Edwards v Boohoo.com UK Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 805 (IPEC)

The High Court has dismissed Sonia Edwards’ (the “Claimant”) case where it alleged that Bohoo.com UK Ltd (the “Defendant”) had infringed the unregistered design right in five of its clothing designs.

Subsistence of UK Unregistered Design Right

The court reviewed the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), notably section 213 which protects original designs in relation to only the shape or configuration of the whole or part of an article.

The designs included a bikini top multiway, puff sleeve high neck fitted top, a ruched skirt, and leggings (the “Designs”). Importantly, the Claimant had not recorded her designs in a design document. Instead, the Claimant defined the designs by reference to the pictures of the articles themselves.

Deputy Judge Tom Mitcheson KC noted that this had a detrimental effect on the Claimant’s case, as it meant that the Defendants could allege that the claimed features are descriptions of generalised concepts, rather than specific shapes and configuration in the Designs.

A further aspect which was considered in relation to the Designs was whether they can be defined when being worn, or should only be described when off the body. Deputy Judge Tom Mitcheson KC concluded that a design right cannot vary depending on the individual who is wearing it. On this basis, he discounted any aspects which were materially influenced by the shape of the individual wearing them.

Copying

The Court considered that the Boohoo design process involves social media and influencer inspiration. That said, the Claimant was unable to provide any evidence to indicate that the Designs had been seen or used by the Defendant’s designers. The low visibility on the Claimant’s social media and absence of evidence linking them to Boohoo’s design process led the Court to reject all claims of copying.

Therefore, even though some of Bohoo’s garments were found to be made “exactly or substantially” to the Claimant’s designs, the finding that there was no copying meant there could be no infringement.

Briffa Comment

This case is interesting from a legal perspective, as it emphasises the importance of designers defining their designs precisely in design documents (e.g. technical drawings), otherwise the designer will find it difficult to challenge the defence that the design is conceptual / commonplace.

This case also highlights the challenge of proving copying when the alleged infringer can demonstrate independent creation or lack of access to the claimant’s designs.

We recommend that a designer, assuming novelty is present, should apply for registered UK design rights, which shift the onus away from copying and make them a more effective tool for enforcement.