Inspiration or Infringement? The Ongoing Struggle of Designer Brands Against Steve Madden and Other Fast-Fashion Brands Under U.S. Copyright Law

Lauren Fish 

On August 9, 2024, the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court ruled against Steve Madden in a copyright suit brought by the popular Danish brand, Ganni.[1] The Danish court issued an injunction barring Steve Madden from offering, marketing, and selling its “Grand Ave” shoe in Denmark.[2] The court ultimately found Steve Madden’s buckle-design shoe to be practically identical to Ganni’s “Buckle Ballerina” shoe, thereby constituting copyright infringement.[3] This ruling underscores a significant issue in the U.S. fashion industry: the fine line between inspiration and infringement, as evidenced  bySteve Madden’s well-documented practice of replicating high-end designs.

Ganni Beats Out Steve Madden in Case Over Copycat Shoe, The Fashion Law, (Aug 27, 2024), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/ganni-beats-out-steve-madden-in-case-over-copycat-shoe/.

Steve Madden has a long history of producing “dupes,” or overt replicas, of designer footwear, dating back to the early 2000s. Notably, in 2009, Steve Madden duped Balenciaga’s famous “Lego” shoes. Balenciaga alleged copyright infringement, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, but no serious ramifications resulted from the suit.[4] In 2020, Converse also sought action against Steve Madden based on an alleged design infringement of its “Run Star Hike” sneakers.[5] Despite these lawsuits, Steve Madden has continued to imitate popular designs, raising ongoing concerns about U.S. copyright protections and originality in fashion.

The recent decision in Denmark highlights the contrasting legal protections afforded to fashion designs in the United States as compared to Europe. “This [Danish decision] comes in sharp contrast to the U.S., where copyright claims in the fashion context have been relatively complicated to make, due to the utilitarian nature of garments and accessories and the corresponding lack of copyright protections for these types of goods in their entirety.”[6] As Susan Scafidi, founder of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham University, notes, the current state of U.S. intellectual property law is ill-suited for the rapid pace of fast fashion.[7]

U.S. copyright law provides protection for “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.”[8] However, the Copyright Act has historically offered less protection for fashion designs compared to other creative fields such as literature, music, and visual arts. The Copyright Act specifically excludes "useful articles,"[9] such as clothing, from full copyright protection. This means that while the artistic aspects of a design may be eligible for copyright, the functional elements that make the item wearable do not receive the same level of protection. As a result, designers often face challenges in protecting their creations from being copied or imitated, which can diminish their incentive to innovate. In the landmark 2017 case, Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, the Supreme Court set forth a standard for determining copyrightability in fashion designs and for useful articles.[10] The Court noted that while copyright does not protect the overall style of a garment, it can safeguard specific design elements if they are conceptually separable (independently recognized) from the piece of clothing.[11] Consequently, design elements like common patterns, common colors, or cuts of fabric will not be protected by copyright law. [12]

In contrast to the U.S.’s complicated route to design protection, European copyright law has developed a more protective stance toward fashion, attributed to the continent’s status as a global fashion hub.[13] The Unregistered Community Design (UCD) protection and Registered  Community Design (RCD) protections in the EU provide strong legal support for unique fashion designs. The UCD allows designers to claim protection for their original designs without the need for formal registration, granting them exclusive rights for three years from the date of first public disclosure.[14] This is particularly advantageous in the fast-paced fashion industry where trends  change rapidly. The RCD, on the other hand, provides longer-lasting protection—up to 25 years—after a formal application process, which, while rigorous, offers a strong incentive for designers to register their works.[15] Without such protections, designers are at a disadvantage in the U.S., especially as fast-fashion culture booms.

The implications of this legal imbalance are significant. Many designers in the U.S. find themselves unable to protect their creations from fast-fashion imitations. By learning from the more robust protections available in Europe, U.S. lawmakers can develop a system that supports the creative endeavors of fashion designers while ensuring that intellectual property rights are respected. Until American copyright law is reformed to provide greater protections for fashion designers, companies like Steve Madden will continue to replicate popular designs without facing serious consequences. In conclusion, the legal battle between Steve Madden and Ganni highlights critical gaps in American copyright law regarding fashion design. As the fashion landscape continues to shift, it is essential for U.S. copyright law to adapt, rewarding creativity and innovation rather than enabling the proliferation of fast fashion imitations.

[1] Ganni Beats Out Steve Madden in Case Over Copycat Shoe, The Fashion Law (Aug. 27, 2024), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/ganni-beats-out-steve-madden-in-case-over-copycat-shoe/.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.  

[4] The Rise of Steve Madden and Dupe Culture, Brand Vision Insights (revised on July 16, 2024), https://www.brandvm.com/post/steve-madden-dupe-culture.

[5] Id.

[6] Ganni Beats Out Steve Madden in Case Over Copycat Shoe, The Fashion Law (Aug. 27, 2024), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/ganni-beats-out-steve-madden-in-case-over-copycat-shoe/.

[7] Lydia Dishman, How Stella McCartney, Tory Burch, Hermes are Fighting ‘Cheap Knockoffs,’ Fortune (Oct. 24, 2015), https://fortune.com/2015/10/24/fashion-copycat-lawsuits/.

[8] 17 U.S.C § 102(a) (2006).

[9] 17 U.S.C § 101 (2023).

[10] Rachel Kim, How is Fashion Protected by Copyright Law?, Copyright Alliance (Feb. 10, 2022), https://copyrightalliance.org/is-fashion-protected-by-copyright-law/

[11] Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. ___ (2017).

[12] Kaitlyn Dobbins, AI Benefits When Fashion Lacks Copyright Protections, XXX RICH. J.L. & TECH. (2024).

[13] Dagmar Strukelj, Comparison of the Intellectual Property Protections Available for Fashion Designs in the U.S. and the EU, 58 Stan. Vienna Transatlantic Tech. L. Forum (2020).

[14] Id.

[15] Id.