Chapters in this guide
24
As the home of many famous designers, such as Alexander McQueen, Vivienne Westwood, Thomas Burberry, Paul Smith, Stella McCartney and Victoria Beckham, to name just a few, as well as the highly celebrated London Fashion Week, the UK has often been thought of as a leader in the fashion world.
The UK has a broad range of intellectual property (IP) protection, making it an ideal jurisdiction for safeguarding the creativity that is central to the fashion industry. In addition to many of the rights it shares with its EU neighbours, such as trade marks, registered and unregistered design rights and copyright, it also has some UK-specific rights, such as passing off and an extended unregistered design right for 3D designs.
| IPR | Duration | Time and modalities for grant | Pros and cons in the fashion sector |
| Trade marks (registered) | Infinite (renewable every 10 years) | File at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). Examined then published for a 2-month opposition period (extendable by 1 month). Can be registered within 3–4 months. | Pros: Can last indefinitely and are easy to enforce, including use for online takedowns. Cons: The scope of the mark may be limited depending on what is filed. |
| Passing off | Infinite (but based on continuing existence of goodwill) | Automatic protection, provided three elements are established: goodwill, misrepresentation and damage. | Pros: No cost or registration process. Cons: Large volume of evidence is needed to establish goodwill and therefore more difficult for new brands to rely on. |
| Supplementary Unregistered Design (SUD) | 3 years from the date you make your design public in the UK | Automatic protection for 2D and 3D designs, provided the design is new and has individual character. | Pros: Protects 2D designs such as surface decoration. No cost or registration process. Cons: Only lasts 3 years and must prove copying for infringement. |
| Unregistered Design Right (UDR) | 10 years from first marketing or 15 years from creation (whichever is earlier) | Automatic protection for 3D designs provided the design is original and not commonplace. | Pros: No cost or registration process. Cons: Only protects 3D designs and must prove copying for infringement. |
| Registered Design Right (RDR) | Up to 25 years (initial 5 years, renewable every 5 years) | File at the UKIPO. Protects 2D and 3D designs provided the design is new and has individual character. Registered within 3 weeks, usually.
| Pros: No substantive examination to assess validity at present so easy to get designs registered and cheap (from GBP 50 for one design to GBP 150 for up to 50). Cons: Must file within 12 months of first disclosure so you don’t destroy your own novelty. |
| Trade secrets | Infinite (if kept secret) | Automatic protection under the Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018, provided the information: is secret, has commercial value, and reasonable steps have been taken to keep it secret. | Pros: No cost or registration process. Cons: Does not protect against reverse engineering and, once lawfully disclosed, protection is lost. Successful enforcement can be a Pyrrhic victory as secrecy cannot be returned (but damages are available). |
| Domain names | Infinite (renewable every year) | Purchase through a domain registrar, subject to availability. | Pros: Low cost and useful for online trading. Cons: Does not replace the need for trade mark protection and a defensive registration strategy can be costly and ineffective. |
| Patents | 20 years (renewable annually from the fourth anniversary of the filing date). Limited possible extension of protection through supplementary protection certificate. | File at the UKIPO. Typically takes 2–4 years to achieve registration. | Pros: Grants a monopoly right. Use of “patent pending” can deter infringers. Cons: Difficult to meet the novelty and inventive step criteria and costly to file and enforce. |
| Copyright | Usually 70 years from the end of the year in which the creator dies. | Automatic protection covering various types of work (see Section 1.5, below, for more detail), provided the work is original and the creator used a degree of labour, skill or judgment. | Pros: No cost or registration process, covers a broad variety of works and lasts a long time. Cons: Copyright in products cannot be enforced against copies unless the product (or the relevant element of it, e.g. a print) qualifies as an artistic work. |
Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, a sign is capable of registration if it can be clearly and precisely represented in the register and can distinguish the goods or services of one business from those of another. Trade marks may consist of words (including personal names, which is common in the fashion industry), logos, colours, sounds, the shape of goods or their packaging, position marks and even smells.
To be registrable, a trade mark must have distinctive character and not be descriptive or have become customary, that is, generic. If a trade mark is not used within the first five years of registration or for any subsequent consecutive period of five years it can be cancelled for non-use.
The UKIPO currently allows the filing of series mark applications, allowing an applicant to file up to six variations of a trade mark which differ only in non-distinctive elements as part of the same application. The first two variations are included in the fee, and you pay GBP 50 for each additional variation. The UKIPO is set to discontinue series applications (date to be confirmed) as they are causing delays and additional objections.
In the fashion industry, the following “non-traditional” trade marks are regularly utilised:
Colour marks. To represent a colour mark clearly and precisely, reference is usually made to a colour standard system, such as Pantone. Well-known UK colour trade marks include Cadbury purple and Tiffany & Co’s signature blue. Although Charli XCX’s brat green has been very popular, including on the runways, it has not been registered as a colour mark. Marks filed in black and white or greyscale were previously thought to extend protection to all colour variations. However, this is no longer the case if the colour variation alters the distinctive character of the mark. So, if colour is a distinctive element, the brand should consider filing a separate registration for the colour version to obtain full protection.
Pattern marks. Repeating surface patterns are popular among the large fashion houses with Louis Vuitton, Burberry and Gucci all owning UK-registered pattern trade marks. The UKIPO deems that the pattern must be more than just decoration and needs to be fanciful or unusual to be memorable to consumers and therefore act as a badge of origin.
Position marks. Famous examples include Christian Louboutin’s red sole of a woman’s high heel shoe. In the case of Thom Browne Inc. and Thom Browne UK Limited v. adidas AG and others [2024] EWHC 2990 (Ch), the High Court ruled in favour of Thom Browne, invalidating some of adidas’ trade marks for being too vague, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal, and dismissing adidas’ infringement claims in relation to those of its marks that were valid. The court found that the average consumer would not be confused by Thom Browne’s four-stripe design due to its differing placement, thicker appearance and the different target audience compared to adidas’ three-stripe mark.
Shape marks. A shape mark cannot be registered if it results from the nature of the goods themselves, is necessary to obtain a technical result, or it gives substantial value to the goods.
“Made in”. Choose your geography accurately when deciding whether UK, Britain or England is the most appropriate. To label a product as “Made in”, there must be a substantial transformation (packaging and basic assembly are unlikely to count) or at least 50% of the manufacturing value added in the territory specified. The label must not mislead customers as to the product’s origin, as this would breach consumer protection legislation.
Unregistered marks. Protectable in the UK under the common law tort of passing off, which protects a business’ goodwill from misrepresentation by another party causing damage. To bring a successful passing off action, the first hurdle is demonstrating considerable goodwill (the attractive force that brings in custom) and reputation in the mark, which usually requires a substantial amount of evidence. Therefore, while useful for famous fashion brands, for new designers, or new product launches, it may be more challenging to prove. If established, it is possible to use passing off to oppose or invalidate a registered trade mark application in the UK.
The UK used to fall within the EU Framework for designs but, following Brexit, this has not been the case since 31 December 2020. As an interim measure, up until 31 December 2023, the UK created a protection called the Continuing Unregistered Design to prevent any loss in protection in the UK for any Unregistered Community Design which existed at the end of the Brexit transition period. All Continuing Unregistered Designs have now expired.
Now, the UK’s domestic design legislation provides for three rights:
- Supplementary Unregistered Designs (SUD) — Designs and International Trade Marks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This was created to compensate for the loss of the Unregistered Community Design in the UK, which would otherwise have left a lacuna for 2D unregistered designs in the UK. The SUD protects the appearance (2D and 3D) of a product or a feature of a product for three years from the date you make your design public in the UK. To qualify, the design must be novel and have individual character. To bring an infringement claim, you must prove that your design has been copied, and that the copy produces the same overall impression on the notional “informed user” of the goods.
- Unregistered Design Right (UDR) — Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). This is more limited in scope than SUD as it only protects shape and configuration of a product, namely, 3D designs. However, its duration is significantly longer than SUD, being 10 years from first marketing or 15 years from creation (whichever is earlier). To achieve protection under UDR, the design must be original and not commonplace. To bring an infringement claim, you must prove copying of a substantial part of the design.
- Registered Design Right (RDR) — Registered Designs Act 1949. For designs that you want to protect for a longer period, registration is advisable as they can be protected for up to 25 years under RDR. To qualify for registration, as with SUD, a design must be novel and have individual character, and the protection covers 2D and 3D designs. Further, enforcement against infringement is more straightforward as the registration certificate is prima facie evidence of your ownership of the design and infringement can occur even if there has been no copying because the test is whether the infringement produces a different overall impression on the informed user.
On 4 September 2025, the UKIPO launched a major consultation on potentially significant reforms to the UK’s design framework, triggered by an ever growing need to tackle abuse of the UK designs system, a recognised demand to simplify the framework post-Brexit, and a desire to align IP laws with future developments around emerging types of designs and the rising relevance of artificial intelligence (AI). Computer-generated designs without a human author can currently (in some circumstances) be protected as UDR and RDR but not as SUD. We watch with interest to see what changes this brings about.
For fashion, copyright is an essential consideration. Copyright arises automatically in the UK under the CDPA, provided the work is original and in a material form. To qualify, the court approaches originality in the same way as under EU case law, with the work required to be the “author’s own intellectual creation” (as per Infopaq). However, there is a divergence in approach to “works of artistic craftsmanship” as seen in WaterRower (UK) Limited v. Liking Limited [2004] EWHC 2806 (IPEC), where the WaterRower did not qualify for UK copyright despite being an original work because it was not primarily intended to be “artistic” (it was produced for commercial sale and function), whereas in the EU it would have qualified. In the recent decision of Lidl Great Britain Limited & another v. Tesco Stores Limited & another [2024] EWCA Civ 262, it was confirmed that there was sufficient originality in the Lidl logo (without wording), which is a yellow circle in a blue square, although it was noted that the protection conferred by copyright in such a work would be correspondingly narrow.
Designers collaborating should be aware that joint authorship (and joint ownership) can arise without the direct intention of the parties. Clear IP ownership terms in contracts can avoid any disputes relating to ownership. Also, where an individual signs and dates their work, there is a presumption that they are the author.
Designers should be aware that it is not an infringement of any copyright in a design document for anything other than artistic works or typefaces to make an article to the design. “Design” in this context means any aspect of the shape or configuration of the whole or part of an article, other than surface decoration. This is to encourage the use of designs rather than copyright for such products.
Patents are less commonly used in the fashion sector. However, they can be relevant for innovative product development. Designers such as Stella McCartney use third-party patented products and technologies under licence. For example, her vegetarian leather, as well as being cruelty free, is also more sustainable and, in her Paris Fashion Week SS26 collection, “Fevvers” (a vegan alternative to feathers) made their runway debut.
The UK has its own Geographical Indications (GI) scheme. One of the best-known GIs for textiles in the UK is Harris Tweed — it must be made from 100% pure virgin wool, dyed and spun on the islands of the Outer Hebrides, and hand-woven by the islanders in their own homes.
Licence agreements
Licences are extremely versatile so as well as being useful for manufacturing they are also utilised in the distribution and advertising of fashion products. They are flexible, allowing the scope to be varied for different situations, for example, around exclusivity, territory, royalty/fee, duration, ability to sublicense, product type, category/industry, etc. In simple terms, a licence is a permission from one party (who can be the owner or could be the licensee of the IP) giving permission for another party to use such IP. Manufacturing agreements incorporate an element of licensing because the licensor permits the manufacturer to apply their mark or use their IP to make the product.
Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)
NDAs can either be one way or mutual, and are primarily aimed at protecting confidential information. NDAs are often used at the outset of business discussions but should not be used in place of a more comprehensive contract, for example, a manufacturing agreement. Although best covered contractually, the UK has a common law of confidentiality, so a breach of confidence can be enforced if: there is confidentiality in the information, it is shared in circumstances imparting an obligation of confidence, and it is used without authorisation.
Subcontract agreements with suppliers/in-house manufacturing
In-house manufacturing provides control over IP and quality, whereas outsourcing avoids capital investment in equipment and taps into expertise and existing infrastructure. Where a manufacturer is making your products using a mould or bespoke tooling, you should ensure you retain ownership of the moulds/tooling, insist access to them is tightly controlled (to avoid knockoffs), and get the moulds/tooling returned to you on conclusion.
Agency agreement
The Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 set out rules for commercial agents in the UK who negotiate or conclude the sale of goods on behalf of a principal. An agent has a right to indemnity under these Regulations, which stipulate the conditions and calculations for a payment from the principal upon termination. It is important to distinguish agents from ‘introducers’, who are not covered by the Regulations.
Selective distribution online in high-end fashion and trade mark protection
Selective distribution networks are a method by which a fashion house may impose certain requirements on distributors when they sell products. This is most relevant to luxury fashion houses who often wish to prevent reselling to other distributors where they cannot control the environment in which the luxury product is sold (which could diminish its luxury status). Usually, a selective distribution network will be required to implement certain standards around the shop floor (and even proximity to other luxury brands) to maintain the luxury image of the products. There are strict requirements for a valid selective distribution network, and specialist competition law advice should be sought before introducing one.
Co-branding and co-marketing
Co-branding agreements are effectively a form of cross-licensing where two brands come together to create a single co-branded product or service or collaborate with another brand to explore a brand extension into products that it does not currently make. They tend to be short-term arrangements, for example, for limited edition products or used for profile raising and expanding customer reach. Owing to the mutual nature of these agreements, they tend to be quite balanced in terms of their obligations with both parties wanting to protect their brand and guard against any reputational damage.
Franchising and alternative sales model agreements
Franchising is a type of licensing under which the franchisor grants the franchisee the right to operate a store (physical or online) subject to contractual arrangements. Well-known UK high street brands such as River Island and Ann Summers operate using a franchise model alongside directly owned stores. For the franchisee, it is beneficial as the brand has an established reputation and following.
Alternative sales model agreements include pop-up (temporary) stores, concessions in larger stores, dropship or consignment models.
Successful advertising of a product is critical to its sales success. With a huge proportion of sales now being made online, omnichannel retailing is a business model that provides an integrated, consistent and, therefore, elevated customer shopping experience across all available physical and digital channels.
Employing fashion models
The UK does not have a codified system for protecting and enforcing image rights. However, the versatile right of passing off can be successfully used in this context, particularly where use of one’s image without permission creates the impression of a false endorsement.
When engaging fashion models, it is important for the model to sign a release form permitting the use of their image. Unless the photography/videography is undertaken in-house (i.e. by an employee) the brand also needs to obtain either an assignment or licence of the copyright from the photographer/videographer for the use of the photographs/video. An assignment is preferable because it is a one-off transaction and gives the assignee complete control, but this typically increases the fee. In either case, the brand should also obtain a waiver of “moral rights” as this avoids the need to include attributions whenever the photographs/videos are used and prevents the photographer/videographer from objecting to “derogatory treatment” of their work.
Social media, influencers and brand ambassadors/celebrities
When engaging influencers as brand ambassadors, fashion houses should be careful to do their due diligence on these individuals, not only to ensure that their following is genuine, but also to check whether they have made any controversial statements in the past or received complaints. Commercial terms should link to these elements so that the influencer agreement can be terminated in the event the influencer does something that may bring the brand into disrepute.
Influencer agreements should be clear on whether the brand has editing or approval rights pre-posting. As the relevance of a social media post may only last for a short period, and influencers are often individuals without significant means, brands should ensure the key obligations are structured in such a way so that the brand must be satisfied with the social media post before having to pay the influencer. An additional consideration is ensuring operation within the terms of service of the social media platform.
Advertising standards, relevant authorities and advertising practice
Advertising standards are regulated by the advertising standards authority (ASA). The ASA investigates complaints into marketing material that is alleged not to have complied with the industry’s CAP code (non-broadcast advertising, sales promotion and direct marketing) or BCAP code (broadcast advertising). Fashion brands should be aware that continued breaches of the CAP codes can not only lead to adverse rulings being published online, but can also result in brands being listed by the ASA as a continued non-compliant advertiser. This creates bad press for the brand, and can cause difficulties in placing future campaigns. Adverse rulings relevant to the fashion industry have previously been made as a result of models appearing unhealthily thin and therefore the advert being irresponsible, advertisements on social media not being clearly listed as a paid advertisement, and due to objectification of the model.
The Online Safety Act 2023 established new legal duties on social media and search services to protect users from illegal content and content that is harmful to children. UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 govern how personal data is collected and used. The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 require consent for marketing messages. The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 continue to apply post-Brexit, regulating online business activities.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 consolidated older legislation into one act, protecting consumers buying goods, services and digital content. Key rights include that goods, services and digital content must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. For faulty goods, consumers have 30 days to get a full refund, after which they can still seek a repair or replacement.
The Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 specify that, for most distance/online sales, the consumer has a minimum cooling-off period of 14 days within which to cancel the contract for a full refund. If the seller does not inform the consumer of this right, the period is automatically extended for a year.
The Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) received royal assent on 24 May 2024 with the majority of its provisions coming into force from 6 April 2025. The driver behind this new legislation was to update consumer laws and introduce new provisions relating to digital markets and competition law. It has bolstered the list of blacklisted practices and provides the Secretary of State the power to add to the current list, allowing consumer laws to adapt more quickly. New banned practices were created for submitting or incentivising the submission of fake reviews and “drip pricing”, where only part of an item’s price is shown during the early part of the transaction, with the total amount being revealed near the end. There are also tighter regulations around subscription contracts so that consumers do not get trapped in them. Most significantly, it substantially enhances the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) role in enforcing consumer protection, allowing it to investigate and issue enforcement notices, including significant fines.
There is no UK case law around physical or online store layout, but registered designs can be used to protect novel user interfaces and physical store layouts, and passing off could be used to enforce against a highly similar physical or online store.
The CMA is the UK’s main competition and consumer authority and it has enforcement powers under:
- The Enterprise Act 2002, prohibiting mergers that substantially lessen competition. In 2019, JD Sports acquired Footasylum but was forced to sell it as the CMA found the merger would substantially lessen competition and harm consumers.
- The Competition Act 1998, prohibiting anti-competitive agreements and abuse of a dominant market position. Its aim is to prevent practices that restrict competition and harm consumers, such as price-fixing, market-sharing and unfair trading conditions.
- The DMCCA, as mentioned above, makes certain unfair commercial practices illegal, including practices like fake reviews, pressure selling, and misleading omission of material information.
Passing off is similar to the laws of unfair competition which exist in some EU member states, and protects against other businesses selling goods misrepresenting their origin. It was used to prevent false endorsement in Fenty v. Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop) [2015] EWCA Civ 3, where it was held that selling a t-shirt featuring Rihanna was passing off on the basis that consumers would assume (in part due to past similar endorsements) that Rihanna had authorised the use of her image, when she had not, and was commercially linked to the sale of the t-shirt, which was not the case. There is also “extended passing off” which applies to a class of goods with collective goodwill, such as “Harris Tweed”.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires that companies with a turnover of at least GBP 36 million prepare an annual statement to demonstrate what they have done to ensure that modern slavery does not exist within the company or its supply chain. It has faced criticism for the voluntary nature of the company statements and the lack of teeth around enforcement, but the adverse PR impact is the main deterrent.
The Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/172) has a requirement that employers with more than 250 employees must publish information on their gender pay gaps each year. Likewise, under the Companies Act 2006, there is a mandatory climate-related financial disclosure that must be included in the strategic report of large UK companies. Making misleading environmental claims about a fashion product will likely be a breach of the DMCCA, as well as falling foul of the CAP codes. Following the CMA’s investigation into ASOS, Boohoo and George at Asda’s environmental claims, it published guidance in September 2024: Complying with consumer law when making environmental claims in the fashion retail sector.
In October 2025, the Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging (pEPR) regime was introduced, replacing the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007/871. The pEPR shifts the financial burden of packaging waste management onto the fashion brands and packaging producers.
UK brands that sell into the EU will need to comply with the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) which mandates Digital Product Passports (DPPs) for certain product categories, including textiles/apparel/footwear. The ESPR came into force on 18 July 2024 but only sets out high-level obligations. The specifics will be detailed in delegated acts, of which there is one planned for textiles in January 2026. Some UK brands are voluntarily adopting DPPs, such as Fearne Cotton’s Happy Place collaboration with Nobody’s Child.
Certification marks are commonly used in the fashion sector (e.g. B Corp, GINETEX care symbols, Fair Trade and Woolmark), as they guarantee that products meet specific standards. Sustainability is challenging for fast fashion, but UK brands such as Desmond & Dempsey and JoJo Maman Bébé have B Corp status. UK fashion companies also often use the ISO certifications, particularly ISO 9001 for quality and ISO 14001 for environmental impact.
In the UK, to import fashion products, each item of clothing or piece of fabric must be declared under the correct 10-digit code outlined in the UK Online Global Tariff. The Entry Summary Declaration must have a detailed description, include the commercial value and the manufacturing origin, and declare its fibre content, for example, “100% cotton”. If the product contains materials like leather, fur, or similar, it must incorporate a statement saying, “contains non-textile parts of animal origin”. Interestingly, there are no regulations in place to make it necessary to contain care or size labels, but they must meet product safety regulations.
To combat counterfeits, companies can file an Application for Action (AFA) which requests UK Border Force officers to detain any goods being imported that are suspected of infringing IP rights. Customs officers inspect the exterior of packages and put them through x-ray machines. If suspicious, they have the right to open the package. From here, as the customs officer cannot be trained on every brand’s rights and how exactly to determine counterfeits, they will send the necessary pictures/information to the brand to authenticate the product.
The UK has a simplified customs procedure for counterfeit goods which allows customs officers to destroy seized items under customs control with the agreement of the rightsholder and the importer, avoiding the need for lengthy court proceedings to determine if the goods are counterfeit. This is a discretionary, but fast, process that can be used when the importer does not object to the destruction or explicitly consents to it.
If I use a freelance designer, do I own the designs?
Outside an employment relationship, the first owner of copyright is the author, so the freelancer will own the designs unless you get an assignment signed by the freelancer to transfer ownership to you. It is possible to assign rights in works not yet created, so this is recommended as a standard clause in a freelancer contract.
What are the risks of using AI in the design of my fashion products?
One key risk of using AI in design work relates to ownership. It is vital to understand the terms of the AI software you are using, and whether copyright/design rights will subsist in the designs created at all (the latter typically depends on the level of input from the human inputting the prompts).
Consider if the work inputted into the AI will be used to train the system so that other users can benefit from it.
One question which has not yet been addressed by the courts is whether uploading a design to AI software would constitute a first disclosure for the purposes of design rights (and start the one-year grace period in which the design would have to be registered).
How can I enforce against copycats/dupes?
As dupes differ from counterfeits by being similar to the branded product, but not featuring an identical brand, and because consumers are often aware that they are buying dupes (rather than the original), sections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 may be less relevant, but can still be useful if you have registered trade marks for your product packaging. However, a brand may wish to monitor how dupes are being characterised and sold online to assist with notice and takedown actions, for example, as Lululemon has done in the U.S. for “LULULEMON DUPE”.
Brands can also rely on section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and design rights, as well as passing off.
Some commercial ways to fight back against dupes include producing a challenger private label brand at a lower price point, launching your own anti-dupe social media campaign, such as the one haircare brand Olaplex created with Oladupés, and offering a “dupe swap” programme for genuine product.