Authored By: Reethikaa
Saveetha School of Law
Abstract
The global fashion industry thrives on creativity, symbolism, and cultural exchange. However, this creative ecosystem frequently produces legal conflicts concerning intellectual property, cultural appropriation, and brand identity. Recent controversies involving celebrity fashion branding and cultural symbolism highlight the limitations of existing intellectual property frameworks in addressing these issues. Incidents such as the controversy surrounding Margot Robbie’s Elizabeth Taylor–inspired necklace and the intellectual property tensions within the Beckham fashion brand illustrate how fashion often transforms cultural heritage into commercial capital. This research examines the intersection between fashion law, intellectual property rights, and cultural representation. Using doctrinal legal research and case law analysis, the study evaluates trademark protection, trade dress law, and the protection of traditional cultural expressions within the fashion industry. The findings suggest that while intellectual property law strongly protects luxury brands, it provides insufficient protection for cultural heritage and independent creators. The paper proposes practical reforms including stronger attribution norms, community based cultural protection frameworks, and clearer guidelines for fashion inspired by traditional designs.
Keywords : cultural appropriation, fashion law, rights, branding, profit
Introduction
Fashion is often described as an artistic expression of society, yet beneath the glamour of runways and luxury branding lies a complex web of legal disputes concerning intellectual property and cultural identity. The modern fashion industry operates in a global marketplace where inspiration travels faster than regulation. Designers routinely draw from historical garments, indigenous textiles, and cultural jewellery traditions to create commercially successful collections. While this exchange fuels innovation, it also raises a critical question. At what point does inspiration become appropriation, and when does creativity cross into the territory of legal infringement?
Recent incidents demonstrate how these tensions are becoming increasingly visible in public discourse. In 2024, social media erupted when actress Margot Robbie appeared wearing a necklace inspired by Elizabeth Taylor’s iconic jewellery style. Many observers noted that the design resembled traditional Indian jewellery patterns and criticized the luxury brand responsible for the design. A widely circulated comment summarized the frustration in sarcastic fashion: “First they borrowed our spices, then our textiles, and now apparently our jewellery too.” While such statements may sound humorous, they reflect deeper concerns regarding the commercialization of cultural heritage within global fashion markets.
Similarly, the Beckham family fashion enterprise illustrates how celebrity identity itself can become a powerful intellectual property asset. Victoria Beckham’s fashion label, combined with the global brand recognition associated with the Beckham name, has transformed personal identity into a commercial trademark. However, as media reports have suggested, the line between family branding and intellectual property ownership can be surprisingly thin. When personal reputation becomes a corporate asset, legal disputes concerning ownership, licensing, and brand control inevitably emerge. These examples highlight the growing need for a comprehensive legal framework capable of balancing creativity, cultural respect, and commercial innovation within the global fashion industry.
Objectives of the Study
To examine how intellectual property laws regulate fashion designs, celebrity branding, and luxury brand identity within the global fashion industry.
To analyse the legal and ethical challenges associated with cultural appropriation and the commercial use of traditional cultural elements in contemporary fashion.
To identify gaps in existing intellectual property frameworks and propose practical legal solutions that balance creative innovation with cultural accountability in the fashion industry.
Research Methodology
This research adopts a doctrinal legal research methodology, focusing on the interpretation of statutes, case law, and international intellectual property frameworks relevant to fashion law. Doctrinal research enables the study to analyse how courts and legislators define and enforce intellectual property rights within the fashion industry. The research primarily examines statutory frameworks including the Trade Marks Act 1999, the Copyright Act 1957, and the Designs Act 2000. Judicial precedents play a significant role in shaping fashion law. Accordingly, the research analyses landmark cases such as Christian Louboutin SAS v Yves Saint Laurent America Holding Inc and Hermes International v Mason Rothschild. In addition to primary legal sources, the study incorporates secondary sources including academic literature, policy reports, and media accounts of recent fashion controversies. Real world incidents involving cultural appropriation and celebrity branding are used to illustrate how legal principles operate in practice.
Review of Literature
Scholars have long recognized that fashion occupies an unusual position within intellectual property law. Susan Scafidi argues that fashion designs often fall into a legal gap where creativity exists but legal protection remains limited. In her influential work on cultural appropriation and intellectual property, Scafidi notes that “fashion borrows freely from culture, yet the law rarely asks permission from the communities whose creativity it exploits.”
William Cornish highlights the structural limitations of intellectual property law in protecting fashion designs. According to Cornish, clothing designs frequently fail to qualify for copyright protection because they are considered functional objects rather than purely artistic works. This distinction allows competitors to replicate design elements without violating copyright law.
Greene’s research on idea misappropriation in creative industries reveals a recurring pattern of power imbalance between independent creators and large corporations. Greene observes that established companies often dismiss claims of idea theft as trivial while simultaneously incorporating similar ideas into commercial products.
Chapman’s analysis of intellectual property and human rights emphasizes the need to balance proprietary rights with broader cultural interests. Chapman argues that intellectual property regimes should not undermine the rights of communities to benefit from their cultural heritage and creative traditions.
Cullet’s examination of intellectual property rights within international human rights law further reinforces this argument. Cullet suggests that the expansion of intellectual property protection must be accompanied by safeguards that ensure equitable access to cultural knowledge and prevent the monopolization of traditional cultural expressions.
Background and Conceptual Framework
Fashion law operates at the intersection of intellectual property law, cultural heritage protection, and commercial branding. The primary legal mechanisms used to protect fashion products include trademark law, copyright law, and design protection statutes. Among these, trademark law plays the most significant role because fashion brands rely heavily on brand identity and consumer recognition.
Trade dress protection is another important concept within fashion law. Trade dress refers to the distinctive visual appearance of a product that identifies its source. Examples include specific colour combinations, stitching patterns, and packaging styles associated with luxury brands. Courts have increasingly recognized that such visual elements may function as trademarks when they acquire distinctiveness in the marketplace.
However, cultural appropriation complicates this legal framework. Traditional garments, jewellery designs, and textile patterns often originate from collective cultural traditions rather than individual creators. As a result, they frequently fall outside the scope of intellectual property protection. This creates a situation in which corporations can legally commercialize cultural symbols that have existed for centuries without acknowledging their origins.
Legal Analysis
Trademark law remains the strongest legal tool available to fashion brands seeking to protect their commercial identity. Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 defines trademark infringement as the unauthorized use of a mark identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark in a manner that causes confusion among consumers. Luxury brands rely on this protection to maintain exclusivity and prevent counterfeit products from entering the market.
Despite the strength of trademark protection, intellectual property law provides limited protection for fashion designs themselves. Copyright law protects artistic works but generally excludes functional objects such as clothing. As a result, competitors may reproduce similar clothing designs as long as they avoid copying protected trademarks or artistic elements.
This legal reality explains why fashion houses invest heavily in branding rather than relying solely on design protection. In the fashion industry, a logo may be worth more than the garment itself. As one commentator sarcastically remarked during a fashion controversy, “Apparently the law protects the logo on the handbag more fiercely than the centuries of culture that inspired it.”
Case Law
The case of Christian Louboutin SAS v Yves Saint Laurent America Holding Inc[1] represents a landmark decision in fashion trademark law. The dispute concerned whether Louboutin’s signature red sole could be protected as a trademark. The court recognized that colour could function as a trademark when it serves as a source identifier. The judgment famously stated:
“The law does not prevent the use of color as a trademark when that color has acquired distinctiveness and identifies the source of the product.”
The Delhi High Court addressed a similar issue in Christian Louboutin SAS v Abubaker and Ors,[2]. The court held that the unauthorized sale of shoes bearing the red sole mark constituted trademark infringement. In its judgment the court observed:
“The red sole mark has become distinctive of the plaintiff’s luxury brand and its unauthorized use amounts to infringement and passing off.”
Another important case is Hermes International v Mason Rothschild[3], concerning NFTs called MetaBirkins. Hermes argued that the digital artworks exploited the reputation of its Birkin handbag. The court ruled in favour of Hermes and concluded that the use of the Birkin name created consumer confusion. The decision illustrates how intellectual property law continues to evolve in response to emerging digital fashion markets.
Critical Analysis and Findings
The research reveals a significant imbalance within the legal framework governing fashion. Intellectual property law provides strong protection for corporate brands but offers limited safeguards for cultural heritage and independent creators. Trademark law effectively protects logos and brand identifiers, yet traditional cultural designs often remain unprotected. Another important finding concerns the ethical dimension of fashion inspiration. While designers frequently describe their work as cultural appreciation, critics argue that commercial fashion sometimes resembles cultural extraction. The difference between appreciation and appropriation often depends not on law but on public perception.
The study also highlights the growing influence of celebrity branding in fashion law. Celebrity identities increasingly function as trademarks that generate enormous economic value. However, the commercialization of personal identity introduces complex legal questions regarding ownership, licensing, and brand management
Recommendations
Introduce a fast-track fashion design registration system to provide temporary protection for new fashion collections during their commercial lifecycle.
Establish specialized intellectual property monitoring units to detect counterfeit luxury products and trademark misuse on digital marketplaces and social media platforms.
Require clear licensing agreements for celebrity fashion brands to regulate ownership and use of personal names and brand identities.
Create a national registry for traditional cultural designs to document and protect indigenous textiles, jewellery patterns, and traditional garments.
Encourage mandatory cultural attribution policies in fashion collections where designers use traditional cultural elements.
Promote collaborative partnerships between fashion brands and local artisans to ensure fair compensation and recognition for cultural contributions.
Develop a specialized legal framework (sui generis protection) for fashion designs that recognizes the unique nature of fashion innovation.
Provide legal awareness and intellectual property training programs for emerging designers to help them protect their creations.
Establish fashion law mediation or arbitration bodies to resolve intellectual property disputes quickly and cost-effectively.
Conclusion
The modern fashion industry celebrates creativity, yet its legal protections reveal an uncomfortable reality. While brands can fiercely guard their logos, colors, and signatures through intellectual property law, the cultural traditions and artistic histories that often inspire these designs remain largely unprotected. The system appears efficient when protecting corporate identity but surprisingly silent when cultural heritage becomes commercial inspiration. This imbalance exposes the limits of existing legal frameworks and highlights the urgent need for more equitable protections that acknowledge both innovation and cultural contribution.
Perhaps the harsh reality of the fashion world is that recognition often depends on power rather than originality. Luxury houses can transform cultural aesthetics into global trends, yet the communities that shaped those aesthetics rarely receive acknowledgment or benefit. And so the lingering question remains, if a company can legally claim ownership over a shade of red or the shape of a shoe sole, is it truly unreasonable to ask whether centuries of cultural artistry deserve at least the same respect?
Reference(S):
Susan Scafidi, Intellectual Property and Fashion Design, 1 Intell. Prop. & Info. Wealth 115, 120 (2007).
Audrey R. Chapman, The Human Rights Implications of Intellectual Property Protection, 5 J. Int’l Econ. L. 861, 864 (2002).
Philippe Cullet, Human Rights and Intellectual Property Protection in the TRIPS Era, 29 Hum. Rts. Q. 403, 409 (2007).
Eva Derclaye, Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights: Coinciding and Cooperating, 43 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 233, 240 (2008).
Volker Heins, Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Tensions and Opportunities, 10 Ethics & Global Pol. 87, 91 (2008).
Desi Internet Fumes Over Margot Robbie’s Elizabeth Taylor Necklace, Hindustan Times,
https://www.hindustantimes.com (last visited Mar. 7, 2026).
From Family Drama to an IP Issue: Inside Brand Beckham, The Fashion Law,
https://www.thefashionlaw.com (last visited Mar. 7, 2026).
Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holding, Inc., 696 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2012).
Christian Louboutin SAS v. Abubaker, CS(COMM) 714/2016 (Delhi High Ct. 2018).
Hermès Int’l v. Rothschild, No. 22-cv-384 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2023).
Crocs, Inc. v. Bata India Ltd., CS(COMM) 772/2018 (Delhi High Ct. 2019).
Ritu Kumar v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd., CS(OS) 1613/2011 (Delhi High Ct. 2016).
[1] 696 F.3d 206 (2d Cir 2012)
[2] CS(COMM) 714/2016 (Delhi High Court 2018)
[3] No 22-cv-384 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)
