The Runway Has Moved — and It Leads Straight to Court
- warwickluxretail
- Oct 15
- 5 min read
Fashion’s fiercest battleground is no longer the runway — it’s the courtroom. In 2025, luxury giants from Hermès to Louis Vuitton are proving that legal strategy is the new design language. From copyright to trade dress, the industry’s biggest names are rewriting the rules of originality, one lawsuit at a time.
By Ridhi Sofat
October 2025
The front lines of fashion no longer run through Paris or Milan — they run through the courts.
Across 2025, the world’s most powerful fashion houses have found themselves defending their icons in a new kind of arena.
Hermès fought for copyright over its sandal silhouettes. Louis Vuitton went after a sweatshirt brand promoting “designer dupes.” Alo Yoga filed a wave of trademark suits to clear the market before launching its first luxury handbags. And Christian Louboutin won yet another case to protect his red sole — this time in Brazil.
On the surface, these are separate legal battles. But together, they mark a deeper transformation in how fashion defines and defends value.
Luxury brands are no longer just competing on creativity — they’re competing on ownership. As imitation accelerates and aesthetics circulate freely online, intellectual property has become fashion’s most powerful tool of control. In this new landscape, law doesn’t just protect - it defines.
Hermès v Mulanka - When Design Becomes Art
Location: Paris, France
Legal focus: Copyright vs Design Rights
When Hermès sued French brand Mulanka for copying its famous Oran and Izmir sandals, it wasn’t just fighting over leather straps — it was fighting for artistic legitimacy.
In a landmark decision, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that the sandals’ minimalist form — the “H” strap, the proportions, the balance — was original enough to qualify for copyright protection.
That distinction matters. Design rights protect appearance for a limited time, but copyright protects creative expression for decades after the designer’s death. The ruling effectively elevated Hermès from fashion house to art house, granting it a long-term monopoly over one of its most copied silhouettes.
Hermès lost on the narrower design infringement claim (the court found subtle visual differences), but won where it mattered most: the recognition that its sandals were not just stylish, but authored.
This case was not a win just for Hermès, but for the idea that fashion can be protected and preserved as art, arguably carrying the same cultural and legal weight.
Louis Vuitton v United Monograms - Fighting the ‘Dupe Economy’
Location: New York, USA
Legal focus: Trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and dilution
Where Hermès sought authorship, Louis Vuitton sought authority.
In October, the French brand filed a lawsuit against United Monograms, a U.S. retailer selling $30 sweatshirts promoted as “Louis Vuitton dupes.” The garments featured imitations of Vuitton’s monogram and Damier prints — and were marketed online beside real Vuitton handbags.
That side-by-side styling was key. It blurred the line between parody and authenticity, creating false association, a cornerstone of trademark law. Even if no one mistook a $30 sweatshirt for a $3,000 bag, Louis Vuitton argued that such mimicry dilutes brand distinctiveness — the very essence of luxury.
Legally, the case goes beyond one infringer. It challenges the semantics of the dupe economy, where “inspired by” has become shorthand for “almost identical.” By targeting “dupe” marketing itself, Vuitton is testing whether social-media mimicry can be reframed as trademark infringement.
Vuitton’s lawsuit isn’t just about logos — it’s about reclaiming language. Here, Vuitton is insisting that luxury still means originality, even in a world where imitation seems to be the norm.
Alo Yoga - Trademark Strategy as Brand Architecture
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Legal focus: Trademark infringement, unfair competition, counterfeit enforcement
For Alo Yoga, IP law isn’t just about protection - it is about positioning the brand for where it wants to go next.
As the Los Angeles brand prepared to launch its first luxury leather handbags, priced up to $3,600, it filed a cluster of trademark suits against local retailers and online stores accused of selling fake “ALO”-branded products.
The legal timing was deliberate. Alo’s team wasn’t just chasing counterfeiters; it was actively shaping Alo’s image. By removing fakes ahead of launch, the company reinforced scarcity and exclusivity — two of the core currencies of luxury.
Internally, Alo has built a sophisticated legal structure, expanding its in-house counsel across corporate, labour, and litigation divisions. The move signals that enforcement isn’t a reactive measure — it’s a business function.
Alo is proof that modern prestige isn’t inherited, but is constructed. Legal precision is part of the brand’s identity, positioning it as a serious player in the upper tier of lifestyle luxury.
Christian Louboutin vs. Bruna Silvério Shoes — When Colour Becomes Capital
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Legal focus: Trade dress and unfair competition
Meanwhile, in São Paulo, Christian Louboutin added another chapter to his red-sole legacy.
A local company, Bruna Silvério Shoes, had been producing heels with red soles, arguing that the colour couldn’t be monopolised — especially since Louboutin’s trademark application in Brazil was still under review.
The court disagreed. In a detailed ruling, Judge Gustavo Cesar Mazutti found that Louboutin’s red sole had acquired secondary meaning — it was globally recognised as his signature, regardless of registration status. Drawing parallels to the Coca-Cola bottle and Toblerone bar, the court held that Louboutin’s use of red constituted protectable trade dress.
The decision went further, ordering Facebook to remove infringing content, establishing a precedent for digital responsibility in counterfeit distribution.
Commercially, it’s a major win for luxury brands expanding into emerging markets: proof that even unregistered visual identities can carry enforceable rights when they’ve achieved global distinctiveness.
Louboutin turned a colour into intellectual property, and reaffirmed that in luxury, consistency can be as powerful as creativity.
Four Cases, One Trend: The Legalisation of Luxury
Taken together, these cases don’t just reflect isolated wins — they signal a collective shift in how luxury protects itself.
Hermès transformed craft into copyright.
Louis Vuitton redefined copying as cultural dilution.
Alo Yoga made trademark enforcement a growth strategy.
Christian Louboutin proved that a signature design can speak louder than a logo.
Each case sits on different points along the IP spectrum - copyright, trademark, trade dress - yet all converge on one truth: luxury’s power now depends as much on legal control as creative vision.
The modern fashion house is no longer just a creative studio; it’s a legal ecosystem. The courtroom has become an extension of the atelier - where sketches become strategy and aesthetics become assets.
The Future: Creativity with Boundaries
The global fashion market is now a test case for the modern economy’s biggest question:
How do you preserve originality in a world built on imitation?
The answer, increasingly, lies in legal design — building products and aesthetics that are as legally defensible as they are desirable. But this transformation comes with trade-offs: protect too much, and you risk stifling creativity; protect too little, and you risk losing value.
The smartest brands are learning to navigate that balance — using law not as a weapon, but as infrastructure.
Hermès uses it to give form permanence.
Vuitton uses it to guard its language.
Alo uses it to signal prestige.
Louboutin uses it to turn colour into capital.
Together, they reveal that the future of luxury won’t just be designed — it will be legislated.
Comments