Scroll Top


“On August 13, 2012, Lululemon Athletica, Inc. filed a lawsuit in federal court in the state of Delaware, alleging that Calvin Klein of PVH Corporation infringed three design patents on one of its specific yoga pants.” Lululemonclaimed Calvin Klein objected to the not-so-usual waistline and


“On August 13, 2012, Lululemon Athletica, Inc. filed a lawsuit in federal court in the state of Delaware, alleging that Calvin Klein of PVH Corporation infringed three design patents on one of its specific yoga pants.”[1]Lululemonclaimed Calvin Klein objected to the not-so-usual waistline and designs of its “Astro” yoga pants.[2]Lululemon has recently contemplated taking a stand after allowing businesses to duplicate its products in the past.[3]Jeremy de Beer, an intellectual property lawyer and law professional at the University of Ottawa, said Lululemon would adopt a commercial plan as it sought to acquire a share in the firm and that design would It said it employs intimidation tactics in informing other companies of the legal repercussions if copied.[4]It’s the company in the case of Canadian Lululemon, whose net worth is $2.9 billion, and the stakes are high.[5] Lululemon made the decision to settle the lawsuit with Calvin Klein on November 20, 2012.[6]The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but indicated that Lululemon and other firms looking for Lululemon would take “necessary steps to protect their assets.”[7]These unique instances are just a small sample of the numerous fashion design cases that are brought every year for infringing brands, trademarks, patent works, and copyright designs. Professionals in the fashion industry receive extraordinary intellectual property (IP) protection compared to other creative enterprises. The current condition of intellectual property protection for the fashion industry is noted in this article, and it is recommended that nothing be changed from the way things are now done.


People today reap significant financial benefits from the fashion design sector.[8] The fashion industry supports entrepreneurs and fosters creativity.[9]It’s true to claim that when it concerns securing the protection of intellectual property for a lot of challenges, the fashion design business is different from other categories of respectable industries. More than the combined profits of records, music, and movies, the fashion design sector is the most lucrative of several creative industries.[10]Seasonal trends drive the fashion industry’s fast-paced and innovative models.[11] The main purpose of intellectual property rights is put on utilitarian and economic inducements. The parliament made intellectual property rights to provide designers manage the utilization of these innovations and to make creators put in novel ideas. Governments want to don’t just give inventors for their whole work, but also encourage creators to keep creating.


Trademarks are “any word, name, symbol or device or any combination thereof … used by a person … to identify and distinguish his goods, including a unique product, from goods made or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is not known.”[12]As a result, trademarks have successfully protected the logos of many companies, like Louis Vuitton’s ‘LV’ and Nike’s ‘Swoosh’, but were unable to do so in order to keep the genuine products or designs that this logo is related to safety.[13] In a really notable case, Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holdings, Inc., “the Second Circuit looked for a design element—red bottoms—have another element, whereas just while the red bottoms were compared to another colour on the upper part of the shoe.”[14]The Second Circuit ruled in a case that to know nature to doubt, a court of law has to look to the general mark people were supposed to have when the things had to serially in various environments, not similarly.[15]


Financial Conduct Authority grants “pictorial, graphic and sculptural works” while doesn’t provide defense only when the invention has its “useful article.”[16] “A utility article is an article that has an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not intended merely to display the appearance of the article or to convey information. An article that is normally part of a feature article is considered a ‘feature article in itself. ” Thus, the point of fashion is to envelop and save the body, courts generally give that fashion is not subject to copyright. However, a utility product will be protected if the design “includes pictorial, graphic, or sculptural elements that are identifiable separately from the utilitarian aspects of the product and may exist independently of them.”[17]Courts find it difficult to distinguish the design elements from the positive phases of the article when pattern designs and prints can be used as defence for these dazzling aspects.[18]


Financial Planning Association gives designs patent defense to “[w]hoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for a product….”[19] Design patents defend the esthetic advent of a product, not its useful properties.[20]Many academics believe that fashion design firms won’t be able to defend their ideas because of the doctrinal modifications in all of the IP sections. It’s why he argues that Congress shall give new laws really targeting fashion design firms.[21]Obviously, fashion designs are really petty ordinances to earlier designs and are therefore not novel and generally obvious.[22]


Many fashion design firms have made the rights to today’s well-known and good reputed trade patents. Many have way lots: Louis Vuitton “LV”, Dooney and Bourke “DB”, Nike“swoosh”, also Ralph Lauren “Polo horse symbol.” The Christian Louboutin cases give how long the cases do going just spread intellectual property protections and give how fashion professionals do defend things of this fashion. Companies can only protect their brands and designs under the current IP protection system. However, fashion design companies can defend their portfolio with a variety of methods. The defences only use standard commercial tactics and don’t genuinely put intellectual property legislation into effect. It’s essential for brands to be current, genuine, and expensive, according to Colin Mitchell, president of Ogilvy’s Global Strategy and Planning Group, the company that manages many of the world’s most expensive brands, including Louis Vuitton.[23] There are a number of varying intellectual property laws that fashion professionals can have when their work is copied, with trademark, trade dress, design patent and copyright laws. Though there’s cluelessness, present intellectual property laws give a good defense for fashion professionals. As explained in this article, the generation of additive laws to defend fashion professionals will have big money that would be given to people. Conversely, removing intellectual property protection will give innovation as it will lessen market money. Providing actual intellectual property laws and allowing designers to defend their trademarks through other means, such as sticking to their brands and business plans, is the real practical incentive. A fashion design company may choose to focus heavily on its own brand, identify a market niche, or adapt a cutting-edge business strategy in order to be financially profitable and viable.

Author(s) Name: Aadrika Malhotra (Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University)


[1]“Allison Martell, Analysis: Lululemon Patent Claim Highlights Cutthroat Yoga World, Chi. Trib. (August 18, 2012).”

[2]“Ashley Lutz, Why the Whole Fashion Industry is Watching Lululemon’s Lawsuit Against Calvin Klein, Bus. Insider (September 5, 2012)”,

[3] Id.


[5]“Erin Carlyle, Lululemon and Spanx Did More Than Put Butts on the Line, Forbes (March 3, 2012),”

[6]“Ben Rubin, Lululemon, Calvin Klein Agree to Settle Yoga-Pants Suit, Wall St. J. (2012).”

[7] Id.

[8]“Rachel C., The Importance Of Fashion Industry In Our Society, What to Wear Post (August 12,2013)”,


[10]“C. Scott Hemphill & Jeannie Suk, The Law, Culture, and Economics of Fashion, 61 Stan. L. Rev. 1147, 1148 (2009).”


[12]“15 U.S.C. § 1127,U.S Code, 2012 (USA).”

[13]“Kimberly Ann Barton, Back to the Beginning: A Revival of a 1913 Argument for Intellectual Property Protection for Fashion Design, 35 J. Corp. L. 425, 433 (2009).”

[14]“Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holdings, Inc., 696 F.3d 206, 228 (2d Cir. 2012).”

[15]“Malletier v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 426 F.3d 532, 539 (2d Cir. 2005).”

[16]“17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(a)(5) U.S Code 2006 (USA).”

[17]“Laura Fanelli, A Fashion Forward Approach to Design Protection, 85 St. Jhon’s L. Rev. 285, 288 (2011).”


[19] 35 U.S.C. § 171, U.S. Code, 2006 (USA).

[20]Fanelli, supra note 17.

[21] Barton, supra note 13.

[22] Id.

[23]“Derek Thompson, Branding Louis Vuitton: Behind the World’s Most Famous Luxury Label, Atlantic (May 11, 2011)”,