Fashion law has no statute of its own. What it has is a body of rulings about handbags, shoes, jeans and t-shirts that lawyers in New York, London and Luxembourg keep returning to. Some of these fashion law cases were decided by the highest courts in the US, EU and UK. Others are trial results that changed how brands behave. A few began in another industry altogether and were then absorbed into fashion practice. We have grouped all 25 by the question they answer, because that is how they come up at work: what can a brand own, who pays when fakes sell online, and when does a joke stop being a defence.
Short answer: The essential fashion law cases cover six areas: what a trademark can be, how far copyright and design rights reach, who is liable for online fakes, when parody works, how resale and distribution can be controlled, and what remedies follow. Start with Louboutin v YSL, Star Athletica, Tiffany v eBay, Coty and Louboutin v Amazon.
Key takeaways
- A colour can be a trademark, but in the US a clothing design must first earn recognition with the public before it gets trade dress protection.
- The garment itself rarely gets US copyright. The EU is more open, because Cofemel bars extra aesthetic tests.
- Marketplaces are safer in the US after Tiffany v eBay than in the EU after Louboutin v Amazon.
- Parody as a shield has weakened since Jack Daniel’s, as Vans v MSCHF shows, and resellers can lose if they lean too heavily on a brand’s name.
Which cases decide what a fashion trademark can be?
These five set the outer limits. Two of them involve the same red sole on opposite sides of the Atlantic, and FLJ’s piece on what the Louboutin case really settled compares them.
| No. | Case | Court, year | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qualitex v Jacobson Products | US Supreme Court, 1995 | A colour alone can be a trademark. The product was green-gold dry cleaning press pads, but every colour claim in fashion starts here. |
| 2 | Wal-Mart v Samara Brothers | US Supreme Court, 2000 | Wal-Mart had copied children’s seersucker outfits. Unregistered product design is protected only with secondary meaning, so a new design cannot rely on trade dress. |
| 3 | Christian Louboutin v Yves Saint Laurent | US Second Circuit, 2012 | A single colour can serve as a fashion trademark, but the red sole mark was limited to soles that contrast with the upper. YSL’s all-red shoe fell outside it. |
| 4 | Louboutin v Van Haren (C-163/16) | EU Court of Justice, 2018 | A colour applied to a sole is not a mark consisting exclusively of a shape, so the bar on shape marks did not apply. |
| 5 | adidas v Thom Browne | New York federal jury, 2023; Second Circuit, 2024 | A jury found no infringement of the three stripes by Thom Browne’s bars. A famous mark does not cover every stripe. |
The stripes dispute has one last chapter. After the Second Circuit affirmed on 3 May 2024, adidas pursued a separate challenge over late-produced emails, and in September 2026 it filed a petition to the US Supreme Court on a narrow procedural question about what counts as misconduct in discovery.
FLJ Insider Pro is open: live fashion law jobs and internships, five career guides and two roadmaps. Early bird USD 12/month. See what's inside
Which cases set the limits of copyright and design rights?
The story starts with a boycott. When US dress makers had no legal way to stop copying, they tried to enforce their own rules, and lost. The US position still favours copyists, while EU law gives more room to protect a garment.
| No. | Case | Court, year | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Fashion Originators’ Guild v FTC | US Supreme Court, 1941 | A guild boycotted retailers stocking “style piracy” copies. The court upheld the FTC’s order: competitors cannot police copying through a combination that restrains trade. |
| 7 | Star Athletica v Varsity Brands | US Supreme Court, 2017 | Set the separability test: a feature of a useful article is protected if it can be imagined as a work of art apart from the article. |
| 8 | Unicolors v H&M | US Supreme Court, 2022 | A fabric print owner’s registration survives an error if the applicant did not know of it, whether the mistake was of fact or of law. |
| 9 | Cofemel v G-Star Raw (C-683/17) | EU Court of Justice, 2019 | EU states cannot require a “specific aesthetic effect” before giving copyright to clothing designs. Originality is the test. |
| 10 | Karen Millen v Dunnes Stores (C-345/13) | EU Court of Justice, 2014 | A design must differ from earlier designs taken individually, and the holder of an unregistered right need not prove individual character. |
For the detail behind the separability test, see FLJ’s note on Star Athletica, and for the gap between the two systems, copyright in clothing.
Who is liable when counterfeits are sold online?
This is where the systems have moved furthest apart. Luxury and beauty brands brought most of these disputes, and the line has shifted from sellers to the platforms that serve them.
| No. | Case | Court, year | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Tiffany v eBay | US Second Circuit, 2010 | General awareness of fakes is not enough for contributory liability. Knowledge of specific listings, or wilful blindness, is required. |
| 12 | Google France v Louis Vuitton (C-236/08) | EU Court of Justice, 2010 | Advertisers can infringe by buying a mark as a keyword. The search engine does not itself use the mark, and may have hosting protection. |
| 13 | L’Oréal v eBay (C-324/09) | EU Court of Justice, 2011 | A marketplace loses hosting protection if it plays an active role, such as promoting offers, or ignores what a diligent operator would spot. Courts can order future measures. |
| 14 | Louboutin v Amazon (C-148/21, C-184/21) | EU Court of Justice, 2022 | A platform may itself use a mark if users think it is selling the goods, for example through uniform listings, its logo and shipping services. |
| 15 | Cartier v British Telecommunications | UK Supreme Court, 2018 | Brand owners must indemnify internet providers for the reasonable costs of website blocking orders. |
| 16 | Lifestyle Equities v Amazon | UK Supreme Court, 2024 | A US website offering delivery to the UK targeted UK consumers, so it infringed UK and EU marks. Access alone is not enough. |
When does parody or art defeat a trademark claim?
Less often than it did. The US Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Jack Daniel’s, a dog toy case, changed the ground: an alleged infringer that uses a mark as its own brand gets no special First Amendment test.
| No. | Case | Court, year | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17 | Louis Vuitton v Haute Diggity Dog | US Fourth Circuit, 2007 | The “Chewy Vuiton” dog toy was a successful parody: no likely confusion and no dilution. Compare it with the next entry. |
| 18 | Vans v MSCHF | US Second Circuit, 2023 | The first appellate ruling to apply Jack Daniel’s. Wavy Baby sneakers used Vans’ marks as a brand, so the ordinary confusion test applied and an injunction stood. |
| 19 | Hermès v Rothschild | New York federal jury, 2023 | MetaBirkins NFTs infringed and diluted Hermès’ marks. The jury rejected a First Amendment defence and awarded $133,000 in total. An appeal to the Second Circuit followed. |
FLJ explains why the parody sneakers lost on appeal. The Hermès result stands as a warning to digital sellers, though we could not confirm an appellate ruling at the time of writing.
Which cases govern resale, pricing and distribution?
Control after the first sale is where trademark law meets competition law. Brands can restrict more than most people assume, within limits that differ by market. FLJ’s guides to the first sale doctrine and selective distribution give the background.
| No. | Case | Court, year | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | Leegin v PSKS | US Supreme Court, 2007 | A dispute over Brighton leather goods ended the per se ban on minimum resale prices. Such agreements now face the rule of reason under federal law. |
| 21 | Coty Germany v Parfümerie Akzente (C-230/16) | EU Court of Justice, 2017 | A luxury supplier may bar authorised retailers from selling on visible third-party platforms to protect a luxury image, if the system is non-discriminatory and proportionate. |
| 22 | Chanel v What Goes Around Comes Around | New York federal court, 2024 to 2025 | A jury found the reseller liable and awarded $4 million. The final judgment added an injunction limiting its use of Chanel’s marks and its authenticity claims. |
In Chanel, the reseller’s appeal was reported as argued at the Second Circuit in September 2026, so treat the result as open. Kelley Drye’s note on the verdict sets out what the jury found.
What do the remedies and endorsement cases teach?
Winning on liability is only half of it. These three show how money and personal reputation are handled.
| No. | Case | Court, year | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | Romag Fasteners v Fossil | US Supreme Court, 2020 | Fake magnetic fasteners ended up on Fossil handbags. A trademark owner can recover profits without proving wilfulness, although state of mind stays important. |
| 24 | Jack Wills v House of Fraser | English High Court, 2014 and 2016 | A pigeon logo infringed the Jack Wills pheasant. The account of profits gave only £53,281, about 41% of net profits, against a claim above £650,000. |
| 25 | Fenty v Arcadia | Court of Appeal of England and Wales, 2015 | English law has no image right, but Topshop’s Rihanna t-shirt was passing off because it falsely suggested her endorsement. |
How should you use this list?
Read the holding, then the facts, then what happened to the parties. A list like this flattens the differences between a preliminary injunction, a jury verdict and a final appellate ruling, and those differences matter when advising a client. Vans was decided at the injunction stage. Hermès and Chanel are jury results with appeals behind them. Check the status of any case before you cite it, and treat pre-Brexit EU rulings in the UK as a separate question to research. Students can use the FLJ hub on what fashion lawyers do to see where each topic turns up in practice.
Frequently asked questions
What is the most famous fashion law case?
There is no official ranking, but Christian Louboutin v Yves Saint Laurent is probably the best known. The 2012 Second Circuit ruling held that a single colour can be a fashion trademark, and limited the red sole mark to soles that contrast with the upper.
Is fashion design protected by copyright in the US?
Only in part. Clothing is treated as a useful article, so the garment’s shape is not protected. Under Star Athletica, a feature can be protected if it can be imagined as a separate work of art, which is why prints and graphics do better than cuts.
Can a marketplace be liable for selling fake goods?
Yes, but the test varies. In the US, Tiffany v eBay requires knowledge of specific listings or wilful blindness. In the EU, Louboutin v Amazon means a platform may itself use a mark if users could think it is the seller.
Is reselling luxury goods legal?
Generally, yes, if the goods are authentic. But Chanel v What Goes Around Comes Around shows the limits: a jury held a reseller liable for heavy use of the brand in its marketing, and found it sold counterfeit bags. An appeal has been reported.
Does parody protect a fashion product?
Sometimes. The Chewy Vuiton toy won in 2007 because the joke was clear and confusion unlikely. After Jack Daniel’s, a parody used as the seller’s own brand gets no special First Amendment test, which is why MSCHF lost to Vans.
Which fashion law cases should students read first?
Start with one case from each area: Wal-Mart v Samara for trade dress, Star Athletica for copyright, Louboutin v Amazon for platforms, Vans v MSCHF for parody and Coty for distribution. Together they show how courts reason across all of fashion law.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Case summaries are simplified and the status of a decision can change. Check the current position before relying on any case.
FASHION LAW JOURNAL INSIDER
Join designers, brand founders and fashion lawyers who get the biggest brand battles, IP fights and career moves in fashion law, straight to their inbox.
