Authored By: Edinyang Mary Emmanuel
CASE NAME: Edwards v Boohoo.com UK Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 805 (IPEC)
COURT & JUDGE: High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), before Tom Mitcheson KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 3 April, 2025.
PARTIES: Claimant: Sonia Edwards & Defendants: Boohoo.com Uk Limited, Prettylittlething.com, Nasty Gal Limited, Miss Pap UK Limited, and Debenhams Brands Ltd
INTRODUCTION
The case of Edwards v Boohoo.com is one concerned with the infringement of unregistered design right in the design of various clothing items. Out of numerous amounts of designs, five designs were presented before the court to be adjudicated upon at trial. It is a case initiated by Sonia Edwards, an independent self-taught designer. This case is particularly centred on the fast fashion sector. The fast fashion sector is known for mass-producing low-cost replicas of high-end clothing items. This feature of the fast fashion industry often gives rise to disputes on infringement of intellectual property, as in this case. This case is significant, because it reflects the reality of the struggles of independent designers in the protection of their creative designs from other designers and brands, especially fast fashion brands. Edwards v. Boohoo.com fits into the trend of independent designers suing bigger brands for copying and infringement. In this case, the Claimant represents herself. And the Defendants, who are all part of Boohoo, the fast fashion group, were represented by Andrew Norris KC and Becky Knott.
FACTS
Sonia Edwards, the Claimant, began her clothing design journey 2010. Her work gained recognition in Vogue Magazine and Drapers Magazine, as she promoted herself through social media. She even got featured by The Fashion Network. The Claimant had the aim of licensing her designs to others. At the Clothes Show Live in 2011, the Claimant exhibited (at the NEC in Birmingham). The Claimant, for years, has alleged that numerous fashion brands have been copying her clothing designs, and Boohoo was one of the alleged infringers. She claimed she had unprotected design right to five garment designs, which was copied without her permission by a group of fast fashion retailers, including Boohoo.com, PrettyLittleThing.com, Nasty Gal Limited, Miss Pap UK Limited, and Debenhams Brands Ltd. The creative designed concerned were: a multi-way bikini top; a puff sleeved ribbed organza high neck fitted top; high waist ruched skirts (front and back gathers); and high waist half-ruched front leggings.
ISSUES RAISED
A major question before the court was whether the Claimant’s designs were protected under UK Unregistered Design Right (UK UDR) 1 The Community Unregistered Design Right (CUDR)2 was not in question, because the case involved an unregistered design right claim under UK law, and not an EU Regulation. These are two distinct rights right with similarities, although they have different statutory duration. This is relevant, because it served as a weak point to the Claimant’s case. While the UK UDR automatically arises upon design creation in a design document, and lasts for 15 years in the UK, the CUDR lasts for a maximum of 3 years within the EU. UK UDR mainly covers a product’s shape and configuration, while CUDR extends to features like colours, texture, and lines. One of the Claimant’s design rights to a design from 2011 was deemed to have expired by 2021, making it unenforceable.
Also, while the court sought precise description of protected elements of the Claimant’s design, the Claimant described her designs in very broad terms, such as “the look of the dress”, “the pattern”; “the silhouette”. Both the use of terms that are too generic, and too narrow pose complexity in a case. When designs are described with very generic terms, it would likely overlap with common and generic styles in fashion, and such designs lack eligibility for protection. On the flip side, when a design is described with very narrow terms, it may not match the garment that is alleged to be infringing.
Also, the issue of infringement was raised, in addition to copying. Even though protection was established for some of the Claimant’s designs, the court, nonetheless, examined whether or not, the Defendants’ products had the same “overall impression” on an informed user.
Therefore, the issues raise before the court were3:
- Whether or not the Claimant’s designs were copied by the Defendant; 2. Whether or not the alleged infringements by the Defendant copied the whole or a substantial part of the Claimant’s designs;
- Whether or not the production or authorisation of production of the articles were made by the Defendant; and
- Whether or not the Defendant was reasonably informed or believed that the articles were infringing.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
It is trite to note that before the court determine the issues, it considered the opposing positions between the Claimant and the Defendants. With regard to design right disputes, questions relating to eligibility of a design to be protected, validity or expiry of the right, and close resemblance often arise. Bearing these in mind, both the Claimant and the Defendants presented their cases or argument, emphasising on originality, ownership, and even the scope of protection, among other arguments.
ARGUMENTS OF THE CLAIMANT
The Claimant argued that she had unregistered design right to five garment designs which were infringed upon by the Defendant, including Bikini top multiway (Design 1); Organza rib puff sleeve high neck fitted top (Design 2); High-waist gather to front and gather to back ruched skirt (Design 3); High-waist single gather ruched front skirt (Design 4); and High-waist half ruched front leggings (Design 5). She argued that a design’s shape and configuration when worn is vital, in order to assert originality. The Claimant primarily claimed copying and infringement by the Defendants. She contended that the design was original, and qualified for copyright protection. Damages and other remedies for the alleged infringement were sought by the Claimant.
ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANTS
The Defendants argued that they did not copy the Claimant’s designs, but merely followed current fashion trends, and that any similarities with the Claimant’s designs were coincidental.
They argued that their clothing items were independent creations. The Defendants claimed that the Claimant’s designs lacked originality, and was not protected by copyright. Furthermore, they claimed that no substantial part of the Claimant’s design had been copied. While the Claimant claimed design rights over her designs, including one from 2011, Boohoo argued that the right to that design expired in 2021, making it unenforceable.
The strength of both the Claimant’s and Defendants’ case was not only based on the law, but also, the clarity and precision of the evidence presented before the court. The Claimant argued that her work was original, and belonged to her. In defending themselves, the Defendants argued that some of the Claimant’s rights had expired, not every right could be protected, and that their clothes were inspired by generic fashion trends. The arguments show the reality of the struggles both the the court and independent designers face, because although the court may desire to protect a designer’s creative design, it also has to bear in mind that fashion trends often look alike.
JUDGMENT/FINAL DECISION
Upon careful analysis of all five designs presented before the court, and the publicity of the Defendant’s alleged infringing design4, the court concluded that the Claimant’s unregistered design rights were not infringed by the Defendants. The court dismissed the Claimant’s case.5
LEGAL REASONING/RATIO DECIDENDI
The court stated that there are only so many ways to design clothing to fit the human body, therefore, considering the large amounts of articles (clothing items) produced by the Defendants weekly, it is not surprising that by chance, some articles might resemble previously designed articles, including the Claimant’s. The court was clear in the rationale for its decision as Tom Mitcheson KC said:
But the stark truth is that there are also only so many ways to design clothing to fit the human body. Given the enormous numbers of articles being churned out by the likes of the Defendants each week, it is completely unsurprising that as a matter of chance, some of these resemble articles designed previously by others, including the Claimant. Further, the abstract way in which the Claimant has described her designs (so that they are barely original) simply increases the chance that they might resemble other garments designed independently. And whilst the probability of chance reproduction in such circumstances is high, the likelihood of a fast fashion company using a social media feed with few followers published many years ago is low. It is for these reasons that I have dismissed the Claimant’s suspicions about alleged copying by the Defendants.6
According to the court, the primary rationales for its dismissal of the Claimant’s case are7:
- With regard to Bikini top multiway (Design 1), design right does not exist;
- With regard to the alleged infringement of the Organza rib puff sleeve high neck fitted top (Design 2), the articles were not made exactly to the designs; and
- With regards to Designs 1-5, the Defendants did not copy the Claimant’s designs.
CONCLUSION/OBSERVATION
The case of Edwards v Boohoo.com underlines the reality of the difficulty individual designers face when protecting their creative designs from infringement by big fast fashion companies. Although the court accurately applied the law to this case, the outcome shows the gap between the law’s protections and the realities of designers when their creative designs are closely copied without remedy. In my opinion, this case demonstrates the need for a more vigorous legal framework that balances legal certainty with fairness to such designers. This will to a large extent, ensure that fast fashion brands are held accountable for infringement, giving room for innovation and sustainability. On a lighter note, this case reflects the need for designers to document their designs. This will be necessary in proving the duration of design right, and who first authored a design.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Edwards v. Boohoo.com, [2025] EWHC 805 (IPEC) (Eng.).
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, c. 48 (UK).
Council Regulation 6/2002 of 12 December 2001, on Community Designs, 2002 O.J. (L 3) 1.
1 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, c. 48, §§ 213-264 (UK).
2 Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Designs, 2002 O.J. (L 3) 1 (EC).
3 Edwards v. Boohoo.com UK Ltd, [2025] EWHC 805 (IPEC) (Eng.), available at https://www.bailii.org.
4 Edwards v. Boohoo.com UK Ltd & Ors, [2025] EWHC 805 (IPEC) ¶111.
5 Edwards v. Boohoo.com UK Ltd & Ors, [2025] EWHC 805 (IPEC) ¶151.
6 Edwards v. Boohoo.com UK Ltd & Ors, [2025] EWHC 805 (IPEC) ¶154.
7 Edwards v. Boohoo.com UK Ltd & Ors, [2025] EWHC 805 (IPEC) ¶151.
