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 main infringement rules sit in two sections of Title 15. Section 1114(1) deals with registered marks: anyone who, without the owner’s consent, uses a copy, counterfeit or colorable imitation of a registered mark when selling or advertising goods or services is liable if that use is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception. Brands that never registered their marks still have a route. Section 43(a), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), reaches anyone who uses a word, name, symbol or device, or a false designation of origin, in a way likely to confuse buyers about who makes a product, whether two businesses are connected, or whether one has sponsored or approved the other. In practice, this is the provision that protects unregistered logos and trade dress.

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 confusingly similar mark in commerce, in connection with selling or advertising 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 behind the newest wave of fashion litigation. Section 43(a) also covers false or misleading statements in commercial advertising about the nature, qualities or origin of goods, whether the goods belong to the advertiser or to a rival. No trademark needs to be involved. A plaintiff generally has to show a false or misleading statement of fact in an advertisement, that it deceived or was likely to deceive a meaningful share of the audience, that it mattered to buying decisions, that the goods moved in interstate commerce, and that the plaintiff has been or is likely to be harmed. The key point for fashion brands: a claim of this kind does not depend on proving ownership of the design at all.

That difference explains why Williams-Sonoma went after Quince’s comparative marketing rather than its designs. In a November 2025 complaint before the federal court in Northern California, Williams-Sonoma accused Quince of advertising that its cheaper products match the quality of Williams-Sonoma’s own, bringing false advertising claims under the Lanham Act alongside unfair business practice claims, and asked for an injunction and an award of Quince’s profits. The complaint does not rely on design patents or trade dress. Fashion Law Journal has followed the dispute closely in its analysis of how Williams-Sonoma v. Quince is redefining comparative advertising. Quince, which operates as Last Brand, Inc., has also been fighting Deckers over its UGG-style boots in the same court. There, the judge ruled in late 2025 that two UGG boot designs Deckers claimed as trade dress were generic and so unprotectable, while a design patent claim survived and went before a jury in June 2026.

What Remedies Are Available?

Courts can grant two broad kinds of relief under the Lanham Act: money to make up for the harm a plaintiff has suffered, and injunctions to stop the conduct from continuing. The money side is set out in 15 U.S.C. § 1117, and it reaches further than ordinary compensation. A successful plaintiff can seek the defendant’s profits, its own damages and the costs of the action, and in exceptional cases the court may also award reasonable attorney’s fees. Judges can enter judgment for up to three times the actual damages. A plaintiff does not have to prove willfulness to recover the defendant’s profits: the Supreme Court settled that point in 2020 in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., holding that willfulness is not a precondition, although it remains a very important factor when courts decide on remedies.

Why Does This Matter for the Dupe Economy?

The dupe market has pushed brands to think harder about which Lanham Act theory really fits their facts. Courts are often unwilling to treat a garment’s general silhouette or a bag’s basic shape as protectable, so more plaintiffs are building cases around advertising rather than copying, 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. The UGG litigation shows the risk: the court held that two boot designs Deckers claimed as trade dress were generic, which ended those claims. Many heavily copied products sit in design territory that judges regard as open to the whole market, so trade dress claims over them are easy targets at the dismissal or summary judgment stage. That steers brands toward the false advertising wording of Section 43(a), where the fight is about honest marketing rather than who owns 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 ask whether someone used a mark or trade dress without permission in a way that could mislead shoppers about where a product comes from. False advertising claims target untrue or misleading statements about a product’s qualities, pricing or origin, and the plaintiff does not need exclusive rights in a design to bring one.

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.