Fashion Designs Deserve Full Copyright Protection, Just Like in the European Union.

Fashion in today’s world is no longer merely for functional purposes — it is a form of artistic and commercial expression, where designers meticulously invest in research, sketching, experimenting, and crafting to create their own original garments that essentially become a core component of the identity that will later be established along their career. Yet in many jurisdictions, these creations receive only limited legal protection, leaving independent designers vulnerable to rapid copying and stealing by unscrupulous competitors. This rests on the assertion that fashion designs deserve comprehensive copyright protection, similar to that provided under European Union law, because fashion is an original artistic work with personal purpose worthy of legal recognition. Enforcing such an act will not only ordain stronger regulations, but also promote genuine innovation, economic growth, and foster a fairer marketplace that rewards creativity rather than imitation.

Fashion design clearly requires effort from the drafting to the actual process of bringing it into life. The field is more than simply manufacturing clothing and serving a function; it involves fabric selection, silhouettes, patterns, embroidery, textures, color combinations, and stitching, which rightly adds to its artistic value. Just as in architecture, where modern buildings have functional aspects but still receive copyright protection, the same principle should be applied to fashion. This was already recognized by the European Union through the landmark decision of the Cofemel case, which clarified that works of fashion design are included within that of applied art, and should be treated similarly to works in copyright law (Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestuário SA v G-Star Raw CV, 2019). This confirms that fashion belongs among other sectors like literary, illustrations, furniture, structures, and industrial design, in regard to having an intellectual origin beyond function. It was also held that clothing designs can qualify for copyright protection if it is assessed that all elements are original intellectual creations reflecting free and creative choices, precluding the conferment of copyright eligibility based solely on visual merit or aesthetic effect. This basically emphasizes originality as the key criterion without eliminating the possibilities for creative expression, bringing fashion more clearly within the scope of copyright law and allowing space for inspired designs. 

With Europe undoubtedly being the powerhouse of fashion, intellectual property disputes and authority conflicts are inevitable, making it one of the reasons why the copyright legislation in the EU is appropriate. This highlights how important intelligible ownership is, especially in a very diverse category, implying the encouragement of constituionalization for other countries as well. In the case of Mio/Konektra, the existing EU framework was operationalize, which gave a further interpretation of the enactment wherein an identifiable work with sufficient precision, objectivity, and originality is enough to call it one’s own property, reaffirming that the rule does not narrow down the creative perspective but valuing authority (Sipetas, 2026). Consequently, competitors would be deterred from producing copies of another design and capitalize imitators, letting actual designers’ works thrive in the market. This is to completely dissuade attempts of copying disguised as original by having proper examination of the products, ensuring that it does not only look at aesthetics but the deliberate choice of details. Luxury brands such as Christian Dior, Chanel, and Louis Vuitton illustrate this evidently by investing heavily in original design and craftsmanship. In doing so, they would receive more incentive for their own innovation, and have stronger legal protection that helps them preserve the value of those investments. 

Arguably, fashion trends depend on responding to what is currently popular and indefinitely creating in-demand styles. However, it does not permit substantial copying, as designers remain free to infuse some sort of originality in their designs, balancing between making timely collections and maintaining artistic integrity. Undeniably, consumers often seek certain designs, thus leading to the production of repeated styles by different brands. This then may in turn culminate in design rights that give benefit for creative endeavours as part of originality (Joshi, 2023). Critics might additionally contend that copyright would create monopolies, yet in fact it is limited in duration, safeguards only original expression, and allows independent creation. If there are no such restrictions to the constant production of illegitimate copies, independent designers would be left without rightful compensation while large imitators profit. Imminently, it will increase clothing prices, but innovation has value, and copyright protects it. Fashion is one of the most influential creative industries, yet remains one of the least consistently protected under copyright law. Designers deserve the same legal respect afforded to other creators whose original works contribute to culture, innovation, and economic development, demonstrating that artistic expression and functionality are not mutually exclusive.

Author: Sofia Averilla

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fashion Law Journal

Crafting Protection: Intellectual Property in the Fashion World