Issued by the Editorial Board, Fashion Law IP Blog.

1. When Your Smartwatch Becomes a Counterfeit Store: Swatch v Samsung

A smartwatch face might look like harmless software. But what happens when that digital display carries the visual identity of a luxury watch brand? In August 2026, the UK High Court ordered Samsung to pay about US$11.6 million after finding liability connected with third party smartwatch applications using designs and brand names associated with Swatch brands including Omega, Longines, Breguet and Tissot.

The important point is that Samsung did not necessarily create the infringing watch faces itself. The dispute concerned its role in hosting and making them available through its app store. The court treated the platform’s control over approval and presentation as legally significant. The case therefore moves the conversation beyond who manufactured a counterfeit product and towards whether a digital marketplace can become responsible when it provides the shelves and commercial infrastructure through which infringing material reaches consumers.

That matters for fashion and luxury brands. Online platforms are increasingly the new department stores, while digital products can reproduce brand identity with almost no physical manufacturing cost. A fake watch face can borrow the visual language of an expensive timepiece in seconds. The legal challenge is therefore about responsibility across the digital supply chain.

The case also shows how trademark law is adapting to products that do not exist physically. A consumer may never own an Omega watch, yet still encounter its name and design every day on a smartwatch. The commercial value of a luxury trademark can therefore be affected even when the disputed product is entirely digital.

For fashion and technology companies, the lesson is simple: digital shelves are still shelves, and putting a counterfeit on one can carry a very real price tag.

2. GymBull: When the Trademark Is Not Confusing, But Still Too Close: Gymshark v GymBull

What happens when a trademark is not confusing enough to infringe, but still looks like it was designed with another brand in mind? The UKIPO’s Gymshark v Abdulwahed Bin Shabib Distribution decision offers a neat answer: bad faith can do the work that confusion cannot. The application for GymBull, covering clothing, was refused even though the UKIPO found that consumers were unlikely to confuse GymBull with GYMSHARK.

Gymshark’s traditional confusion argument therefore fell short. The shared word ‘Gym’ was not enough, especially because ‘Shark’ and ‘Bull’ create different overall impressions. But Gymshark had another route. It relied on the reputation of its mark and, crucially, on the applicant’s wider pattern of filings that appeared to evoke established brands.

The applicant described the filings as parody. That explanation did not persuade the Hearing Officer. The decision shows that bad faith is not simply another version of consumer confusion. A mark can fail to confuse ordinary consumers and still be refused if the circumstances surrounding its adoption reveal conduct contrary to honest commercial practices.

For fashion brands, this is particularly important. A new mark may be commercially attractive precisely because it reminds consumers of an existing brand, even if it is sufficiently different to avoid traditional confusion.

GymBull is a reminder that trademark law looks at more than the final logo. Sometimes the real evidence is the story behind why that logo was filed.

3. Can Louis Vuitton’s Archives Defend Its Checkerboard?

Louis Vuitton has spent more than a century turning patterns into brand assets. In August 2026, that history became part of a copyright defence. In litigation brought by designer Paula Hian, Louis Vuitton and Off-White argued that their distorted checkerboard designs did not copy Hian’s registered Plaque D’egout fabric design and that the similarities reflected a much older visual tradition.

The defendants’ strategy is fascinating because it uses the fashion archive as evidence. Their motion points to historical checkerboard imagery, Op Art, earlier fashion collections and Louis Vuitton’s Damier pattern, which dates back to 1888. The argument is not simply that the designs look different. It is that the shared visual elements are too familiar and historically widespread to belong exclusively to one contemporary designer.

That distinction goes to the heart of copyright law. Copyright protects original expression, not ideas, styles or commonplace visual vocabulary. A designer may create an original arrangement of geometric elements, but that does not automatically give them ownership over every later work using a similar geometric language.

The case also reveals a practical lesson for fashion houses: archives are not only marketing material. Sketches, mood boards, development files, historical references and internal communications can help reconstruct how a design was created. In a copyright dispute, provenance can become part of the defence.

For an industry built on heritage, that is a powerful idea. Sometimes the archive is not just where the brand came from. It is evidence of where the design came from too.

4. Chanel, Counterfeits and the Buyer Who Knew It Was Fake

If a customer knows a Chanel bag is fake before buying it, can there still be trademark infringement? Chanel’s August 2026 litigation against a Hamptons retailer puts that question at the centre of a modern counterfeiting dispute. Chanel alleges that Taroo Southampton and related defendants repeatedly sold counterfeit Chanel products, including handbags and apparel, even after being put on notice of Chanel’s rights.

The interesting issue is not simply whether the purchaser was deceived. Chanel argues that trademark harm can occur after the sale, when other people see the counterfeit product and assume it came from Chanel. This is the doctrine of post-sale confusion. A buyer may know that a bag costing hundreds of dollars is not genuine, but a passerby does not know what the buyer paid, where it came from or whether Chanel authorised it.

That doctrine has become especially relevant in the age of social media and dupe culture. Fashion products are often seen long after the transaction that created them. A counterfeit handbag can appear in an Instagram photograph, at a party or on the street without any indication that it is fake.

The case also exposes the tension between consumer behaviour and trademark doctrine. Modern consumers can knowingly buy replicas and openly discuss them as replicas. That does not necessarily remove the brand owner’s concerns about reputation, quality control or downstream confusion. At the same time, critics argue that post-sale confusion can stretch trademark law beyond its traditional focus on the purchasing decision.

For luxury brands, the fight over counterfeits is therefore no longer just about stopping the fake sale. It is also about controlling what the brand means when the product leaves the shop.

5. India Rewrites the Trademark Playbook: The Revised Trade Marks Manual

India’s intellectual property landscape saw an important procedural development in August 2026. On 21 August, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks published a Revised Draft Manual of the Trade Marks Office Practice and Procedure and invited public comments within 15 days. It is not a new statute, but it could shape how trademark applications and proceedings are handled in practice.

The draft manual brings together procedures covering filing, examination, classification, absolute and relative grounds, show cause hearings, publication, registration, opposition, rectification, renewal, assignment, registered users, prior use and well-known marks. For fashion businesses, these details matter because brand protection depends as much on effective prosecution and maintenance as it does on substantive rights.

The timing is important. Indian fashion and lifestyle brands increasingly operate across online marketplaces, social media and international markets. A clear and predictable Registry process can make it easier to build portfolios around brand names, logos and other source-identifying elements. The consultation also gives practitioners and businesses an opportunity to comment before the manual is finalised.

August also saw the IP Office publish Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Patent Examination Procedures. While those guidelines concern patents rather than fashion trademarks, they reflect a broader shift in Indian IP administration towards addressing how AI can be incorporated into examination while retaining human legal responsibility.

For Indian fashion businesses, the bigger message is clear. IP protection is no longer just about filing an application and waiting for a certificate. The real value lies in building a portfolio and understanding the administrative machinery that keeps those rights useful. In fashion, the brand may be creative but the paperwork still matters.

---

References

Cases

1. Swatch Group Management Services Ltd v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd [2026] EWHC.

2. Gymshark Ltd v Abdulwahed Bin Shabib Distribution, UK Trade Mark Application No 4091284, O/0469/26 (UKIPO, 2 June 2026).

3. Paula Hian v Louis Vuitton USA Inc, No 2:22-cv-03742 (ED Pa).

4. Chanel Inc v Taroo Second Inc et al, No 1:24-cv-09038 (SDNY).

5. Hermès International v Lederer de Paris Fifth Avenue Inc.

6. Feist Publications Inc v Rural Telephone Service Co, 499 US 340 (1991).

7. Satava v Lowry, 323 F3d 805 (9th Cir 2003).

Legislation

1. Trade Marks Act 1994 (UK), ss 3(6), 10–11.

2. Copyright Act 1976 (US), §§ 102, 106.

3. Lanham Act, 15 USC §§ 1114, 1125(a).

4. Trade Marks Act 1999 (India).

5. Trade Marks Rules 2017 (India).

Government and Institutional Sources

1. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), ‘Revised Draft Trade Marks Manual’ (21 August 2026).

2. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), ‘AI Guidelines for Patent Examination Procedures’ (7 August 2026).

3. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), materials concerning intellectual property in the metaverse and digital environments.

Online / Secondary Sources

1. Bloomberg Law, report concerning Swatch Group Management Services Ltd v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (26 August 2026).