A stitch in time: design rights and fast fashion in Edwards v Boohoo

The April 2025 IPEC decision in Edwards v Boohoo [2025] EWHC 805 (IPEC) provides a detailed look at the interplay between unregistered design rights and the fast fashion industry. The case highlights the evidential burdens facing claimants, especially litigants in person, and the limitations of unregistered design rights in protecting conceptual or variable garment features.

Background

Sonia Edwards, a self-taught fashion designer, brought a claim against several companies within the Boohoo Group, alleging that five of her unregistered clothing designs had been copied and used without permission. The designs ranged from ruched leggings and skirts to a puff-sleeved top and a “multiway” bikini top.

The defendants, represented by Andrew Norris KC and Becky Knott, denied both subsistence of the design rights and any copying. The case was heard by Tom Mitcheson KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court.

The legal framework

At the heart of the dispute was whether UK unregistered design right subsisted in the garments and, if so, whether the defendants had copied them. UK unregistered design right is

The court reviewed key provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), notably section 213 which limits protection to original designs concerning the shape or configuration of the whole or part of an article.

The judgment reaffirmed several key principles:

• Design right cannot subsist in surface decoration or methods of construction.

• A design must be the physical manifestation of an idea—not a general concept or abstraction.

• A garment’s design must be considered independently of the wearer’s body shape.

• After the 2014 amendments to the CDPA, claimants cannot rely on “aspects” of a design, only the whole or a concrete part.

Subsistence of design rights

Of the five designs asserted:

• Design 1 (multiway bikini top): The court held that the design first came into existence in 2011, not 2016 as claimed. As a result, any design right had expired before the alleged infringement. Even if valid, the alleged differences were minor, involving only the positioning of straps, which the court held to be a method of construction.

• Design 2 (puff sleeve top): A narrow form of design right was found to subsist, specifically in the combination of a puff sleeve with an unusually long cuff. However, only one of the alleged infringing garments bore a sufficient resemblance, and even then, there was no evidence of copying.

• Designs 3 and 4 (ruched skirts) and Design 5 (ruched leggings): The court found that while some original features existed (e.g. chevron-shaped waistlines and centre-front ruching), the scope of the rights was limited. Again, no evidence of copying was found. The judge noted that these were common design elements in the bodycon fashion genre and could easily have arisen independently.

Copying and infringement

One of the most significant parts of the judgment relates to copying. The court accepted that Boohoo’s design process frequently involves social media and celebrity inspiration. However, there was no compelling evidence that any of Edwards’ designs had been seen or used by Boohoo’s designers. The age of the designs, low visibility on social media, and absence of evidence linking them to Boohoo’s design process led the court to reject allegations of copying across the board.

While some garments were found to be made “exactly or substantially” to Edwards’ designs, the lack of copying meant there was no infringement.

What does this mean?

Edwards v Boohoo is a cautionary tale for designers relying solely on unregistered rights. Key takeaways include:

• Evidence is critical: Claimants must be able to prove not only originality but also that copying took place. This is particularly challenging where alleged copying occurs years after the original design was released.

• Define designs precisely: Without clear, fixed design documents (e.g. technical drawings), it becomes harder to defend against challenges that a design is abstract, conceptual, or commonplace.

• Don’t overlook registration: While registered designs also require novelty, they shift the burden away from proving copying—making them a more powerful tool in enforcement, especially against fast fashion brands.

• Multiway designs are tricky: The court was sceptical of design claims based on how garments can be styled or worn, as these are often deemed methods of construction rather than protectable designs.

Despite losing on infringement, Edwards’ case is a rare example of an individual designer successfully navigating complex IP litigation against a corporate group. It also offers a valuable precedent for the treatment of fashion designs under UK unregistered design right law.

To find out more about the issues raised in this blog contact Rosie Burbidge.