Background
Brandy Melville, the Italian-founded teen fashion brand known for its “one size fits most” approach, sued fast-fashion giant Shein for copying its clothing designs and using Brandy Melville’s product photographs without authorization. The complaint asserted both copyright infringement claims and Lanham Act claims for false designation of origin and unfair competition under California law.
Shein moved to dismiss the trademark and unfair competition claims, arguing they were preempted by the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act preempts state and federal claims that seek to protect rights “equivalent” to those already protected by copyright — the idea being that Congress intended copyright law, not trademark or unfair competition law, to be the primary vehicle for protecting original creative works.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Wright granted Shein’s motion in part, dismissing the false designation of origin claim under the Lanham Act and the unfair competition claim under California law. The court found that Brandy Melville was “merely recasting” its copyright infringement claims as trademark and unfair competition claims. The core of the complaint — that Shein copied Brandy Melville’s clothing designs and used its product photos — falls squarely within the domain of copyright law, not trademark law.
The copyright infringement claims themselves survived the motion and remain pending. Shein will need to defend against allegations that it reproduced Brandy Melville’s copyrighted designs and photographs without authorization.
Key Takeaways
- Copyright preemption limits claim stacking: Fashion brands cannot repackage copyright infringement allegations as Lanham Act or unfair competition claims to get additional remedies. When the essence of the claim is unauthorized copying of creative works, copyright law is the exclusive remedy.
- Core copyright claims survive: The ruling did not exonerate Shein — the underlying copyright infringement claims remain fully intact. The dismissal narrows the legal theories available to Brandy Melville but does not eliminate its case.
- Fast-fashion litigation continues to evolve: As fast-fashion companies face increasing IP scrutiny, courts are carefully parsing which legal theories are appropriate for which types of alleged copying. Design copying claims require copyright (or potentially design patent) protection, not trademark law.
Why It Matters
This ruling is a reminder that intellectual property categories matter. In the fast-fashion world, where brands frequently accuse competitors of copying their designs, the instinct to throw every available legal theory at the wall is understandable. But courts will enforce the boundaries between IP regimes. Clothing designs and product photographs are creative works protected by copyright, and claims about unauthorized copying of those works must be brought under copyright law — even if the plaintiff would prefer the broader remedies and different evidentiary standards available under the Lanham Act. For fashion brands building enforcement strategies, the decision underscores the importance of securing copyright registrations for designs and photographs before bringing suit.