Designing on trend: What Deity Shoes tells fashion law in 2026

Fashion never moves in a straight line. It loops. Trends resurface, silhouettes return and “new” designs often feel suspiciously familiar.

Shoes, bags and garments evolve through seasons, references and visual languages. In an industry built on remixing, the line between inspiration and infringement is rarely obvious. So, when designs start to look similar and influenced by previous iterations, how can the law work alongside the circular evolution of fashion?

Registered designs: Fashion law tools

As discussed in our previous Whistle stop tour of IP, registered designs are an incredibly useful tool in the fashion world. Registered designs protect the look of a product and can be used to prevent copycats, without having to prove copying (as with unregistered designs), making them ideal for trend-driven industries. In the UK and EU, designs can be registered for up to 25 years, on the basis that they are renewed every 5 years. They prevent others from creating products that hold the same “overall impression”, even if they are not exact copies.

Some well-known brands’ EU and UK registered designs are shown below:

Gucci Buckle: Registered EU design no. 000191382-0001

Dr. Martens Soles: Registered UK design no. 90031371240012

Crocs Shoes: Registered EU design no. 000860036-0001

What makes a design registrable?

For a design to be registrable in the UK and EU it must meet the following criteria:

1. It must be new (novel i.e. not identical to other designs already out there, where designs shall be deemed identical if they differ only in immaterial details)

2. It must have individual character (create a different overall impression on the informed user, taking into account the degree of freedom of the designer in creating the design).

Deity Shoes, S.L. v Mundorama Confort, S.L., Stay Design, S.L., (C-323/24)

These requirements were considered in the recent Deity Shoes judgement (C-323/24) where the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified how novelty and individual character should be assessed for fashion designs, particularly in trend-driven sectors like footwear.

Deity Shoes brought an infringement action against Mundorama Confort, S.L. and Stay Design, S.L., alleging infringement of several registered and unregistered design rights for several models of their shoes. The defendants counterclaimed, arguing that the registered designs were in fact, invalid (not new and lacking individual character).

The defendants argued Deity Shoes had based their designs on previously existing shoes from their catalogues and had only made minute changes to the soles, rivets, laces and buckles of the shoes. In other words, the dispute centred on a question familiar to fashion lawyers and designers alike: at what point does a tweak become a new design, and when is it just the same shoe, slightly reworked?

The referring Spanish court was therefore uncertain whether such designs could benefit from registered design protection. In this case, the CJEU was asked to clarify whether design protection requires “genuine design activity” or “intellectual effort” (as is required for copyright), how to assess the “designer’s freedom”, and “the role of fashion trends in determining individual character”.

What did the Court decide?

1. No creativity test

The court made it clear that EU design protection (registered and unregistered) does not require proof of originality, creativity or intellectual effort beyond the statutory requirements for novelty and individual character.

2. Designs must be assessed as a whole

The CJEU confirmed that novelty and individual character cannot be assessed feature-by-feature. Instead, the correct approach is to evaluate the overall impression created by the design on the informed user.

This is very important in the fashion world where buckles, laces, straps and other individual features are commonplace. However, their combination may still be distinctive. For example, you may recognise a disco sandal as being quintessentially 70s, and a Velcro strap as being reminiscent of the noughties. Each reference is familiar in isolation, yet the way they are brought together can create an overall impression that feels genuinely new.

3. Small differences can still matter

The CJEU made it clear that small differences in designs are not automatically irrelevant, nor are they automatically sufficient. Even subtle modifications, like slightly altered buckles or different sole profiles will only support validity if they alter the overall impression of the design.

4. Catalogue-based designs are not excluded from protection

The CJEU held that the fact that a design’s characteristics were predetermined by their supplier’s catalogues and the modifications were limited to the components available in the catalogues does not prevent a design from being new and having individual character.

5. Fashion trends do not restrict the designer’s freedom

The argument that trends should be treated as constraints on the designer’s freedom in the same way as technical requirements was rejected. Technical constraints may arise when, for example, a shoe sole has a specified tread formation. This is inevitable and necessary to provide traction and prevent slipping. However, fashion trends aren’t rules. They’re temporary, unstable and constantly shifting.

What impact does this have on the fashion industry going into 2026?

EU design law is appearance focussed, not creativity focussed

Brands do not need to demonstrate originality, “genuine design activity” or “intellectual effort”, they must prove that their designs are new and can create a different overall impression. This decision has not restricted the scope of what can be protected, nor added rules to be met to achieve a valid design and it supports the consideration and appreciation of trends when creating new designs.

Follow trends with caution

It is natural for designers to take inspiration from current trends and previous designs. However, it is important to note that where trends are protected by design law, subsequent designs must be new and distinct to obtain legal protection.

Iteration is allowed, but registration must be strategic

Designers must be careful that seeking registration of every design iteration can leave them vulnerable to invalidation actions. For example, a footwear brand may release a boot season after season with the same base silhouette, making only minor adjustments such as altering the eyelet size or refining the heel thickness by a few millimetres. These are incremental updates that the informed user may barely notice, therefore the new registered design would not be novel and have individual character and as such can be invalidated.

The lesson here is not to register everything, but to register thoughtfully and deliberately. Design protection works best when it is aligned with commercial strategy: core brand identifiers, key silhouettes and signature design combinations will anchor a brand. In an industry built on references and eras, design law does not demand originality, only distinction.