A bikini designer has lost a David and Golith Court campaign against online fast-fashion giant
The 53 -year -old Sonia Edwards, a 53 -year -old GWENT, launched her design career in 2010, displayed at The Cloths Show Live in 2011, where her signature “Anant” multi -bikini top hit the catwalk for the first time.
The Voice and Welsh Media Personality Latesha Grace, including Lis Jones, is wearing his designs, while his work has also painted in Vogue.
But she has now lost a legal clash Bohoo.com And in relation to five designs, including bikini top, after A. judge Said that his swimwear had “low originality”.
He also found that “proof … shows that the design is copied from social media on the occasion”, it was unlikely that his design was copied by Bohu’s designers, as he was “just 268” Instagram Followers in 2020 “.
Rejecting his complaints of copying, he said: “The clear truth is that there are only so many ways to design clothes to fit the human body.”
Companies sued with Ms. Edwards Bohoo.com Were Prettylittlettleting.com Ltd., Nasti Gall Limited, Miss Pap UK Limited, and Debenhams Brands Limited.
Alleged violations related to five designs marketed by Bohu or linked companies: a halter neck bikini top; Rib organiz mesh puff sleeve top; Taylor Velvet ruined the midi skirt; A twist front skirt, and leather front leggings.
While presenting his case against a team of lawyers representing Bohu and other companies, Ms. Edwards demanded a court order, which prevent them from importing or selling various fashion items that they claimed that there are copies of their designs, as well as a court announcement that Bohu has violated his company’s design rights, CWTCHY, CWTCHY, to compete.
He told Judge Tom Michaelson KC in the High Court of London: “I am a self-centered designer, who through designing and error, with one hand, depending on the improvised approach, until I produce a design that satisfies my own vision. I do not follow the trends, and work with my creative freedom.”
Ms. Edwards told the judge that she began notice to broadcast more designs during Kovid lockdown.
Focusing on her “infinite bikini” line, she said that the apparel “could be bound by a lot of different ways,” alleging that a similar item is marketed by a rescue companies, a street cheek limited.
There were several teletell features on the issue with bikini, which he said that the products marketed by the dirty galls copied from their work were cheated, including a top lease that forms “a piece”, without fastening and two front breast panels allow to be passed through the strap with “above and below”.
However, Bohu’s Casey, Andrew Noris argued that alleged similarities are not specific to be preserved under the copyright law.
“These features do not describe the safety size and configuration,” he said. “They are the concepts and methods of construction and the design law does not have security facilities according to the Act.”
Saying that a “multiway” concept of bikini “was well established,” Barrister claimed that nothing was unique about the disputed design, given that its “sales point” for Ms. Edwards was the fact that its wearer could change how they wear it according to their senses.
“Does the top strap make a piece or there are two pieces – that is, how it happens at the end of the strap – the choice of the wearer and the design is not the size or configuration,” he said.
Giving his decision, the judge said: “This is an action for violation of unregistered design in the design of various objects of clothing. The special sector in this issue is fast-fashion-where companies are engaged in releasing hundreds of different styles of low-cost cloth per week based on current trends found in social media.
“The claimant, Sonia Edwards, began to design clothes in 2010. She promoted herself mainly with the aim of licensing others through social media.
“His work at that time recognized Vogue magazine And Drapers were depicted by the fashion network between the magazine and others. He also performed at NEC in NEC at the Show Live BirminghamHe has recently left a partial designing clothes as a result of current litigation.
“Defendants are part of all bohu, which are famous fast-fashion groups.
“The claimant has been complaining for many years about the alleged copy of his clothing designs by different big ones fashion brandIncluding ASOS, Missgard, Moshano and Shin. His complaints against Bohu have also been going on for a few years.
“The case of the claimant is that he is near the unregistered design in the size and configuration of the five apparel design.
“The defendants say that claimed characteristics are actually details of generalized concepts, rather than real size and configuration in design.”
Working with a bikini, the judge excluded the claim of Ms. Edwards, said that the opportunity for any cheating was “very limited”, cited as “relatively low profile” of Ms. Edwards’ social media channels.
“Contemporary material suggests that the claimant only liked and comments on Facebook pages showing their design in the respective periods.
He said that it is more likely that a person would have come up with a similar design without copying the ideas of Ms. Edwards.
“This is a task of the low originality of the contenders’ design … which is enough that other people in the industry are quite capable of coming with the same design independently,” he said.
“Despite all these reasons and evidence … it shows that designs are copied from social media on the occasion by defendants, I reject the suggestion that the claimant (bikini) has been copied in the current case.”
He also rejected claims related to other clothes, finding that “the defendants did not copy the designs of the claimant.”
“I believe that Ms. Edwards will be disappointed in this result. She has been campaigning to shed light on what she has seen as injustice against small designers in the fashion industry for some time.
“I have no doubt that he Complaints It is held honestly, but has subjected to the defendants and others to a edge of complaints over a period of many years. Sadly, the complaints that I had were wrongly attached to me, either in the form of facts or laws, or both.
“I admit that copying is undoubtedly within the fashion industry, especially in fashion. Every time defendant manufacturers asks to reproduce pictures found on social media, violating someone’s right to design.
“But the Stark truth is that there are only so many ways to design clothes to fit the human body.
“Given the large number of articles from the choice of defendants every week, it is completely uncertain that as a chance, some of these articles have already been designed, including the contenders.
“And in such circumstances, opportunity is more likely to reproduction, a sharp fashion company using social media feeds with some followers published many years ago is less likely.
“It is for the reason that I have rejected the suspicion of the claimant about the alleged copy by the defendants.”
