The Lanham Act Explained for Fashion Brands

The Lanham Act is the federal statute, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 to 1127, that gives fashion brands the right to sue over trademark infringement, trade dress copying, dilution of famous marks, and false advertising. Passed in 1946, it created the national trademark registration system and remains the main tool brands use against knockoffs, dupes, and misleading marketing claims.

What Is the Lanham Act?

The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq., was enacted by Congress in 1946, and it provides for a national system of trademark registration and protects the owner of a federally registered mark against the use of similar marks if such use is likely to result in consumer confusion, or if the dilution of a famous mark is likely to occur. The full text sits in Title 15 of the U.S. Code, and the Congressional Research Service notes that the Lanham Act provides civil liability for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, cybersquatting, and false advertising.

For a fashion label, that scope matters. A logo, a house pattern, a signature shoe sole, and a brand’s advertising claims can all fall under the same statute, even though the legal tests for each differ sharply.

What Counts as a Protectable Mark?

Two basic requirements must be met for a mark to be eligible for trademark protection: it must be in use in commerce and it must be distinctive. A third limit matters for design-heavy fashion brands: a mark must not be essential to a product’s function, since functional product features cannot serve as a trademark, a rule known as the functionality doctrine. That doctrine is why a purely functional zipper placement or fabric weave rarely qualifies, while a distinctive sole color or hardware shape sometimes does. Readers building out a trade dress claim can see the full framework in Fashion Law Journal’s quick answer on trade dress.

How Does Trademark Infringement Work Under the Lanham Act?

The core infringement provisions live at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a). Infringement of a registered mark includes the use of any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation in order to sell or advertise goods or services, which is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). Owners of unregistered marks are not left without a remedy. The owner of an unregistered trademark may be able to assert a claim under the Lanham Act’s likelihood of confusion standard, which prohibits use of the mark in a way that is likely to deceive or cause confusion about the nature or origin of a product or service. That provision, Section 43(a), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), broadly forbids the use of any word, term, name, symbol, or device that is likely to deceive consumers as to the affiliation, connection, or origin of goods or services.

To win an infringement case, a plaintiff generally has to show three things:

• the plaintiff has a valid and legally protectable mark;
• the defendant used a similar mark in commerce in a way tied to selling goods or services; and
• that use creates a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

Dilution and Cybersquatting

Famous marks get an extra layer of protection that does not require proof of consumer confusion. The Lanham Act also expressly encompasses two forms of trademark dilution within the umbrella of trademark infringement, and dilution by blurring occurs when someone other than the registrant uses a mark that is similar enough to a distinct trademark to create an association between the two marks. The statute also reaches domain-name abuse. In 1999, Congress amended the Lanham Act by passing the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), which allows a trademark owner to sue someone who uses an internet domain that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, or that dilutes a famous mark, in bad faith.

What About False Advertising Claims?

This is the part of the statute driving the newest wave of fashion litigation. The Lanham Act provides protection against some kinds of false advertising even if they do not involve trademark infringement, and to prove it, plaintiffs must show they were injured by a false statement the defendant made about their own or others’ products or services in interstate commerce that could deceive a substantial portion of the target audience. Crucially, under the Lanham Act’s false advertising provisions, plaintiffs need not establish exclusive rights in a design.

That distinction explains why Williams-Sonoma sued Quince over comparative “Beyond Compare” marketing rather than design copying. Williams-Sonoma pursued claims for false advertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and California state law, seeking triple damages, injunctive relief, and other remedies. Reporting on the case noted that the lawsuit leverages advertising claims rather than alleging design-patent or trade-dress infringement, and industry counsel quoted by Bloomberg Law observed that brands increasingly recognize “we don’t own the design of this couch, that’s not protectable, we can’t get it off the market.” Fashion Law Journal has tracked the dispute in detail in its analysis of how Williams-Sonoma v. Quince is redefining comparative advertising, and the same retailer, operating as Last Brand, Inc., also faces separate trade dress claims from Deckers over its Ugg boot designs, a case pending in the Northern District of California with motions for summary judgment heard on September 4, 2025.

What Remedies Are Available?

The Lanham Act generally authorizes courts to remedy violations via compensatory damages, which aim to redress economic harm sustained by the plaintiff, and injunctions, which aim to prevent further violations and harm. The damages framework sits at 15 U.S.C. § 1117, and it goes further than simple compensation. Victims of trademark infringement may recover any profits generated by the infringement, any damages sustained by the registrant because of the infringement, and, in some cases, attorney’s fees and the cost of the action itself, with courts granted discretion over the amount of damages up to three times actual damages. Willfulness is not a strict requirement for a profits award. In Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a trademark plaintiff does not need to prove willful infringement to recover the defendant’s profits, though courts still weigh willfulness heavily when deciding remedies.

Why Does This Matter for the Dupe Economy?

The dupe market has forced brands to think harder about which Lanham Act theory actually fits their facts. Courts are often skeptical that a garment’s general silhouette or a bag’s overall shape is protectable, which is why more plaintiffs are pivoting toward advertising-based claims instead of pure copying claims, a shift Fashion Law Journal has covered in its explainer on when dupes break the law and its breakdown of the legal line between dupes and counterfeits. As one report on the Quince litigation put it, many of today’s most-copied products occupy design territory that courts are reluctant to protect as proprietary, leaving trade dress claims vulnerable to dismissal. That reality pushes brands toward Section 43(a)’s false advertising language, where the fight is about honesty in marketing rather than ownership of a look.

Counterfeiting remains a separate, harsher problem. Selling goods bearing a fake registered mark is not just a Lanham Act infringement issue, it can trigger criminal exposure and platform enforcement action, which is a different animal from a dupe dispute over comparative advertising claims.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Lanham Act in simple terms?

The Lanham Act is the federal trademark statute, enacted in 1946, that lets brand owners sue over trademark infringement, trade dress copying, dilution of famous marks, cybersquatting, and false advertising. It also created the national system for registering trademarks with the USPTO.

Can the Lanham Act stop someone from selling a dupe?

It depends on what the dupe copies. If a dupe uses a confusingly similar logo, name, or protected trade dress, the Lanham Act can support an infringement claim. If it only mimics a general style or silhouette that is not legally protected, the Act will not block the sale, though false claims made while marketing the dupe can still be challenged as false advertising.

What is the difference between trademark infringement and false advertising under the Lanham Act?

Trademark infringement claims focus on unauthorized use of a mark or trade dress that is likely to confuse consumers about the source of a product. False advertising claims focus on untrue or misleading statements made about a product’s qualities, pricing, or origin, and do not require the plaintiff to own exclusive rights in a design.

What can a brand recover in a Lanham Act lawsuit?

A prevailing plaintiff can typically obtain injunctive relief to stop the infringing conduct, the defendant’s profits, its own actual damages, and in cases involving willfulness or other egregious conduct, enhanced damages up to three times actual damages and attorney’s fees.

This article is general information for fashion industry readers and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney about a specific situation.