Fashion’s 2026 Legal Calendar: The Cases and Rules to Watch Through 2027

Last updated: 1 October 2026. This is a living page. We update it as cases are decided and new rules take effect, so bookmark it rather than screenshot it.

Fashion’s legal year now runs on two clocks. One is the courtroom: dupes, superfakes, celebrity trade marks and marketplace liability. The other is the rulebook: the EU’s ban on destroying unsold clothes, new limits on green claims, textile EPR, forced labour bans and the end of duty-free small parcels on both sides of the Atlantic. This page puts both on one calendar, with what each item means for a brand and when to look again.

If you only read one line: the rules that bite hardest between now and the end of 2027 are about what you can claim, what you can destroy and what you can ship cheaply, not what you can copy.

The calendar at a glance

Part one: the cases to watch

Crocs and Jibbitz v Five Below (US District Court, Colorado)

Filed on 18 September 2026, this is the dupe fight of the season. Crocs claims Five Below’s US$7 “Juniors Charm Clogs” infringe its clog trade dress, design patents and utility patents on how charms attach, and asks for an injunction, profits, damages and destruction of stock. Watch for: Five Below’s answer or motion to dismiss later this year, whether Crocs asks for a preliminary injunction, and whether the clog shape survives as protectable trade dress. For the line between a lawful dupe and an infringing copy, see our explainer on dupes vs counterfeits.

Fendi, Loewe, Dior, Celine and LVMH v Rolo Fashion and Georgia Aldridge (UK IPEC)

In July 2026 the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court awarded about £213,000 against an influencer who sold “superfakes”. The interesting part is how the court got there: about £200,000 in lost profits based on a 15 per cent substitution rate, meaning only some fake buyers would otherwise have bought the real thing, plus a 3 per cent royalty on the rest. Claims for additional and reputational damages failed. Why it matters: this is now the reference point for valuing counterfeit sales in the UK, and a warning to anyone selling fakes through social media.

Flagg (Maren Wade) v Swift and others (US District Court, Central District of California)

A Las Vegas performer says the album title “The Life of a Showgirl” and its merchandise infringe her “Confessions of a Showgirl” mark. The defendants, including UMG and Bravado, moved to dismiss in May 2026 on jurisdiction, confusion and First Amendment grounds. Watch for: the ruling on the motion to dismiss. If the First Amendment defence succeeds, it widens the room for artists to sell merch under expressive titles.

Chrome Hearts v Nordstrom (US District Court, Central District of California)

The question here was when a decorative cross becomes a brand identifier. The parties reported a settlement in principle on 15 September 2026, expected to be finalised within about 45 days. Chrome Hearts is still pursuing other sellers in New York and Illinois.

Lululemon v Costco (US District Court, Central District of California)

The highest-profile US dupes case has mostly settled, in stages through May 2026. One claim, over a men’s zip-up jacket, remains. The lesson so far: big retailers would rather settle than test where “inspired by” ends.

Penn State v Vintage Brand (US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit)

A jury found that retro-style merch using Penn State’s marks infringed. The case is now on appeal and was scheduled for argument on 17 September 2026. Why it matters: the decision could reshape licensing for collegiate and heritage merchandise, a large business for brands built on nostalgia.

VIP Products v Jack Daniel’s (US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit)

The “Bad Spaniels” parody saga continued in August 2026, when the Ninth Circuit held there was no dilution by tarnishment. For fashion, it keeps parody merch alive as a defence, within limits set by the Supreme Court in 2023.

Roadget (Shein) v Whaleco (Temu) (High Court of England and Wales)

On 13 August 2026 the High Court dismissed Shein’s copyright claim over product images on Temu’s marketplace, finding Temu’s role “technical, automatic and passive”. Temu won its counterclaim for wrongful takedowns. Why it matters: marketplaces are harder to hold liable for sellers’ images in the UK, and aggressive takedown campaigns now carry a price.

Mio and konektra (Court of Justice of the EU)

Decided on 4 December 2025, these cases confirmed that applied art, including fashion design, gets copyright under the same originality test as any other work, with no higher threshold. National courts are now applying it. It strengthens the copyright route for designers in the EU alongside design rights. Our guide to copyright infringement in fashion covers how that works in practice.

Settled and done, but still cited

Thom Browne v adidas: the US jury verdict for Thom Browne stands, and in November 2025 the UK Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of adidas’s position marks. Read our breakdown of the stripes dispute. Nike v StockX settled in August 2025, which leaves NFT trade mark litigation largely dormant.

Part two: the rules and deadlines

The EU ban on destroying unsold clothes

Since 19 July 2026, large companies can no longer destroy unsold apparel, accessories or footwear in the EU, except in defined cases such as safety, non-compliance, IP infringement or damage beyond repair. Medium-sized companies follow on 19 July 2030; micro and small companies are exempt. A standard disclosure format for goods discarded applies from February 2027. Counterfeits can still be destroyed, which matters for enforcement teams.

Green claims: what you can no longer say

From 27 September 2026, the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive bans generic environmental claims such as “eco-friendly” without proof of recognised excellent performance, “carbon neutral” claims based on offsets, and self-created sustainability labels. Some member states were late in transposing it, but the rules apply. The separate Green Claims Directive, which would have required pre-approval of claims, has been stalled since June 2025. See how to check if sustainability claims hold up legally.

Textile EPR in the EU and California

The revised Waste Framework Directive, in force since 16 October 2025, requires every member state to run an extended producer responsibility scheme for textiles and footwear, including for non-EU online sellers. Transposition is due around April 2027, with schemes running around April 2028. Fees can be adjusted for sustainability, so fast fashion can be made to pay more. Our full guide: textile EPR in the EU.

California’s SB 707 is the first US textile EPR law. Landbell USA was approved as the producer responsibility organisation in February 2026, producers had to join by 1 July 2026, and a needs assessment is due on 1 March 2027. Businesses under US$1 million global turnover are exempt.

Forced labour: EU and US

The EU Forced Labour Regulation applies from 14 December 2027. It bans products made with forced labour from being sold in or exported from the EU, for companies of any size. In the US, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act already presumes goods linked to Xinjiang are made with forced labour; on 31 July 2026 the Department of Homeland Security added 43 companies to its entity list, its largest expansion so far. Cotton and apparel remain a priority.

Supply chain due diligence after the Omnibus

The EU’s CSDDD was cut back in February 2026. It now applies only to companies with more than 5,000 employees and over €1.5bn turnover, without an EU-wide civil liability regime or a mandatory climate transition plan. Transposition is due by 26 July 2028 and compliance from 26 July 2029.

Cheap parcels: the end of duty-free shipping

The EU replaced the €150 duty exemption with a flat €3 customs duty from 1 July 2026, as a stopgap until its customs data hub goes live. The US suspended its US$800 de minimis exemption worldwide from 29 August 2025, and the permanent repeal takes effect in statute on 1 July 2027. Both hit ultra-fast fashion business models hardest.

France’s anti-fast-fashion law

The French parliament passed its law aimed at ultra-fast fashion platforms on 29 June 2026, with an eco-penalty per item that rises over time and a ban on advertising and influencer promotion for those platforms. Implementing decrees, and how it sits with EU law, are the next steps to watch.

Design reform and AI imagery

Since 1 July 2026, EU design rights cover animated and digital designs and allow action against 3D printing files and counterfeit goods in transit. Member states must transpose the matching directive by 9 December 2027. Separately, the EU AI Act’s transparency duties have applied since 2 August 2026: if your campaign uses AI-generated models or imagery, the provider must mark it, and deployers must disclose deepfakes.

In the UK

Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, the Competition and Markets Authority can now fine directly for consumer law breaches, up to 10 per cent of global turnover. Drip pricing, fake reviews and green claims are the focus. No fashion brand has been fined yet, but the regime is live.

In the US, still pending

The New York Fashion Act, which would require supply chain mapping and climate targets for fashion companies with more than US$100 million in revenue, has not been passed.

What brands should do this quarter

1. Audit every sustainability claim on product pages, hang tags and social posts against the new EU rules. Generic claims are the easiest target.
2. Map what happens to unsold stock in the EU and document the exemptions you rely on before the disclosure format applies in 2027.
3. Check your supply chain for Xinjiang exposure now; the EU forced labour ban follows the US approach in December 2027.
4. Label AI-generated campaign imagery and check your agency contracts cover who is responsible for it.
5. Review your dupe and trade dress strategy: the Crocs and Lululemon cases show both the cost of suing and the cost of being sued.

Frequently asked questions

When does the EU ban on destroying unsold clothes start?

It has applied to large companies since 19 July 2026 and will apply to medium-sized companies from 19 July 2030. Micro and small companies are exempt. Destruction is still allowed in defined cases, including for counterfeit and IP-infringing goods.

Can fashion brands still call products “eco-friendly” in the EU?

Not without proof. Since 27 September 2026, generic environmental claims such as “eco-friendly” or “green” are banned unless the trader can show recognised excellent environmental performance, and “carbon neutral” claims based on offsetting are banned outright.

What are the biggest fashion law cases of 2026?

Among the most watched are Crocs v Five Below (clog dupes and trade dress), the UK superfake damages ruling against influencer Georgia Aldridge, the “Life of a Showgirl” trade mark dispute involving Taylor Swift, Penn State v Vintage Brand on retro merchandise, and Shein v Temu on marketplace copyright liability.

When does the EU Forced Labour Regulation apply?

From 14 December 2027. It applies to all companies regardless of size and covers products sold in or exported from the EU.

Is the US de minimis exemption gone for fashion shipments?

The US$800 exemption has been suspended for all countries since 29 August 2025, and the statutory repeal takes effect on 1 July 2027.

Working in this area or thinking about it? Start with our hub on what fashion lawyers actually do, and see what the work looks like in fashion litigation. If we have missed a case or a deadline, tell us at anuj@fashionlawjournal.com and we will add it.

Sources: The Fashion Law on Crocs v Five Below; Mishcon de Reya on the superfake damages award; Rolling Stone on the Showgirl trade mark dispute; Bloomberg Law on Chrome Hearts v Nordstrom; Bloomberg Law on Lululemon v Costco; Onward State on Penn State v Vintage Brand; Ninth Circuit opinion in VIP Products v Jack Daniel’s; DWF on Shein v Temu; Bird & Bird on Mio and konektra; Fox Williams on adidas v Thom Browne; Baker McKenzie on the ESPR measures; European Commission on the revised Waste Framework Directive; European Commission on the Forced Labour Regulation; Latham & Watkins on the sustainability Omnibus; White & Case on US de minimis; US Department of Homeland Security on UFLPA additions; CalRecycle on SB 707; France 24 on France’s fast fashion law; Ashurst on the DMCC Act regime; overview of the EU design reform; Morgan Lewis on AI Act transparency rules; Hunton on the New York Fashion Act.