When does the copying of a fashion design constitute an infringement

Copying other people’s designs is generally permitted, unless it infringes intellectual property rights such as copyright or constitutes unfair market practices. In a ruling of the Ghent Court of Appeal of December 8, 2025 in the case between shoe brands Morobé and Studio 10, this principle was sharply stated. The court ruled that only very specific, original elements (such as a distinctive weave) enjoy copyright protection, and that copying a general fashion trend or “look and feel” does not constitute infringement as long as the overall impression is sufficiently different.

The facts

The case revolves around the well-known Belgian shoe label MOROBÉ, which launched a flat sandal (“Robien”) in 2017. The standout feature of this design was a specific padded (quilted) weave on the instep.

MOROBÉ subsequently incorporated this wickerwork as a kind of ‘signature’ in several other models, such as the Gaelle, Marianne, Rita, Ruth and Romy. In addition, the brand also released a model called “Mimi” without this wickerwork.

When the also Belgian fashion company STUDIO 10 launched a series of shoes (Blair, Jacky, Cara, Ava, Cece and Amane) under its label March23, MOROBÉ sent a formal notice for infringing its copyrights and alleging unfair market practices. STUDIO 10 then took the initiative itself and subpoenaed MOROBÉ to obtain a declaration of non-infringement through the courts.

(see below the Gaelle on the left and Blair on the right)

In the first instance, the Ghent Enterprise Court already ruled on Feb. 15, 2024, that only the specific wickerwork of MOROBÉ was copyrighted, and not the entire design of the shoes. Since STUDIO 10's wickerwork was sufficiently different visually, the first judge said there was no counterfeiting or unfair market practices. MOROBÉ appealed this, whereupon STUDIO 10 filed an incidental appeal to challenge the protection of the braid itself.

Appeal court decision

In its ruling, the Ghent Court of Appeal thoroughly analyzed the chalk lines surrounding the protection of fashion articles and utensils. The court came to the following conclusions:

Braid protection and burden of proof in anteriorities

STUDIO 10 tried to show on appeal that MOROBÉ's wickerwork did not merit copyright at all, pointing to ‘anteriorities’ (earlier designs from the design heritage), such as sandals by Dr. Scholl and Bare Traps from the 1970s. However, the court rejected this defense. To challenge originality, the opposing party must prove that an older design contains the exact same combination and arrangement of elements and that the designer could reasonably have known about it . Because STUDIO 10 presented undated and unclear documents, the originality of MOROBÉ's wickerwork was upheld.

No copyright on a combination of banal elements

MOROBÉ argued that the combination of inherently common elements (such as an open sandal, a high heel, a rectangular tip and an ankle strap) made the shoes original. The court ruled strictly: merely listing external features is not enough. One must show why just that particular arrangement is a free and creative choice that reflects the personality of the maker. Since MOROBÉ could not prove this, the shoe models as a whole (including the “Mimi” model) were not granted copyright protection.

No infringement due to different overall impression

Because only the wickerwork was protected, the court had to compare only those specific elements. The court found that STUDIO 10's wickerwork was substantially different: it consisted of finer straps with knots, had a more open structure, the central shape was more compact (square rather than oval extended) and the straps ran across the base in a different way. Thus, there was no copyright reproduction.

No unfair market practices in the absence of confusion

Where there is no infringement of an intellectual right, companies are free to take inspiration from each other, even by imitation. Unfair market practices (Article VI.104 of the Code of Economic Law) only exists if the imitation is accompanied by ‘accompanying circumstances,’ such as creating a likelihood of confusion or unlawfully capitalising on a competitor’s reputation. The court found that the “look and feel” of both shoe collections was completely different (robust vs. lighter and more transparent), precluding any confusion on the part of the public.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling is a textbook example of the delicate balancing act that judges must perform between the protection of creative labor on the one hand and the freedom of competition on the other.

In its reasoning, the court of appeal seamlessly follows the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (cf. rulings Infopaq, Cofemel and Brompton Bicycle). The court emphasized flatly that copyright law has no ‘novelty requirement’ (as in patent law or design right), but merely requires that the work be an intellectual creation that reflects the author's personality through free and creative choices. The so-called technique exception (forms that are purely technically determined) and delineation against mere fashion trends play an important role here.

What is particularly interesting for legal practice is the strict application of the burden of proof. The one claiming copyright may not continue to subjectively adapt his objective form of expression to the opposing party's products suspected of counterfeiting. At the same time, the court sets a very high bar for the defendant regarding anteriority (prior knowledge): it is not enough to present a vague photograph from the 1970s. One must date exactly, show an identical settlement, AND prove that the plaintiff had reasonable knowledge of it.

A parallel with the Louboutin case

This strict assessment of the originality requirement in the fashion industry is not an isolated case. As we analyzed earlier in our blog about the Christian Louboutin v. Steve Madden case, the Liège Court of Appeal drew a very similar conclusion. There, too, the court ruled that merely combining generally known fashion trends (such as transparent materials and spikes) or functional elements (such as high heels for stability) is insufficient to claim a copyright monopoly on the general shape of a shoe. At the Belgian level, both rulings confirm the high threshold: without a clear, unique signature (such as the specific wickerwork in the case of Morobé, or the red sole as a trademark in the case of Louboutin), a design quickly belongs to the public domain.

What this specifically means

For designers, fashion houses and entrepreneurs in the retail sector, this ruling contains very concrete and strategic lessons:

• Identify your signature: You cannot claim copyright on a shoe, garment or utensil merely because it consists of a nice combination of banal basic elements (such as a type of heel or clasp). Develop a unique, creative feature (such as a very specific weave, a unique print, or an unusual geometric cut) that acts as your signature. Only this component will be vigorously protected.
• Inspiration versus imitation: For competitors, this ruling confirms that ‘looking over the wall’ and being inspired by trends is legally permissible. As long as you do not reproduce someone else's truly original, protected elements and ensure that your product leaves a substantially different overall impression (a different “look and feel”) on consumers, you are generally operating within the bounds of fair market practices.
• Document your design process: Both for proving your own originality and for refuting ‘prior art,’ a dated archive of sketches and designs (the so-called design process) is invaluable in a legal dispute.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Is every garment or shoe design protected by copyright?
No. To enjoy copyright protection, a design must be an “intellectual creation” bearing the creator's imprint. Banal designs, purely functional elements or simply combining existing fashion trends do not qualify for protection.

May I be inspired by competitor designs?
Yes, taking inspiration and following fashion trends is part of the free market. Imitation is only prohibited when you copy identical or very similar elements that are protected by copyright, or when you imitate your products in such a way as to cause consumer confusion (parasitic competition).

What should I do if someone copies my design?
Collect direct evidence of infringement (photos, proof of purchase) and document your own creation date and design process. Then contact a specialized attorney to evaluate whether your design meets the originality requirement and prepare a strategic notice of infringement.

Conclusion

This ruling by the Ghent Court of Appeal aptly illustrates that not every fashion design in Belgium enjoys copyright protection just like that. Where a unique detail, such as a specific weave, is protected, the combination of common style elements remains in the public domain. The line between permitted inspiration and prohibited unfair market practices is also strictly guarded: as long as there is no confusion and the overall impression is different, imitation is not an unlawful act.