Mckinsey’s State of Fashion 2017 report, states that “Fashion is one of the world’s most important industries, driving a significant part of the global economy. It is one of the key value-creating industries for the world economy”² .This industry takes up a substantial share of the global supply chain.

The supply chain in a globalised world are dispersed and diverse. The biggest problems faced with fashion supply chain are of sustainability, and exploitative practices in production. The fashion supply chain, simply understood, is the entire process from the ideation of a garment to its end retail. Given the nature of globalisation, the fashion supply chain is now dispersed over the world. Production, usually occurs in developing economies, where cost of labor is low, and these products are then sold in the most luxurious stores in the west. But in the realm of fashion, the journey from concept to consumer is not limited to the creative side. Fashion retailers exist in a world of complex regulations.

Given the globalised nature of the world, the supply chains are fragmented over many countries, as it ensures lower production costs. A nuanced set of issues emerge; labour, sustainability, intellectual property, production regulations etc. It is impossible to discuss all aspects of this chain, so the focus for this article is on Labour related regulations, sustainability, as well as the role of technology in this regard.

The fashion industry is responsible for around 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions³ . Fashion brands, especially fast fashion brands produce high volumes of synthetic garments, that require a lot of energy to produce, and create tonnes of garment waste. This is usually concentrated in developing countries. If left to be, the fast fashion industry will create irreparable damages to the environment.⁴ To combat this, leading brands are trying to utilise Sustainable Supply Chain Management techniques (SSCM). SSCM refers to an approach that focuses on creating a supply chain ecosystem that optimises economic success, environmental responsibility, and social well- being.

The Drive for Sustainable and Ethical Fashion Supply Chains

The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), released in 2022 requires all European Union countries to disclose how they manage social and environmental challenges. This modernises the law related to social and environmental information that are to be reported by companies. The purpose is to require companies to disclose risks and opportunities arising from social and environmental issues⁵. By 2025, this directive will also apply to non-EU companies. The EU has made strides in the supply chain regulations, and due to its vast market, it forces companies worldwide to follow suit to the EU’s regulations. Considerations such as Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which puts an import duty based on the amount of carbon expended at the time of production, are all attempts to make the chain more transparent and sustainable.

The Due Diligence Directive of the EU, which will be enforced in the near future, requires companies to monitor and “prevent, end or mitigate” issues such as pollution, biodiversity loss, slavery and labor exploitation. This directive is predicted to make labour issues a more holistic consideration, so that disasters like the Rana Plaza collapse do not repeat themselves. Currently, the USA has the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, that prevents American companies from funding forced labour on an ethnic minority in china. This was an issue of forcing labour, but the exploitation occurs in other forms. In the Rana Plaza collapse, the main problem was not with forced labour, rather the disregard for labour working conditions. With the supply chain, the primary concern has been human rights issues, such as child labour, but the issue of the carbon footprint of a company is to be closely monitored as well. Energy thinking considerations are now a major part of supply chain management.

In India, supply chain legislation currently focuses on making the country more conducive for investment. Due to its large workforce, and a consumer base that is growing, the market is conducive for FDIs. The initiative to attract FDI, is an integral part of sustaining economic growth in India⁷.

Although Indian laws are not as developed as the EU initiatives, India has taken steps towards the Supply chain management in India. India however has prescribed to the OECD Guidelines which recommend that companies carry out due diligence, the process by which they identify and account for the negative impacts in their supply chains by focusing their efforts on issues which are most severe. The OECD has developed practical guidelines for companies to carry out due diligence in their supply chains. In 2018, the OECD facilitated the creation of a platform between Indian garment and textile industry, represented by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), and global apparel brands to share information and build capacity within the sector to meet international labour and environmental standards and industry best practices as laid out in the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector.

This platform aims to build transparency for investors and consumers. A key outcome was a broad agreement on the need to establish a mutual understanding and a ‘baseline’ for the current context on due diligence impacts in Indian textile and apparel supply chains^8.

How Technology is Revolutionising the Fashion Supply Chain

The future of fashion supply chain management is likely to be shaped by ongoing technological advancements, changing consumer behaviours, and an increased focus on sustainability. The digital transformation and technological advancement has made integration of evolving technology an integral part of the supply chain. Technological advancements such as AI, Blockchain, and robots can assist in all stages of production, promising a more efficient and transparent process. Big brands like H&M and Zara are now relying on AI technology to manage their supply chains more efficiently. Blockchain is used for traceability of products on the chain. AI is used in predictive analysis, and demand forecasting. Brands using AI will be able to project the upcoming trends and reduce problems of overstocking.

The speed-bump in the way of this technological growth will be trying to meet global regulatory standards, which will differ from country to country. There is not a lack of technology when it comes to sustainable supply chain management, rather a lack of legislative incentive ⁹. In the face of uncertainty, the data driven businesses will be replied upon more. Companies will be able to predict the picture of the future global supply chain.

Along with this, standardisation of the technology is yet another issue that will affect accessibility. The future of fashion supply chain management will likely involve a combination of technology- driven solutions, sustainable practices, and a commitment to meet evolving consumer expectations.

The main issue with the use of technology is the standardisation and accessibility so that it serves all in the same way ¹⁰ .

Conclusion
Fashion’s globalised supply chain, with production often happening in developing countries, raises concerns about sustainability and labor standards. Fast fashion, in particular, is linked to high volumes of waste and greenhouse gas emissions. The future of fashion supply chains hinges on a combination of technological innovation, sustainable practices, and regulations that prioritize ethical production and environmental responsibility.

The legal regulation in the supply chain does not stop at technology, there are a number of considerations in the fashion supply chain to be looked at. IP laws, consumer transparency, deceptive marketing are all part of the fashion supply chain that can be discussed intensively. The supply chain in the fashion industry is made of a lot of working parts, and balancing the profit focused goals of the companies, with the political agendas of each nation, and the rights of the consumers is a delicate process.

Fashion businesses need verifiable evidence of ESG-compliant supply chains. Incidents such as the Rana Plaza collapse uncover the horrifying reality of the fashion industry and lead to calls for global action. These induce consumers and investors to demand much needed transparency in the fashion production.

Building an ESG complaint supply chain does not happen overnight. While many companies say they place importance of sustainability and ethical practices, it is easier said than done. The European Union (EU) has taken a leading role in regulating supply chains with directives like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Due Diligence Directive. These initiatives promote transparency and hold companies accountable for social and environmental impacts.

1 “Bangladesh building collapse death toll passes 500” BBC News. 3 May 2013. Retrieved 3 May 2013.
2  The state of Fashion 2017, Mckinsey and Co.
3  https://unfccc.int/news/un-helps-fashion-industry-shift-to-low-carbon
4  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772390922000051
5https://finance.ec.europa.eu/capital-markets-union-and-financial-markets/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/corporate sustainability-reporting_en
6  https://www.fashiondive.com/news/fashion-regulations-supply-chain/694414/ 
7  https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/supply-chains-shifting-indo-pacific/india
8  https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/OECD-Apparel-supply-chain-assessment-in-India-TOR.pdf
9 https://www.voguebusiness.com/story/sustainability/legislation-is-coming-for-fashions-supply-chains-are- you-ready
10 https://bthechange.com/the-challenges-of-integrating-the-supply-chain-for-a-more-sustainable-fashion-industry-49d68dae7019

Author:

Rheaa Nair is a penultimate-year law Student at NMIMS Mumbai, with a growing fascination for the world of intellectual property law. She is driven by a passion for the creative industries, and drawn to the convergence of technology and law. Her academic pursuits are complemented by a keen appreciation for fashion. She aspires to a career that champions an innovative yet sustainable spirit within the fashion industry.

1. Mix-and-Match Metals

Who says you can only wear one type of metal at a time? One way to incorporate gold jewelry into your everyday look is by mixing it with other metals like silver or rose gold. This adds visual interest and allows you to wear your favorite pieces together, such as a lotus gold jewelry piece paired with a sleek silver bracelet.

2. Start with Dainty Pieces

If you’re new to wearing gold jewelry or just prefer a more minimalistic style, starting with dainty pieces is an excellent option. Delicate gold rings or small hoop earrings are understated yet add a touch of elegance to any outfit. These subtle details will enhance your everyday look without overpowering it.

3. Layering Delicate Necklaces

Layering necklaces has been on-trend for quite some time now, and incorporating gold necklaces into this style is effortless. Start by selecting necklaces in different lengths to create depth and dimension in your look. Choose varying styles like chains, pendants, or even chokers for added versatility. This layered effect creates visual interest while maintaining an effortlessly chic aesthetic.

4. Timeless Statement Pieces

While dainty jewelry pieces offer subtlety, there’s nothing wrong with making a statement now and then! Investing in timeless statement pieces can instantly elevate your everyday look. Consider bold cuffs, chunky link bracelets, or even oversized hoops in classic gold tones for those days when you want to make a lasting impression. Just remember to balance your outfit accordingly since these pieces will naturally draw attention.

5. Mix Jewelry with Your Outfits

A surefire way to effortlessly incorporate gold jewelry into your everyday look is by thoughtfully pairing it with your outfits. Use gold accents as a finishing touch to complement the color scheme or style of your ensemble. For example, if you’re wearing warm-toned clothing, opt for gold pieces that enhance the warmth in your look. On the other hand, for cooler tones, consider selecting gold jewelry with hints of white gold or rose gold for a more harmonious feel.

6. Consider Your Skin Tone

One important factor when incorporating gold jewelry into your everyday look is considering your skin tone. Gold comes in different shades, ranging from yellow to rose and white gold. If you have fair skin, yellow or rose gold often complements it beautifully, whereas those with warmer undertones tend to suit classic yellow gold well. However, don’t be afraid to experiment and find the shade of gold that makes you feel most confident and radiant.

7. Don’t Forget the Details

Incorporating gold jewelry into your everyday style means paying attention to the little details as well! Opt for matching earrings and bracelets, or coordinate rings on multiple fingers for an effortlessly put-together look. Going that extra mile will make you feel more polished and ensure that no matter how simple your outfit may be, it’s never lacking that touch of sophistication.

8. Elevate Your Daytime Look

Gold jewelry isn’t just for special occasions or holiday parties. You can easily incorporate it into your daytime look to add a touch of glam to your everyday activities. One way to do this is by pairing simple gold hoop earrings with a casual outfit like jeans and a t-shirt. This combination effortlessly takes your look from ordinary to stylish, making you feel put together even during the most casual of days.

9. Don’t Forget about Minimalist Bracelets

When we think of gold jewelry, necklaces, earrings, and rings usually come to mind first. However, don’t overlook the power of minimalist gold bracelets in enhancing your everyday style. Thin bangles or delicate chain bracelets provide subtle elegance and can be worn alone or layered with other wrist accessories. These minimalist pieces are perfect for adding a hint of shimmer without overpowering the rest of your ensemble.

Conclusion

Incorporating gold jewelry into your everyday look doesn’t have to be complicated or overwhelming. By mixing metals, starting with dainty pieces, layering necklaces, choosing statement pieces strategically, pairing jewelry with outfits thoughtfully, considering skin tone, and paying attention to detail – a touch of shine can effortlessly elevate any ensemble. So don’t be afraid to experiment and let your personality shine through as you make daily fashion statements with your favorite gold jewelry.

In the present world of fashion driven social media where even socks dream of becoming stars and belts secretly aspire to hold more than just pants, these words of Ralph Lauren ring truer than ever. Fashion isn’t about a piece of clothing anymore, it’s about crafting stories as intricate as a perfectly knitted sweater, diving into fantasies wilder than the animal printed suits, and most importantly about daring to dream bigger than those oversized pants that seem too large for a single person.

But dreams don’t come as we see it, they come with challenges and behind every elegant dress and bejewelled blazer, there’s a saga as dramatic as Indian tele soap. Behind the glam fam lie the trademark tussles, where brands bump heads over logos, slogans, signature styles, and even colour. From Gucci’s double Gs to the Nike’s iconic swoosh, these trademarks aren’t mere symbols, they are embodiment of a brand’s identity, they are holy grail, the secret sauce and sometimes, the subject of some seriously funny legal showdowns.

The fashion industry isn’t just about laces and bows; it’s also a legal maze where creativity collides with legality and fierce catwalk can save one from the court drama. Over the years, several groundbreaking judgments have set precedents and transformed the fashion industry. Here are the ten landmark judgements, each has left its own unique imprint on the ever-changing canvas of fashion industry.

1. Chanel Ltd. v. Sunder Chemicals Agarbati Works (P) Ltd. and Anr.[1]

In this landmark judgement, Chanel, the undisputed queen of luxury, took on against the defendant’s using the mark “SHANELLE” for similar products. Chanel filed a suit seeing injunction based on the deceptive similarity between the marks. Chanel argued that its trademark “CHANEL” had been in use since 1925 and is globally well renowned entitling it to protection under Trademarks Act, 1999. Whereas the defendant argued that its use of the mark “SHANELLE” was bona fide and was not deceptively similar to Chanel’s mark. The court held that the defendant failed to provide reasonable justification for its adoption of the mark “SHANELLE” and that the marks were phonetically similar, likely to cause confusion among consumers. In the light of such observations, the court granted interim injunction in favour ofChanel. This groundbreaking judgement sent a message to the infringers everywhere: Cross Chanel and find yourself in legal threads. Talk about haute couture drama!

2. Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc. Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess?, Inc.[2]

This dispute was initiated by a global fashion company which is renowned as one of the largest luxury-products brands in the world, Gucci America, Inc. (Gucci) alleging Guess? Inc. (Guess), another well renowned brand, for trademark infringement and counterfeiting. Gucci levered several accusations against Guess, among others, that certain of Guess’s products had infringed and diluted different Gucci trademarks and trade dress, which included Gucci’s green-red-green stripe mark, repeating GG pattern and diamond motif trade dress, asserting that Guess’s actions amounted to an infringement of Gucci’s intellectual property rights.

After thorough examination and meticulously reviewing the evidence in hand, the court ruled in favour of Gucci. While awarding the damages, it was considered by the court that while Guess did infringe three of the alleged designs but did not infringe a fourth. Moreover while considering other claims of Gucci, the judge didn’t seem quite impressed, it seemed to the judge that Gucci had been aware of Guess’s infringement activities for several years. It was pointed out that such delay by Gucci in pursuing infringement claim along with had caused prejudice to Guess.

This judgement doesn’t only assert the protection of of intellectual property rights but also leaves a message that trademark holders must be vigilant and act promptly in safeguarding their trademarks when they sense infringement.

3. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.[3]

Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. initiated a lawsuit against 2 Live Crew and their record company, alleging that 2 Live Crew’s song “Pretty Woman” infringed Acuff-Rose’s copyright in Roy Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman.” The District Court ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew, determining that their song constituted a parody that fairly used the original work. However, the Court of Appeals overturned this decision, stating that the commercial aspect of the parody created a presumption of unfairness. Further, the Supreme Court ruled that the commercial aspect of a parody is just one factor to consider in determining fair use. The Court criticized the Appeals Court for placing undue weight on the commercial nature of the parody and failing to properly assess the transformative nature of parody in assessing the extent of copying. The Court emphasized that no presumption of unfairness should be applied solely based on commerciality, as it does not address the purpose of the use or potential market harm.

This landmark case established the concept of transformative use in copyright law, allowing fashion designers to create transformative works inspired by existing designs without infringing on copyright.

4. Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.[4]

In this landmark judgment, LLC, Varsity, a company specializing in athletic clothing and accessories or say reigning champs of athletic apparel, filed a lawsuit against Star Athletica, LLC, alleging copyright infringement. Varsity accused that Star’s designs closely resembled their copyrighted designs used in cheerleading uniforms. Star counter argued that Varsity’s designs were not eligible for copyright protection because they were part of useful articles (uniforms) and were inseparable from their functional purpose, basically stating that something that’s just part of a practical, everyday outfit cannot be copyrighted. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The district court ruled in favor of Star, stating that the designs were integral to the uniforms’ functionality. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision, determining that the Copyright Act permits graphic features of a design to be copyrighted, even if they are not separable from a useful article.

The Supreme Court laid down two ket criteria of eligibility for copyright protection for a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article. First, that the feature must be capable of being perceived as a 2D or 3D work of art distinct from the useful article itself, meaning, it should have an artistic or aesthetic quality that can be appreciated independently of its utilitarian function. Second, that the feature must meet the requirements of being a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, either on its own or if it were separated from the useful article and fixed in some other tangible medium of expression.

In the case of Kieselstein-Cord (KC) v. Accessories by Pearl (Pearl), Inc., the legal ramp was lit up with a serious debate over eligibility for copyright protection of belt buckles. KC filed suit against Pearl for copyright and trademark infringement along with unfair competition upon which Pearl filed summary judgment on ground the KC’s belt buckles are not copyrightable. The center issue was whether the decorative belt buckles in question could be protected under copyright law or whether they were deemed utilitarian items ineligible for protection under copyright law. Initially, it was ruled by the District Court as buckles are part of a useful article, they fail to meet the threshold of eligibility criteria for copyright protection. However, the Second Circuit overturned the judgement emphasising the artistic and ornamental aspects of the buckle thereby establishing their separability from the utilitarian function of the belt. It was acknowledged how these bejewelled buckles weren’t just hanging out on waistbands as showcased in prestigious venues like Met gala, indicating their versatility beyond their intended purpose. That’s when the new fashion mantra echoed, “Buckle up, buttercups, it’s Copyright Couture”.

5. Chanel, Inc. v. What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC[5]

Or should we say Haute Couture versus Vintage Chic? Chanel, the queen of fashion spares no one. Chanel initiated a legal suit against What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC (WGACA), a vintage clothing retailer, for allegedly selling counterfeit and some unauthorised Chanel products. In the lawsuit, Chanel accused WGACA of trademark infringement, false advertising and unfair competition.

After years of litigation, a New York federal jury in February 2024 ruled in favour of Chanel on all four stated causes of action. This judgment underscores Chanel’s unwavering commitment to safeguarding its brand image and value it places on its trademark and sets it as an example for the fashion industry to actively monitor the market for potential infringement threats and pursue legal action when needed to uphold its intellectual property rights and preserve the integrity of their brand.

6. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC[6]

One may think what a fashion brand has to do with brand engaged in pet accessories but here’s the legal scenario where luxury meets puppy love. Louis Vuitton, the luxury titan found itself in a legal pawdicament when it took on Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, a company renowned for its whimsical pet toys. The bone of contention here was the launch of Haute Diggity Dog’s “Chewy Vuiton” line of dog toys as a playful parody of Louis Vuitton’s iconic designs. Louis Vuitton without taking a breath, unleashed its cry for legal rights alleging trademark infringement faster than one could say, “fetch”.

With wagging tails, Haute Diggity Dog argued that the toys were harmless playful things and nothing more than a playful nod to luxury fashion. The court considered that the Haute Diggity Dog’s products weren’t promoted, produced, or intended to rival against Louis Vuitton and hence refused to support the infringement claim. Despite Louis Vuitton’s futile attempt to argue that Haute Diggity Dog’s products posed a hazard to dogs, the court dismissed this assertion, affirming the District Court’s ruling in favour of Haute Diggity Dog on all claims.

This judgement underscored the importance of safeguarding parody as a form of free expression, while reminding fashion brands to carefully consider the implications of legal action on brand image. Haute Diggity Dog’s victory was a tail-wagging triumph for parody lovers everywhere, reminding fashion bigwigs that a little humour never hurt anyone’s brand image.

7. Hermès v. Rothschild[7]

The recent legal clash between luxury fashion and digital art, Hermès and Mason Rothschild over MetaBirkin NFTs, has emerged as a landmark judgement in application of trademark law to non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Intellectual Property Rights are meant to safeguard creator’s rights, but their application to NFTs remains the least discovered area, and the present case acts as a crucial step in the evolving route of intersection of intellectual property rights and NFTs.

The dispute between the luxury brand Hermès and artist Mason Rothschild was over the creation and sell of MetaBirkin NFTs. Hermès accused Rothschild trademark infringement, brand dilution, and cybersquatting over Rothschild’s NFTs, which depicted fur-covered versions of its iconic Birkin bags. The jury ruled in favour of Hermès in the check-list style, checking off all the accusations in the list or more like a legal version of Bingo, but only, Hermès shouting “Birkin!” instead of Bingo.

The judgement sets precedent for the cases involving application of trademark law to NFTs, by establishing that the creation and sale of NFTs could indeed infringe existing trademark rights for non-NFT uses.

8. Theriot v. Louis Vuitton North America, Inc.[8]

In 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed against Louis Vuitton North America for allegedly collecting consumers’ biometric data by way of a virtual try-on tool on its site, failing to obtain prior consent from the consumers. The virtual try-on tool has emerged as a popular tool, highly used by fashion and beauty brands to enhance the online shopping experiences for their customers which operates by collecting prospective consumers’s images and processing to show how a particular product of the brand would appear on their facial geometry. Likewise, the try-on feature by LVNA provided the opportunity to everyone to try in the latest shades and handbags. However, the plaintiffs hailing from Illinois argued that LVMA by failing to provide written notice regarding the collection of consumers’ face, the purpose of such collection, and for how long the data would be retained. Responding to the allegations, LVMA moved to dismiss the claim by contending that the facial recognition technology was developed by a third-party company and the same is responsible for collecting biometric information. The court here stated that the actual roles and responsibilities of the companies involved in the biometric data collection process constitutes factual question to be resolved in the later stages of proceedings. However, the court did dismiss one charge alleging that LVNA violated BIPA by failing to have a written biometric policy stating that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a particularised harm from absence of such policy.

The ruling marks a significant improvement in the evolving nature of consumer expectations in the digital era where transparency becomes a matter of concern, emphasising the development in the legal scenario surrounding privacy rights and corporate responsibility, particularly in the context of e-commerce and online retail.

9. Industria de Diseño Textil, SA Inditex v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) [9]

On 11 April 2019 the EU General Court delivered its judgment in the matter between Inditex, the parent company of well-known brand, Zara and EUIPO demonstrating the far reaching, evolving nature of fashion brands and the markets they can operate in and are expanding into. The dispute arose over the trademark application for the figurative mark, “ZARA TANZANIA ADVENTURES” for services in classes 39, 41 and 43, encompassing travel and tourism services, entertainment for tourists and other travel agency services. Inditex filed opposition against the application based on the existence of its two earlier trademarks, one, an EU word mark “ZARA,” registered in classes 25, 39, and 42 and another, same word mark registered in classes 35 and 41. To this the question arises, why a fashion brand would register its trademark in the classes of travel sector? This is because of the change in wind blowing through the fashion industry where brands have been transforming into lifestyle behemoths which becomes relevant from the existing ventures of Gucci and Ralph Lauren entering into the world of food, travel, and hospitality. Even Vivienne Westwood and Martin Grant have been on board with major carriers giving airline uniforms a fashion makeover. This shows the symbiotic relationship between fashion and travel which is often seen in the pages of glossy magazines.

The court ruled in the favour of Inditex, emphasising the importance of considering the strength of the brand’s earlier marks, reputation and their degree of distinctiveness in the market. The court asserted that the risk of unfair advantage cannot be ignored despite differences in goods and services, all relevant factors are to be considered to assess the potential risk.

10. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission V. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.[10]

The present judgement stands as an important one in regards to employment discrimination law. The gist of the cases lies in the “Look Policy” of Aabercombie & Fitch that prohibited certain clothing items like “cap”, without clearly defining it based on which they refused to hire one Samantha Elauf, a practising Muslim woman who wore a headscarf to her interview. The issues raised were whether Abercombie’s refusal to hire Samantha only on the basis of her wearing “hijab” a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act constituting discrimination based on religious beliefs and whether the title VII requires employers to have actual knowledge of the applicant’s requirement for a religious accommodation before being held liable for discrimination. The Court clarified that in determining discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employer’s intent is more crucial than the actual knowledge emphasising the importance of accommodating religious beliefs in the workplace even if not explicitly mentioned by the employee. The court also highlighted that Title VII prohibits employers from making an applicant’s religious practice a factor in making hiring decisions.

In the end, the lawsuit was amicably resolved by a Consent Decree which provided that Abercombie would pay $50 million to settle the present lawsuit along with two other private class actions. The Consent Decree also prohibited Abercrombie from engaging in discriminatory practices based on race, colour, national origin, sex, and ensured equal promotional opportunities for women and minorities.

This landmark judgement underscores the need for employers to review and potentially adjust their policies to comply with Title VII and to train their staff accordingly. This case set a precedent for protecting religious freedoms in the workplace and preventing discrimination based on religious attire or practices.

Abercombie & Fitch had had its exclusive moments, not exactly worthy of fashion spread. It has lived its fair share of scrutiny over its discriminatory practices based on race, gender, and even disability. But like phoenix, Abercombie has risen from the ashes, with each legal dispute being a lesson to evolution, not forgetting that this redemption demands hefty legal fees and settlement agreements.

In conclusion, these judgments highlight the importance of trademark protection and the need to safeguard against deceptive practices in the competitive world of commerce. From Chanel’s victory over SHANELLE’s phonetic hijinks to Crocs’ lesson in the complexities of design and trademark law, each case underscores the significance of preserving brand identity and consumer trust.

[1] 2003 (26) PTC 52 (Delhi)

[2] 831 F. Supp. 2d 723, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1225 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

[3] 510 U.S. 569 (1994)

[4] 580 U.S. ___ (2017)

[5] 1:18-cv-02253 (S.D.N.Y.)

[6] 507 F.3d 252, 84 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1969

[7] 22-cv-384 (JSR)

[8] 1:22-cv-02944

[9] ECLI:EU:T:2019:241

[10] 575 U.S. 768, 135 S. Ct. 2028 (2015)

Author:

Sanjana Bishnoi, (Intern at Fashion Law Journal) a fifth-year law student at Bennett University, explores the intersection of law and fashion. With a hobby in art and craft and a keen interest in fashion, she delves into the legal landscape of the fashion world. With this article, she attend to bring the readers’ attention towards top ten landmark judgement that has shaped fashion industry.

Fashion advertising is a powerful and influential force that shapes the way we perceive beauty, style, and aspiration. Yet, this realm of creativity is not without its legal boundaries. Regulations governing fashion advertising ensure that consumers are not misled, and that the images they see accurately represent the products being promoted. In this article, we delve into the complex world of fashion advertising regulations, examining truth in advertising laws, airbrushing controversies, and the use of models with digitally altered images.

Truth in Advertising Laws

At the heart of fashion advertising regulations are “truth in advertising” laws. These laws, enforced by governmental agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the United States and similar bodies internationally, aim to protect consumers from deceptive or false advertising practices.

1. Product Claims: Fashion advertisements must accurately represent the features, qualities, and benefits of the products they promote. Claims about product performance, materials, and benefits must be substantiated with evidence.

2. Disclosure of Retouching: Some countries, like France, have enacted laws requiring advertisers to disclose when images have been retouched or digitally altered. This transparency allows consumers to differentiate between natural beauty and digitally enhanced representations.

Airbrushing Controversies

The use of airbrushing, retouching, and digital manipulation in fashion advertising has long been a subject of debate. Critics argue that these techniques perpetuate unrealistic beauty standards and can negatively impact self-esteem and body image. In response to these concerns, several developments have taken place:

1. Dove’s Real Beauty Campaign: Dove’s “Real Beauty” campaign challenged conventional beauty standards by featuring unretouched images of women of various body types. This campaign highlighted the potential for positive change in the industry.

2. Editorial Guidelines: Some fashion magazines and brands have implemented editorial guidelines that restrict the use of excessive retouching. These guidelines promote more realistic representations of models.

3. Model Health Initiatives: In response to concerns about the health and well-being of models, some countries have introduced legislation requiring medical certificates to prove models’ fitness to work.

Use of Models with Digitally Altered Images

The debate over digitally altered images in fashion advertising often centers on the use of models whose appearances have been significantly manipulated. This issue encompasses not only body size but also skin tone, facial features, and overall aesthetics.

1. Body Size and Image Manipulation: Several countries, including France and Israel, have passed laws addressing the use of underweight models. These laws require models to have a minimum body mass index (BMI) and mandate disclosure when images have been altered to make models appear thinner.

2. Skin Tone and Diversity: Critics have also raised concerns about the manipulation of skin tone, which can perpetuate racial biases and stereotypes. Brands are increasingly under pressure to represent diversity and inclusivity in their advertising campaigns.

3. Ethical Considerations: Ethical discussions surrounding image manipulation highlight the importance of transparent practices in the fashion industry. Brands and advertisers are urged to disclose when images have been significantly altered.

Conclusion

Fashion advertising plays a significant role in shaping societal ideals of beauty and style. While it is a powerful tool for promoting products and brands, it also carries a responsibility to consumers and society at large. Regulations governing fashion advertising, including truth in advertising laws and guidelines on image manipulation, are vital in ensuring that advertisements are honest and do not perpetuate harmful beauty standards.

As the industry continues to evolve, it is increasingly important for fashion brands and advertisers to strike a balance between creative expression and ethical responsibility. Transparency, diversity, and realistic representations in fashion advertising contribute to a more inclusive and responsible industry that respects the rights and well-being of consumers and models alike. By adhering to these regulations and fostering a culture of honesty and authenticity, the fashion industry can continue to be a source of inspiration and aspiration while upholding ethical standards.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password: