Issued by the Editorial Board, Fashion Law IP Blog.

June 2026 reaffirmed that fashion law is no longer confined to couture ateliers or courtroom disputes over counterfeit handbags. Throughout the month, significant legal developments unfolded across copyright, trademarks, trade dress, and digital assets, illustrating how intellectual property continues to underpin innovation within the fashion industry. From India’s celebration of Copyright Day to litigation surrounding UGG-inspired footwear, Nike’s successful defence of its revived Total 90 brand, and the conclusion of the landmark MetaBirkins dispute, June highlighted the increasingly complex relationship between creativity, commerce, and legal protection.

What unites these seemingly distinct developments is a common question: how should intellectual property law respond to an industry where products are simultaneously physical, digital, artistic, and commercial? Whether protecting an original textile print, distinguishing inspiration from imitation, preserving legacy trademarks, or enforcing rights within the metaverse, each development demonstrates that modern fashion businesses depend upon a sophisticated ecosystem of intellectual property rights. This month’s review examines the most significant legal developments that shaped fashion, luxury, branding, and emerging technologies during June 2026.

1. Copyright Never Goes Out of Style: Celebrating India’s Copyright Day

Every year, 4 June marks India’s Copyright Day, commemorating the enactment of the Copyright Act, 1957 and recognising copyright’s central role in protecting creativity across industries. Although copyright is traditionally associated with literature, music, films, and software, its significance within the fashion industry is often overlooked despite protecting many of the creative works that give collections their commercial identity.

Fashion extends far beyond garments. Every collection embodies a range of original artistic works capable of attracting copyright protection, including fashion illustrations, textile prints, embroidery motifs, artistic graphics, campaign photographs, lookbooks, digital artwork, and marketing creatives. Copyright protects the original expression embodied in these works rather than the underlying ideas or trends themselves. This distinction preserves the freedom of designers to draw inspiration from prevailing aesthetics while preventing the unauthorised reproduction of another creator’s original expression.

Unlike trademarks or patents, copyright protection arises automatically upon the creation of an original work. Registration is not a prerequisite for ownership but primarily serves as evidentiary support should infringement proceedings arise. Consequently, an original fashion sketch or textile print enjoys legal protection from the moment it is reduced into a tangible form.

The increasing digitalisation of fashion has further expanded copyright’s relevance. Artificial intelligence-generated advertising campaigns, virtual garments, immersive fashion experiences, digital catalogues, and metaverse collections have transformed the nature of creative production. Modern fashion houses now generate extensive portfolios of digital content, each constituting valuable intellectual property alongside their physical collections.

Fashion businesses rarely rely upon copyright in isolation. A single garment may simultaneously attract copyright over its artistic expression, trademark protection for the brand, design protection for its appearance, and trade dress protection for its overall commercial image. Fashion law therefore operates through an interconnected framework of intellectual property rights rather than any single legal regime.

India’s Copyright Day thus serves as more than a symbolic celebration of legislation. It reminds creators, designers, and fashion businesses alike that originality remains one of the industry’s most valuable commercial assets and that effective intellectual property protection is indispensable to sustaining innovation.

2. UGG or Just “Inspired By”? Dupe Culture Meets Intellectual Property Law

Among the month’s most closely watched disputes was the continuing litigation between Deckers Outdoor Corporation, owner of the globally recognised UGG brand, and online retailer Quince. The dispute encapsulates one of the defining legal questions confronting the fashion industry today: where does legitimate inspiration end and unlawful imitation begin?

Deckers alleges that Quince unlawfully capitalised on the goodwill associated with the UGG brand by marketing products that closely resemble its iconic boots while benefiting from consumer recognition of the distinctive UGG aesthetic. The proceedings encompass claims involving trademark infringement, trade dress, design patents, unfair competition, and consumer confusion, illustrating how a single fashion product may engage multiple branches of intellectual property law simultaneously.

The dispute has emerged against the backdrop of the rapidly expanding phenomenon of “dupe culture.” Driven largely by social media, consumers increasingly seek affordable alternatives to luxury products marketed as “inspired by” premium brands. Unlike traditional counterfeits, these products frequently avoid direct replication of logos or trademarks while reproducing the overall appearance of successful designs.

From a legal perspective, similarity alone does not establish infringement. Intellectual property law does not prohibit competition, nor does it permit businesses to monopolise aesthetic trends, silhouettes, or functional design concepts. Courts instead focus on whether the allegedly infringing product appropriates legally protected features or creates a likelihood that consumers will mistakenly associate the competing product with the original brand.

Trade dress has consequently assumed growing importance within fashion litigation. Unlike conventional trademarks protecting names or logos, trade dress safeguards the overall visual appearance of a product where that appearance has acquired distinctiveness and functions as an indicator of commercial origin. Establishing such protection, however, requires demonstrating that consumers recognise the product’s appearance as identifying a particular source rather than merely reflecting a fashionable style.

The UGG litigation therefore illustrates both the strength and limitations of intellectual property law. While legal protection extends to distinctive brand identifiers, it does not prevent competitors from drawing inspiration from broader aesthetic movements. As “dupe culture” continues reshaping consumer behaviour, courts will increasingly be required to balance market competition against the legitimate protection of commercial goodwill.

3. Nike v Total90 LLC: Legacy Brands and the Revival of Trademark Rights

June also witnessed an important development concerning the revival of legacy trademarks through the dispute between Nike and Total90 LLC over Nike’s iconic “Total 90” football brand. The litigation raises significant questions concerning trademark abandonment and the continuing importance of commercial use within trademark law.

Total90 LLC argued that Nike abandoned its trademark after allowing its federal registration to lapse in 2019. Following that lapse, Total90 LLC secured registration of the mark and sought to prevent Nike from relaunching its historic football collection. Nike, however, maintained that notwithstanding the expiry of registration, it had continued using the mark through limited commercial activities, thereby preserving its common-law trademark rights.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana declined to grant the preliminary injunction sought by Total90 LLC, accepting that Nike had produced sufficient evidence of continuing commercial use to undermine the abandonment claim at the preliminary stage.

The decision reaffirms one of trademark law’s most enduring principles: trademark rights derive primarily from use in commerce rather than registration alone. Registration undoubtedly provides procedural and evidentiary advantages, but it does not independently create or extinguish rights where genuine commercial use persists.

The dispute also reflects a broader commercial trend within the fashion industry. Brands increasingly revisit archival collections, historic logos, and legacy product lines to capitalise upon nostalgia, heritage, and consumer familiarity. Such revival strategies inevitably raise complex legal questions where registrations have lapsed but brand recognition remains commercially significant.

Nike’s successful defence therefore extends beyond a single football collection. It reinforces the principle that trademark law protects the continuing relationship between brands and consumers rather than merely administrative entries within trademark registries.

4. Hermès v Mason Rothschild: MetaBirkins and the Future of Trademark Protection in Digital Fashion

June concluded with one of the most consequential developments in digital fashion law. A Manhattan federal court permanently prohibited artist Mason Rothschild from minting, marketing, promoting, or selling his MetaBirkins NFT collection, effectively bringing to an end one of the most influential intellectual property disputes involving luxury brands and blockchain technology.

The litigation began in 2022 when Hermès challenged Rothschild’s collection of NFTs depicting colourful faux-fur reinterpretations of the iconic Birkin handbag. Although the artworks differed visually from the physical products, each prominently incorporated the Birkin name, one of the most valuable trademarks within the luxury industry.

Rothschild argued that the NFTs constituted artistic commentary on luxury consumption, fashion culture, and the use of animal fur. Invoking the First Amendment and the principles established in Rogers v Grimaldi, he maintained that the use of the Birkin mark possessed sufficient artistic relevance to merit constitutional protection.

Hermès countered that the project functioned primarily as a commercial enterprise rather than protected artistic speech and that consumers were likely to believe the NFTs originated from or were authorised by the luxury house.

A jury ultimately agreed with Hermès, finding Rothschild liable for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and cybersquatting. The permanent injunction issued in June 2026 considerably strengthened that verdict by prohibiting any future commercial exploitation of the MetaBirkins collection.

The broader significance of the judgment lies in its affirmation that established principles of trademark law remain fully capable of governing emerging technologies. The court did not develop a separate legal framework for NFTs or digital fashion; instead, it applied longstanding concepts such as likelihood of confusion, brand goodwill, and trademark dilution to virtual products in precisely the same manner as physical goods.

As luxury fashion increasingly expands into virtual marketplaces, blockchain platforms, and immersive digital environments, the MetaBirkins litigation demonstrates that technological innovation does not diminish intellectual property rights. Rather, it reinforces the adaptability of traditional trademark doctrine to protect brand identity irrespective of the medium through which commercial activity occurs.

Conclusion

Whether celebrating copyright’s role in protecting creative expression, examining the legal limits of dupe culture, resolving disputes over revived heritage brands, or enforcing trademark rights against NFTs, each development reflected the expanding reach of fashion law into new commercial and technological landscapes.

Collectively, these developments reveal that fashion law today extends well beyond garments and luxury branding. It increasingly governs artificial intelligence, digital commerce, virtual assets, consumer perception, cultural identity, and emerging technologies that continue to reshape the global fashion economy. As the boundaries between physical and digital fashion become progressively indistinguishable, intellectual property law will remain central to balancing innovation with commercial protection. If June 2026 has demonstrated anything, it is that while fashion constantly reinvents itself, the legal principles safeguarding creativity continue to evolve alongside it.

---

References

1. Copyright Act 1957, ss 13–14.
2. Copyright Act 1957, s 45.
3. Copyright Office, Government of India, ‘Copyright Office’ https://copyright.gov.in/.
4. Eastern Book Company v DB Modak (2008) 1 SCC 1.
5. Deckers Outdoor Corporation v Quince (ND Cal, ongoing litigation).
6. Reuters, ‘UGG Boot Maker Loses US Patent Trial over Quince “Dupes”‘ (15 June 2026).
7. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure § 1202.02 (Trade Dress).
8. World Intellectual Property Organization, Understanding Industrial Property (WIPO Publication No 895E, 2016).
9. The Fashion Law, ‘Quince’s Win in UGG Case Shows the Limits of Anti-Dupe Litigation’ (16 June 2026) https://www.thefashionlaw.com/quinces-win-in-ugg-case-shows-the-limits-of-anti-dupe-litigation/ accessed 27 June 2026.
10. Total90 LLC v Nike, Inc, No 2:25-cv-01114 (ED La 2026).
11. Reuters, ‘Nike Defeats Bid to Block Revival of Total 90 Football Brand’ (19 June 2026).
12. Lanham Act 15 USC § 1127.
13. United Drug Co v Theodore Rectanus Co 248 US 90 (1918).
14. Hanover Star Milling Co v Metcalf 240 US 403 (1916).
15. J Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (5th edn, Thomson Reuters 2025) § 17:9.
16. The Fashion Law, ‘Nike’s Total 90 Revival Raises Questions About Trademark Abandonment’ (June 2026).
17. Hermès International SA v Rothschild (US District Court, SDNY, No 1:22-cv-00384, complaint filed 14 January 2022).
18. Lauren Thomas, ‘Hermès Wins Lawsuit Against MetaBirkins NFT Creator in Landmark Web3 Trademark Case’ CNBC (8 February 2023).
19. Rogers v Grimaldi 875 F 2d 994 (2d Cir 1989).
20. Hermès International SA v Rothschild (US District Court, SDNY, No 1:22-cv-00384, Jury Verdict, 8 February 2023).
21. Hermès International SA v Rothschild (US District Court, SDNY, No 1:22-cv-00384, Permanent Injunction, June 2026).