivered an unexpected cultural moment in airport arrival halls. Teams exited planes wearing traditional attire that highlighted the textile heritage of their respective countries. Mali’s bogolan, Burkina Faso’s faso dan fani, Cameroon’s nkanda tunics, or the jellabas of North Africa all appeared, each carrying meaning beyond aesthetics. This unofficial “arrival runway” became a showcase of national identity and regional pride.

These outfits sparked discussion not about branding, but about belonging. Unlike matchday kits shaped by licensing deals and IP, traditional garments aren’t designed for commercial reproduction. They are cultural expressions, worn with dignity and not intended for sale. Legally, they generally fall outside IP protection unless they are transformed into distinctive, registrable fashion designs or brand identifiers.

Their visibility at AFCON underscores a limit within IP law: collective heritage sits awkwardly in systems that favour individual ownership. These fabrics and patterns are shared, living, and transmitted across generations. In a tournament increasingly shaped by commercial rights, the players’ choice to arrive in unbranded attire felt refreshing..Beyond the Official Field: Streetwear, Local Brands & Identity

Official kits represent only one chapter of AFCON’s fashion story. Across the continent, fashion entrepreneurs have built independent lines inspired by football culture. Brands such as ASHLUXE, Daomey Store, and High Fashion reinterpret national colours and motifs into streetwear tied to football heritage.

These brands operate outside federation contracts, drawing on inspiration rather than licensed use. Legally, that difference matters. As long as they avoid using protected marks, crests, or confusingly similar symbols, they typically stay clear of infringement. This space shows how cultural expression and IP can coexist, allowing creative communities to participate in the aesthetic ecosystem without stepping on exclusive rights.

The Reality of Counterfeits in Informal Markets

Alongside official and independent fashion lies a long-standing reality: counterfeit sportswear. In markets from Abidjan to Dakar, unofficial jerseys using national colours are sold at accessible prices. These products mimic official looks but bypass trademark rights that federations and brands have invested in.

Counterfeits raise both legal and social questions. Legally, they infringe trademark and design rights when they reproduce protected symbols. Socially, they reflect purchasing power dynamics: official replicas can be expensive, and demand for affordable alternatives remains high.

Several African jurisdictions have anti-counterfeiting laws that allow civil or criminal enforcement. South Africa’s Counterfeit Goods Act is one example. Yet enforcement depends on coordinated customs, policing, and political accountability, and remains uneven in practice.

When IP Meets Identity: Challenges and Opportunities Ahead

AFCON lives at a crossroads where fashion, culture, and law constantly interact. Official kits operate as commercial products backed by IP rights. Independent designers contribute their own interpretations, sometimes pushing the culture in new directions. Informal markets and counterfeits still circulate, making ownership and access more complex than federations would like.

For legal teams advising federations or fashion houses, the priority is to reinforce trademarks and designs, secure licensing deals, and think ahead about enforcement. At the policy level, it may also be time to explore how IP frameworks can acknowledge cultural heritage without weakening formal protection systems. The goal is simple: that jerseys serve not only as symbols of pride during the tournament, but as protected and meaningful expressions of identity throughout the year.

References

1. Collage 1 : The Best Kits of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations – nss sports 
2. Collage 2 : Players from : CIV, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Mali wearing traditional attire – @CAF_Online, Instagram 
3. The Best Jerseys from AFCON 2025: The Kits That Defined the Tournament’s Aesthetic,” NSS Sports, Jan 9 2026. 
4. All Africa Cup of Nations 2025 Kits – Adidas & Nike Have One Team Each Only, Footy Headlines, Dec 19, 2025. 
5. PUMA Reveal AFCON 2025 Kits for Egypt, Côte d’Ivoire, Morocco, Senegal & Ghana, SoccerBible, Nov 15, 2024. 
6. Official AFCON Store – CAF Store (jerseys), CAF online. 
7. Africa – An Ideal Market for Brand Holders and Counterfeiters, Kisch IP. 
8. Counterfeiting in Africa: An A‑Z Guide, Spoor & Fisher. 
9. Jellaba, Bogolan, nkando, faso dan fani: le défilé des identités …
10. L’Afrique en couleurs : les équipes de la CAN 2025 posent le pied …

The post Jerseys as Cultural IP: Who Owns the Story Behind AFCON Style? appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Why December? The mechanics are obvious but important. Demand spikes for high-value gifts; consumers rush for deals and often shortcut due diligence; sellers exploit cross-border shipping to hide origin; and platforms struggle to police millions of listings in real time. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized nearly 79 million counterfeit items in fiscal year 2025, with an MSRP value in the billions, a clear indication that fake goods remain a massive underworld economy timed to the holidays.

Online marketplaces and social commerce make the problem exponentially worse. Platforms increasingly automate seller onboarding and rely on algorithmic moderation, but counterfeiters now game the system with AI-generated storefronts and fake reviews. Industry monitors reported a sharp holiday surge in counterfeit listings last year, with fraud spreading into new categories and channels.

Live shopping adds another wrinkle. Real-time streams, where hosts sell goods directly to viewers, create rapid, hard-to-moderate commerce windows. Regulators and brands call enforcement a “whack-a-mole”: by the time a stream is flagged and removed, orders have been placed and goods en route. That ephemeral commerce is fertile ground for fakes to convert curiosity into transactions.

Platforms themselves are under growing scrutiny. In Europe this autumn, French authorities found several major marketplaces (ranging from global giants to fast-fashion apps) failed to prevent illicit products from being sold on their services, prompting national investigations and stronger enforcement threats. That regulatory pressure will only increase in 2026 as governments demand greater platform accountability.

The legal toolbox already includes several mechanisms, but their application is uneven. Trademark and copyright law remain the first line of defence: brand owners can initiate takedowns, pursue civil damages, or seek criminal referrals for large-scale infringements. Customs seizures disrupt supply, and criminal statutes can penalise the trafficking of counterfeit goods. Yet enforcement is expensive, cross-border, and reactive, often targeting the supply chain rather than the commercial systems that monetise those goods.

So where should counsel, brands, and policymakers focus in 2026?

1. Treat December as a strategic enforcement window. Brands should plan seasonal enforcement sweeps well before Black Friday. That means pre-emptive marketplace listings scans, rapid takedown teams on standby, and coordinated customs alerts for high-risk SKUs. Proactive monitoring reduces the short-term conversion of searches into counterfeit purchases.
2. Invest in digital provenance and anti-fraud tech. Serialization, QR-based provenance tags, and blockchain proofs are no longer boutique experiments; they’re consumer-facing tools that reduce doubt at the point of sale. When paired with AI detection tools that flag suspicious seller behaviour, brands can more quickly deter and detect fake listings.
3. Work with platforms on live-sale protocols. Platforms must build stronger controls for livestream commerce: verified seller badges, escrowed payments until post-delivery confirmation, and rapid dispute resolution. Brands should negotiate these protections into partnership agreements or threaten delisting for repeat offenders.
4. Educate consumers (and influencers). Influencer holiday hauls are powerful marketing and liability traps. Public instances in which creators’ “luxury” gifts are questioned for authenticity are already in the news, showing how quickly perception can shift. Brands and platforms should fund consumer education campaigns that teach shoppers to verify serial numbers, receipts and seller credibility before buying. 
5. Lobby for sharper platform accountability rules. Regulatory moves in 2025 show the appetite for action. Governments are beginning to hold marketplaces responsible for policing illicit goods; pushing for clearer notice-and-action standards, record-keeping obligations, and civil penalties for systemic failures would align incentives across the supply chain.
6. Use customs as a proactive partner. CBP’s public holiday warnings are more than PR — customs seizures disrupt the economics of counterfeits. Brands should keep customs units furnished with updated product lists and suspected shipper intelligence so enforcement targets the most harmful flows.

Ultimately, this is not a problem that litigation alone will fix. The counterfeit season thrives on speed, opacity, and low margins; conditions that respond to architectural fixes as much as courtroom wins. For 2026, good lawyering will pair courtroom readiness with product-level provenance, platform rules negotiated in commercial contracts, and consumer-facing verification that makes authenticity the easier choice.

For consumers: this holiday season, the two golden rules remain true: if it looks too good to be true, it probably is, and always buy from reputable, traceable sources. For brands and counsel, the task is to make authenticity frictionless, enforcement immediate, and platforms accountable, so that December returns to being a celebration of commerce rather than a boomtime for crime.

References
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “CBP reminds shoppers: beware of counterfeits this holiday season,” Nov 12, 2025. (Customs and Border Protection)
MarqVision, “Inside the Holiday Counterfeit Surge: Key Trends,” Nov 21, 2025. (marqvision.com)
Reuters, “France finds Wish, Temu, AliExpress, eBay broke rules on illicit products,” Nov 14, 2025. (Reuters)
AP News, “More than 3,000 fake Gibson guitars seized at Los Angeles port,” 2024. (AP News)
SocialMediaToday, “TikTok outlines latest measures to protect in-app shoppers,” Nov 2025. (Social Media Today)

The post Counterfeit Season: Why Fake Luxury Peaks Every December appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

Redefining Authenticity: Kente and the First Geographical Indication

On September 30, 2025, Ghana made global fashion law history by granting GI (Geographical Indication) status to kente, the iconic hand-woven cloth of the Ashanti region. This means only textiles produced in specific communities like Bonwire or Adanwomase may legally be called “kente.” By placing this textile alongside Champagne or Darjeeling tea in terms of legally recognised origin control, Ghana has turned cultural heritage into a form of intellectual property with commercial leverage.
For international brands that have long borrowed kente motifs, this protection changes the calculus. The pattern is no longer simply “in the aesthetic,” it is now a sovereign product. Designers, lawyers and brand strategists must ask: which look-alikes invite liability, and which must be excluded or licensed?

Raffia and the Return to Authentic Fibers

Across Africa, a quiet renaissance is unfolding around natural, locally sourced fibers. When Congolese bride Julia Otto Mbongo chose a handcrafted raffia gown for her traditional wedding, designed by Ivorian couturier Ibrahim Fernandez, she described it as “a story, far more than a garment, it’s my heritage.” In that one gesture, raffia moved from fabric to manifesto: a material rooted in African land and spirituality, carrying the “breath of our ancestors,” as Mbongo put it in her BellaNaija interview.

Raffia’s resurgence marks a broader reorientation toward authenticity. Unlike wax print, introduced to West Africa through Dutch trade routes in the nineteenth century, raffia is indigenous, woven from palm fibers cultivated and processed across West, Central Africa and Madagascar. Both materials hold deep social meaning, but only raffia embodies a return to ancestral authorship, a textile narrative fully owned by the continent.

This revival isn’t limited to weddings. Increasingly, African designers and artisans are integrating raffia, aso-oke, and other handwoven materials into collections showcased at Lagos, Dakar, and Accra Fashion Weeks, signaling that the continent’s most “traditional” crafts are also its most forward-looking. Yet their growing visibility raises legal questions.

So far, only Ghana’s Kente cloth has received Geographical Indication (GI) protection, granting exclusive rights to producers from defined regions such as Bonwire. Raffia, aso-oke, and other fibers lack such formal recognition, though some Nigerian textile houses have turned to copyright or collective trademarks to protect their designs. These measures are partial, as Western legal frameworks often struggle to adapt to the communal and evolving nature of traditional craftsmanship.

Still, the shift is unmistakable. As African fabrics gain visibility on luxury runways and social media feeds, they transition from “inspiration” to intellectual property assets. The challenge ahead lies in ensuring that the economic value they generate aligns with their cultural origins; a task where law, design, and heritage must finally weave together.

Design Appropriation or Shared Inspiration?

One of the trickiest terrains for fashion law is the line between aesthetic inspiration and uncredited appropriation. For decades, major houses have mined African-inspired prints and motifs (wax-print, kente-inspired geometry, raffia textures) without necessarily crediting or compensating the original creators.
Yet as the textile heritage becomes legally embedded, the question of responsibility rises. Can a mass-market print inspired by bogolan cloth be exempt from licensing obligations? Are we entering an era where “African print” becomes a protected category and not a loosely borrowed graphic? Legal tools such as trade dress protection, communal IP and GI designations are increasingly relevant. Africa’s creative economies are no longer the passive source of motifs; they are active legal territory.

Fashion Weeks, Runways and Legal Momentum

Fashion Weeks in Lagos, Dakar and Johannesburg have become showcases not only for design talent but for jurisdictional innovation. Designers like Lisa Folawiyo, Maxhosa by Laduma and Loza Maléombho produce collections rooted in African textile heritage and showcase them internationally. The legal framework around their fabrics matters: are they protecting their prints under local design law? Are they enforcing export controls and licensing global usage?
As global media turn these textiles into “trend news,” the legal moment is now. Brands must ask: Is my source verifiable? Do I hold the rights to use this fabric or pattern? Am I merely copying, or am I co-creating with the heritage? For lawyers advising fashion houses, these are practical concerns with real risk.

The Path Ahead: From Craftsmen to Contracts

The story of kente’s GI status and raffia’s rising visibility signals a major shift: African textiles are claiming ownership, economic value and legal definition. For you as counsel, IP strategist or brand architect, here are key takeaways:

• Traceability matters: Provenance; who wove it, where, how, will increasingly be required for “heritage textiles.”
  
• Labeling & certification: GI and craft-certified fabrics will command premium value and require correct licensing.
  
• Collaborative contracts: Western houses working with African artisans must structure deals that recognise the IP of the fabric, the design and the community.
  
• Ethics meets enforceability: Token “African print” collections without legal structure risk reputational and legal consequences.

For so long, African textiles were admired, but rarely respected as legal subjects. With kente now recognized under a Geographical Indication and materials like raffia entering the conversation, the continent’s crafts are shifting from cultural appreciation to economic and legal agency. The loom villages of Ghana and artisan workshops across West Africa are no longer symbolic; they represent active sites of authorship and rights.

At the intersection of fashion and law, the key question has evolved from “Can we borrow their aesthetic?” to “Have we secured our right to use it?” In today’s luxury economy, heritage is not just inspiration; it’s an asset. And for those of us tracing Africa’s imprint on global fashion law, this is only the beginning of a new legal chapter.

The post From Heritage to Haute Couture: The Legal Rise of Africa’s Signature Fabrics appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

From Uniforms to Brand Signatures

Tennis has always carried its own dress code, shaped by decades of crisp whites and strict formality. Today, those traditions collide with the realities of global marketing. Players step onto the court in carefully engineered looks, designed to circulate online as much as they perform under stadium lights. Brands like Nike, Adidas, and Lacoste treat tournament outfits almost like product launches.

Behind the scenes, the legal framework quietly shapes these decisions. USTA rules dictate uniform standards, but sponsors constantly test the boundaries, seeing how far design can stretch before crossing the line. This tug-of-war between regulation and creativity sparks debates about exclusivity, sponsorship rights, and the limits of commercial expression. A player tied to one sponsor cannot wear a competitor’s logo, and litigation in past tournaments has reinforced the contractual rigidity of these deals. Uniforms are no longer “mere clothing”; they are contested spaces where sponsorship agreements, intellectual property, and performance design intersect.

Examples of legal disputes:

• Serena Williams’ Catsuit at the 2018 French Open: Williams was prohibited from wearing her black Nike catsuit, sparking debates over gender, race, and dress codes in professional tennis  (Salon).

• Nike vs. StockX (2021): Nike sued StockX for selling unauthorised sneakers bearing Nike branding, illustrating how resale markets intersect with IP enforcement (Business of Fashion).

• USTA vs. Olympus (2010): The USTA sued Olympus for breach of a sponsorship agreement, highlighting the financial and contractual stakes behind tennis branding (ESPN).

Naomi Osaka and the Athlete-Entrepreneur Model

Even though Naomi Osaka was eliminated in the semifinals of the 2025 US Open, her fashion presence proved just as memorable as her on-court performance. Courtside attention centred on her uniquely styled Labubu plush dolls– custom-made, crystal-adorned figurines crafted by Kerin Rose Gold of A-Morir Studio, with playful names like “Billie Jean Bling,” “Althea Glitterson,” and “Arthur Flashe.”

Osaka had originally planned a special Labubu doll in her own likeness to celebrate a potential finals appearance. Her elimination meant that the project never came to fruition (AP News).

While no formal endorsement or partnership existed with Labubu or POP MART, the legal implications remain complex. When athletes carry or co-design items that merge multiple layers of IP—image rights, design rights, accessory branding—questions of licensing, ownership, and commercial use inevitably arise. Even in the absence of a formal deal, courtside styling becomes a negotiation over intellectual property, demonstrating how personal branding and law intersect in the modern game.

Courtside as Cultural Capital

The 2025 US Open demonstrated that the stands are as much a stage as the court. Fashion icon Anna Wintour, known for her signature bob and impeccable style, was spotted courtside alongside actor Rami Malek, adding a touch of glamour. Other notable attendees included director Spike Lee, media mogul Gayle King, and actor Alec Baldwin, all contributing to the star-studded atmosphere of the tournament. (Page Six)

These appearances are far from incidental. For fashion houses, dressing a star in the stands is as strategic as any official sponsorship deal. Cameras pan to the audience as often as the court, turning celebrity outfits into free global advertising. From a legal standpoint, this sits in a murky zone: it is not ambush marketing in the strict sense, since no logos hijack the event, but the effect is similar. Brands leverage visibility without paying official fees, creating millions in exposure in a single frame. In an industry where image is an asset, these “unofficial placements” constantly test the boundaries of endorsement law.

Intellectual Property on the Court

Beneath the glamour lies a quiet legal arms race. Nike, Adidas, and boutique brands increasingly file trademark applications for slogans, logos, and designs tied to tennis stars. Serena Williams, for example, has registered trademarks for her lifestyle and fashion projects, showing how athletes leverage their image as an asset (Cosmetics Business).

Trade dress disputes are common: when sneaker silhouettes or tennis dresses echo other designs too closely, infringement claims arise. Recent legal developments underscore these tensions: in 2025, the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) filed a lawsuit against the four major tennis governing bodies, alleging anti-competitive practices and restrictions on player earnings (Sports Litigation Alert).

These disputes reveal an often-overlooked truth: what we call “tennis style” is also a portfolio of valuable intellectual property, where aesthetics double as assets worth protecting. The US Open thus functions as both a commercial showcase and a legal battleground for brand distinctiveness.

Conclusion: The Future of Fashionable Tennis

The 2025 US Open confirms what insiders have long known: tennis is no longer just a sport, but a testing ground for the convergence of fashion, law, and entertainment. The question now is whether this synergy will continue to elevate the game’s cultural relevance, or whether commercial saturation will risk reducing the sport to a marketing backdrop.

For lawyers, designers, and athletes alike, the stakes are high. Contracts, trademarks, and licensing agreements shape what we see on the court and in the stands. The spectacle of tennis is increasingly one of intellectual property as much as athletic skill. And that, perhaps, is the most revealing match being played.

The post Serving Style: Fashion, Law, and the Game at the US Open appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

And yet: Jane Birkin’s original Birkin just sold for $10.1 million.

The bag sold for a staggering €8.6 million (US$10.1 million), including fees, on Thursday, July 10, 2025, in Paris, making it the second most valuable fashion item ever sold. The auction, held by Sotheby’s, was described as “an electrifying 10-minute battle” between nine determined collectors (1). But it was more than a bidding war. It was a cultural moment, the sale of a living archive, the literal blueprint for one of the most iconic (and legally fortified) luxury items of the last 40 years.

Let’s be clear: this wasn’t just about leather. It was about myth. Memory. And most of all, power.

Birkin’s Birkin: From Intimacy to Investment

Crafted initially by Hermès in 1984, the Birkin bag was named after Jane Birkin, not because she was a client, but because she spilt the contents of her bag on a plane. The legend goes that Hermès exec Jean-Louis Dumas offered to design her a better one. The result? A status symbol disguised as utility.

But what made Jane’s Birkin remarkable wasn’t its exclusivity. It was its everydayness. She wore it down. She broke it in. She defied the rules of luxury by treating her namesake bag like a diary, filled with scribbled notes, receipts, and the visible wear of a life fully lived.

Fast forward to 2025, and that same bag is now a multi-million-dollar collectable. Why? Because Hermès turned the Birkin from a product into a legend, and backed it up with a fortress of IP protection, selective distribution, and controlled scarcity.

IP + Aura = Value

The Birkin doesn’t have a logo splashed across it. It doesn’t need one.

Hermès has mastered the art of “silent IP”, protecting not just trademarks, but trade dress, shape, silhouette, and market placement (2). The result? A luxury item whose legal and cultural distinctiveness is enforced with precision. You don’t just buy a Birkin. You wait. You qualify. You’re chosen.

In the words of cultural theorist Naomi Klein, “authenticity became a business model” (3). Hermès didn’t just sell bags; it sold access, storytelling, and the performance of restraint.

That legal and cultural branding is precisely why Jane’s original, beat-up, overstuffed Birkin could command an eight-figure price. Because in the right hands, IP becomes aura, and aura, when curated by the right house, becomes capital.

When Heritage Becomes Speculation

Here’s the kicker: Jane Birkin never treated her bag as an asset. But the market did.

Today, the Birkin is as much a financial instrument as a fashion item, often outpacing gold and the S&P 500 in resale value (4). There are investment funds dedicated entirely to luxury handbags. Online platforms track appreciation like stock indexes. And the $10.1M sale only fuels the trend.

But here’s the quiet irony: Jane’s original bag was a rejection of that system. It was soft. Broken. Democratic in its use. So what exactly was auctioned for millions?

Not the leather. Not the craft. But the story, and the legal scaffolding that preserved it long enough for the market to turn it into legend.

Who Owns the Icon?

There’s something poetic (and mildly dystopian) about watching an object named after a woman be reclaimed by the very machinery she resisted. Hermès never gave Jane a percentage of sales. She publicly said she hoped the brand would donate more to ecological causes. She even auctioned off her Birkins for charity.

Yet in the end, it’s the brand —and now, a private collector from Japan — that reaps the benefit of her legacy.

This isn’t just a story about a $10M bag. It’s a case study in how intellectual property turns life into an asset, sentiment into a product, and cultural moments into economic currency. It forces us to ask: when we protect something so fiercely… who ends up owning it?

Conclusion: The Price of Meaning

There’s no denying Hermès has played the long game brilliantly. It has used law, craft, scarcity, and storytelling to build a brand immune to trend fatigue. The Birkin is not a bag.  It’s a signal.

But as Jane Birkin’s version fades into a vault, a chilling question remains:

Are we still buying into heritage, or just speculating on its shadow?

—————————————————————————————————————

References:

1. Sotheby’s, “Jane Birkin’s Personal Birkin Bag Sells for $10.1M,” July 2025.
2. WIPO, “The Role of Trade Dress in Fashion IP Strategy,” 2023.
3. Naomi Klein, No Logo, 2000.
4. Bloomberg, “Birkin Bags Beat the Market Again,” April 2025.

The post From Bag to Bank: What the $10 Million Birkin Says About Fashion, Ownership, and Obsession appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

In an industry long defined by inspiration, imitation, and reinvention, a new legal line is being drawn. Not by taste, but by trademarks.

From Viral Aesthetic to Legal Threat

The concept of “dupes” has exploded in recent years, driven by TikTok hauls and curated Instagram reels where creators proudly share “the Zara version of Alaïa’s flats.” What was once whispered—a guilty purchase, an off‑brand nod—has become part of the public aesthetic: affordable, aestheticised imitation.

But that visibility has consequences. Major brands, including Alaïa, Bottega Veneta, Mugler, and New Balance, have intensified their legal actions. Some are issuing cease-and-desist letters at scale. Others are escalating to court filings, using trade dress, design rights and unfair competition laws to argue that what once passed as inspiration now crosses into infringement.

Earlier this year, the Business of Fashion reported a sharp uptick in enforcement, with luxury houses devoting more of their budget to IP defence, citing “brand dilution and viral replication” as immediate business risks (1). Similar tension has appeared in court: The Fashion Law recently described “squabbles over dupes” as a growing legal battleground, where plaintiffs argue that affordable lookalikes constitute commercial free-riding rather than innocent homage (2).

The Legal Grey Zones of Dupes

Let’s be clear: a dupe is not a counterfeit. There’s no fake logo or deception about the origin. But the legal treatment of dupes remains complex.

In the U.S., where copyright generally doesn’t protect helpful articles like apparel, brands rely on trade dress or design patents. In Europe, unregistered Community design rights offer stronger—but shorter—protection. Enforcement, however, is inconsistent, expensive, and often region-specific (3).

This ambiguity creates space for both creativity and exploitation. A brand may debut an iconic silhouette, only to see it echoed across the fast fashion ecosystem in days. Is that flattery? Market diffusion? Or legal dilution?

Opinion: The Dupe Crackdown Isn’t Just About IP. It’s About Control.

The legal backlash against dupes isn’t solely about protecting creativity. It’s about reasserting authority in a saturated market.

High-end brands aren’t just defending intellectual property. They’re defending symbolic power. A handbag priced at $2,000 loses cultural value when an indistinguishable version exists at Zara for $49.99. In a market where exclusivity equals desirability, mass replication feels like erosion, not just of design value, but of brand identity.

Lawsuits and legal notices are not just reactive tools but strategic signals. They remind the market who originated the design and who has the power to enforce it. In other words, you can copy the shape but can’t copy the status.

What About Access?

The dupe conversation also exposes deeper tensions around access, privilege, and the politics of taste.

If a 22-year-old student buys a $60 dupe of a runway dress, is she undermining IP, or participating in fashion on her terms? Are dupes democratising style, or reducing design to short-term spectacle? In an era where runway images go viral in seconds and TikTok “dupe hauls” rack up millions of views, the boundary between inspiration and infringement is increasingly blurred.

The law may draw certain lines, but the cultural implications are far messier. Courts can decide what’s legal. But fairness (and taste) remains contested territory.

Conclusion: Design Law Is Now Front‑Row

Fashion has always blurred the line between homage and theft. But today, that ambiguity is being sorted out in legal terms.

As luxury brands invest more in IP strategy and aggressive enforcement, we may be witnessing the end of fashion’s “casual copying” era. The legal crackdown on dupes is not just a reaction. It’s a redefinition of authorship, originality, and ownership.

In the age of infinite inspiration and viral aesthetics, protecting design might come down not to who creates first; but to who protects louder.

References
(1) Business of Fashion, “Luxury’s Legal Pushback: How Brands Are Fighting Dupes in 2025,” March 2025.
(2) The Fashion Law, “Squabbles Over Dupes Are Getting Their Day in Court,” May 16 2025.
(3) WIPO, “Design Law and the Fashion Industry,” 2023.

The post Dupe or Die? How Fashion’s Legal Crackdown Is Rewriting the Rules of Design appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.

The Trump administration has maintained a 145% tariff on Chinese imports, while Beijing has upheld a 125% retaliatory tariff on U.S. goods. A pivotal development impacting fashion brands is the elimination of the de minimisrule, a cornerstone for ultra-fast fashion retailers like Shein and Temu.​

Let’s delve into the legal and strategic implications for the fashion industry.

1. De Minimis No More: Cross-Border E-Commerce Faces a Legal Overhaul

Effective May 2, 2025, the U.S. will eliminate the duty-free entry for foreign goods under $800 from China and Hong Kong. Instead, shipments will incur a $100 flat fee per package, escalating to $200 on June 1^[1]. This change disrupts the business models of platforms like Shein and Temu, which previously leveraged the de minimis exemption to ship low-cost packages directly to U.S. consumers without tariffs.

The new policy necessitates comprehensive compliance with U.S. customs regulations, including accurate declarations of item values and adherence to import processes. Failure to adapt promptly may result in customs disputes, regulatory penalties, and diminished market presence.​

2. Intellectual Property Risks Amid Supply Chain Realignments

In response to heightened tariffs and uncertainties in China, many fashion brands are shifting production to countries like Vietnam, India, and Bangladesh. However, these rapid transitions pose legal challenges, such as the need to re-register trademarks and designs in new jurisdictions, varying levels of IP enforcement, and potential lapses in confidentiality and exclusivity standards.​

The fast fashion sector, already under scrutiny for IP infringement risks, must proactively develop territorial IP protection strategies and secure rights in emerging manufacturing hubs to mitigate potential legal pitfalls.​

3. Shein’s IPO: Navigating Regulatory Complexities

Shein has received approval from the UK Financial Conduct Authority to proceed with its IPO in London. However, the company still awaits clearance from Chinese regulators. Amid these regulatory hurdles, Shein is reportedly considering reducing its valuation from $50 billion to approximately $30 billion to facilitate the IPO process^[2]. ​

This scenario underscores the intricate interplay between data governance, supply chain transparency, and cross-jurisdictional compliance in the fashion industry’s legal landscape.​

4. Tariffs Impacting Specific Fashion Sectors

The imposition of tariffs has notably affected sectors like the bridal industry. U.S. retailers report that the cost of imported wedding gowns, many manufactured in China, could potentially double. This situation compels boutique owners to make challenging decisions: absorb the increased costs, raise prices, or discontinue certain brands. Consequently, contract renegotiations and exclusivity clauses may require reassessment. ​

This development highlights the broader legal implications of tariff volatility on product pricing, contract enforcement, and consumer protection laws^[3].​

Conclusion: Trade Law’s Integral Role in Fashion

The ongoing trade tensions signify more than a political dispute; they represent a fundamental restructuring of global fashion operations. Legal professionals must not only comprehend these shifts but also anticipate their cascading effects across sourcing, branding, compliance, and consumer protection.​

In this evolving economic landscape, legal foresight is paramount. Whether it’s guiding IPOs, safeguarding intellectual property, or reviewing import contracts, the role of legal counsel is central and increasingly critical.​

Fashion law is no longer niche. It’s the framework holding the industry together.

References:

^[1] Investopedia, “A Trade Loophole Is Closing. Here’s What That Means for Your Online Shopping Costs,” April 18, 2025.
https://www.investopedia.com/de-minimis-exemption-rule-11715853

^[2] Reuters, “Shein gains UK approval for London IPO, awaits China nod,” April 11, 2025.
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/shein-gains-uk-approval-london-ipo-awaits-china-nod-sources-say-2025-04-11/

^[3] AP News, “Sellers of secondhand clothes prepare for tariffs to give their businesses a boost,” April 21, 2025.
https://apnews.com/article/0d6de65d89435b96fc396e53a77381f5

Author: 

Kélicia Massala

LL.M., Editorial Board Member, Fashion Law Journal

The post Tariffs, Trade Wars, and the Future of Fashion: Navigating the Legal Labyrinth in 2025 appeared first on Fashion Law Journal.