Issued by the Editorial Board, Fashion Law IP Blog.

1. The Bottle Is the Brand: Chanel’s No. 5 Wins at EUIPO
A perfume bottle can do more than hold a fragrance. It can become the very thing that tells consumers where the product comes from. On 9 October 2026, the EUIPO Opposition Division upheld Chanel’s opposition to a rival application for a three-dimensional perfume bottle mark, finding that the proposed design would take unfair advantage of the reputation attached to Chanel’s No. 5 bottle shape. The decision is notable because the EUIPO reached that conclusion despite finding only a low degree of visual and conceptual similarity between the two bottles.

The dispute began when Romanian company Chaos Perfumes applied in April 2024 to register a white-and-gold bottle bearing the words “CHAOS ANGELIC TOUCH EAU DE LIGHT”. Chanel argued that the bottle borrowed recognisable features of its registered three-dimensional mark. Chaos Perfumes questioned whether consumers recognised the bottle itself, rather than the Chanel name or No. 5 label, as an indicator of commercial origin.

The EUIPO accepted Chanel’s evidence of genuine use and reputation for the bottle shape in France. That evidence included advertising, press coverage, exhibitions, commercial records and a consumer survey in which 72 per cent of 2,438 women associated an unbranded image of the bottle with Chanel. The Opposition Division concluded that French consumers would make a mental link between the rival bottle and Chanel’s reputed mark, allowing the applicant to benefit unfairly from the recognition built by Chanel.

The legal route is important. Article 8(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation protects a reputed earlier mark against later signs that, without due cause, take unfair advantage of or cause detriment to its distinctive character or reputation. Unlike ordinary confusion claims, the provision does not require the same likelihood-of-confusion analysis. The case shows that product packaging can operate as a mark in its own right, but reputation must be proved for the shape itself, not merely for the brand printed on it.
For fashion and beauty businesses, the lesson is practical. A recognisable bottle, clasp, sole or silhouette may carry substantial brand value, but a business must build evidence that consumers identify that feature with a single source. In this dispute, decades of consistent use did much of the legal work. Sometimes the most valuable part of a luxury product is the part that carries no logo at all.

2. When the Product Is Genuine, but the Sale Is Disputed: Patrick Ta v CVS
A product can carry a genuine brand name and still end up at the centre of a trademark dispute. On 14 October 2026, Patrick Ta Beauty filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of California against CVS Pharmacy and supplier Akstrom Imports. The complaint alleges that CVS sold cosmetics bearing the PATRICK TA and MAJOR HEADLINES marks without authorisation, even after the brand sent a demand letter in September.

The dispute is more complicated than a conventional counterfeit case. Patrick Ta Beauty says it controls the channels through which its products are authorised for sale and that the goods sold by CVS were materially different from those supplied through its approved channels. The alleged differences include the absence of the brand’s usual warranty, return arrangements and customer service. These claims have not yet been tested in court, and the defendants have not been found liable.

That distinction matters because US trademark law generally recognises a first-sale principle. Once a trademark owner has placed genuine goods on the market, resale is not automatically infringement. The position may change, however, where the goods are materially different from the authorised products or where the circumstances of sale are likely to mislead consumers about the source, quality or support attached to them. The Lanham Act prohibits unauthorised uses likely to cause confusion, while the material-differences doctrine has developed through case law.

For beauty and fashion brands, control over distribution is not simply a commercial preference. It can be tied to product consistency, storage, authenticity checks, after-sales support and the consumer experience associated with the mark. At the same time, trademark law does not give brands an unlimited right to prevent every resale of authentic goods. The factual question is whether the differences are real and meaningful to consumers, rather than merely a way of restricting ordinary competition.

The case is at an early stage. Its importance lies in the question it raises: when a product carries the right name but arrives through a channel the brand does not recognise, what exactly is the consumer buying? The answer may determine whether a resale remains legitimate or crosses into infringement.

3. The Model Is the Campaign: Who Owns an AI Digital Double?
Fashion campaigns have always relied on a model’s face and body. Artificial intelligence now makes it possible to reuse that likeness long after the shoot has ended, changing the relationship between a model, a brand and the image being sold. In a report published on 27 October 2026, Reuters examined photo-shoot contracts in which brands including Diesel, Calvin Klein and L’Oréal sought rights to alter models’ faces or bodies, create reusable digital replicas, or use images to train AI tools.

The report does not establish that these companies routinely create digital clones. Some brands said the contract language was campaign-specific or exploratory, and others denied systematically replicating models. But the proposed terms reveal a problem that ordinary image licences may not adequately address. Permission to use a photograph for one campaign is not necessarily permission to change a person’s appearance, generate new images from their likeness or train a system that can reproduce it later.
New York has already taken a more specific approach. Under the New York State Fashion Workers Act, clients must obtain clear and conspicuous prior written consent before creating or using a model’s digital replica. The consent must describe the scope, purpose, rate of pay and duration of use. The Act also treats a digital replica as a computer-generated or AI-enhanced representation of a model’s likeness, while excluding routine edits such as colour correction and minor retouching.

This distinction is important for fashion businesses. A retouched campaign image and a reusable digital double are not the same thing. One adjusts a photograph; the other can create new performances and new commercial uses without the model being physically present. Contracts should therefore identify the permitted uses, duration, territory, compensation, training rights and whether the replica can be licensed to third parties.

AI may make campaigns cheaper and faster, but the cost saving does not answer the question of consent. A model’s likeness is not just another production asset. As digital replicas become easier to generate, the industry will need to decide whether a release signed for one shoot can fairly authorise a lifetime of synthetic appearances.

4. Can AI Draft a Trademark Case? India Moves to Set the Rules
Artificial intelligence has entered the trademark office, not only through the products brands create but through the legal documents filed on their behalf. On 13 October 2026, the Delhi High Court, in Stryten Energy LLC v Nidhi Agarwal, said comprehensive guidelines were needed to address the use and misuse of AI and the problem of trademark squatting. The Court directed the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to invite suggestions and objections from stakeholders before preparing workable guidelines.

The direction followed concerns about AI-generated pleadings and the citation of false or non-existent authorities before the Trade Marks Registry. On 17 October, IP India published a notice inviting stakeholder input. Draft guidelines accompanying the notice propose greater disclosure of AI use and independent verification of AI-generated citations, statutory references, legal propositions and material facts. The draft is not yet binding law, and its wording has been criticised for needing greater clarity about when declarations must be filed.

The issue is not whether lawyers and trade mark agents should be allowed to use AI. The more immediate concern is whether a person filing a document has checked that the cases exist, that the citations are accurate and that the judgments actually support the propositions being made. In trademark proceedings, inaccurate authorities can affect examination reports, oppositions, rectification applications and hearings. AI-assisted work still needs a human who takes responsibility for what is filed.

The Court also referred to trademark squatting. This usually involves registering or applying for another party’s mark, often to block the genuine owner or seek a commercial advantage. In the fashion industry, where brand names, designer names and collaborations can quickly acquire value, unreliable filings and bad-faith applications can create costly obstacles to market entry.

The proposed framework is therefore about more than regulating a new tool. It is an attempt to preserve the reliability of the trademark process while the Registry deals with AI-assisted work and strategic filings. The message for brand owners and their representatives is straightforward: technology may help prepare a case, but it cannot take responsibility for its accuracy.

5. A Screen Can Be a Design: India’s New Rules for GUIs and Icons
A design does not have to be printed on fabric or moulded into a handbag. It can also appear on the screen of a phone, watch or computer. On 1 October 2026, India’s Designs Office published draft Guidelines for Registration of Designs Relating to GUI and Icon, setting out how graphical user interfaces, icons and similar digital features should be represented and examined under the Designs Act, 2000.

The draft follows the Calcutta High Court’s decision in NEC Corporation v Controller of Patents and Designs on 9 March 2026. The Court rejected a narrow approach that excluded graphical user interfaces merely because they are visible only when an electronic device is switched on. It said that such applications must be assessed under the statutory definitions of an ‘article’ and a ‘design’, rather than rejected simply because the subject matter is digital.

The draft guidance proposes that a GUI or icon should be shown as applied to an article, such as a mobile phone, monitor or smartwatch, rather than claimed in isolation. It also recognises that visibility only when a device is powered on does not automatically prevent registration. Dynamic and animated interfaces may be represented through separate images of relevant frames. The draft is administrative guidance, not an amendment to the Act, and the Designs Act and Rules remain controlling.

For fashion businesses, this development has a practical reach. Smartwatches, digital fitting tools, shopping apps and virtual retail experiences increasingly rely on distinctive interfaces. A fashion label may invest in the appearance of its app just as carefully as it invests in a store display or garment. The possibility of design registration gives businesses another way to protect the visual features of those digital experiences, provided the statutory requirements are met.

There is still a question about animation. If the creative contribution lies in the movement between two screens, treating every frame as a separate static image may not capture what makes the interface distinctive. That issue deserves attention as the draft is finalised. The next recognisable fashion design may not hang in a wardrobe. It may sit on the screen in your hand.

---

Sources

Legislation and Regulations

• Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union Trade Mark, art 8(5).
• Lanham Act, 15 USC §§ 1114(1)(a), 1125(a).
• New York Labor Law §§ 1031, 1037(7) (New York State Fashion Workers Act).
• Trade Marks Act 1999 (India).
• Trade Marks Rules 2017 (India).
• Designs Act 2000 (India), ss 2(a), 2(d), 4 and 5.
• Designs Rules 2001 (India).

Cases and Court Filings

• Chanel SAS v Chaos Perfumes, EUIPO Opposition Division, decision dated 9 October 2026 (opposition to an application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark).
• Patrick Ta Beauty, LLC v CVS Pharmacy, Inc and Akstrom Imports, Inc, No 3:26-cv-05867 (SD Cal, complaint filed 14 October 2026).
• Complaint, Patrick Ta Beauty, LLC v CVS Pharmacy, Inc and Akstrom Imports, Inc, No 3:26-cv-05867 (SD Cal, filed 14 October 2026).
• Enesco Corp v Price/Costco Inc 146 F 3d 1083, 1085–87 (9th Cir 1998).
• Davidoff & Cie SA v PLD International Corp 263 F 3d 1297, 1302 (11th Cir 2001).
• Stryten Energy LLC v Nidhi Agarwal, W.P.(C)-IPD 16/2026 (Delhi High Court, 13 October 2026).
• NEC Corporation v Controller of Patents and Designs, IPDAID/21/2024 and connected matters (Calcutta High Court, 9 March 2026).
  Government Publications and Official Guidelines
• Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Draft Guidelines on the Use/Misuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Menace of Squatting (public notice, 17 October 2026).⁠
• New York State Department of Labor, ‘New York State Fashion Workers Act FAQs’.
• Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Draft Guidelines for Registration of Designs Relating to GUI & ICON etc (public notice, 1 October 2026).

Secondary Sources and Legal Commentary

• The Fashion Law, ‘Chanel’s No. 5 Bottle Prevails in Trademark Fight Over Packaging’ (13 October 2026).
• Michael P Eddy, ‘Patrick Ta Beauty sues CVS and Akstrom over unauthorized cosmetics sold under PATRICK TA and MAJOR HEADLINES: complaint allegations’ (TrademarkSupport, 15 October 2026).
• Helen Reid, ‘Fashion’s AI era: face swaps and digital clones’ (Reuters, 27 October 2026, updated 29 October 2026).
• Harshita Bhola, ‘Can an Animation Be a Design? Examining India’s Draft GUI and Icon Design Guidelines, 2026’ (SpicyIP, 30 October 2026).