A clothing designer has lost her ‘David and Goliath’ court battle against Boohoo over claims it copied her clothing designs.
In a chastening ruling, a judge said Sonia Edwards’ garments had ‘low originality’ while also saying it was unlikely the fast-fashion giant was looking at her social media channels as he Instagram account only had 268 followers.
The 53-year-old, from Newport, Gwent, had for years accused Boohoo and four linked companies of using her designs.
She took the firm to London‘s High Court over the alleged infringement of five of her designs in a bid for compensation.
Ms Edwards also wanted to prevent the companies from importing or selling items which she claimed were copies of her designs.
She also wanted a court declaration that Boohoo had infringed the design rights of her company, Cwtchy Cwtchy.
But Judge Tom Micheson KC has thrown out her case saying: ‘The stark truth is that there are also only so many ways to design clothing to fit the human body.’
The self-taught designer began her career in 2010, exhibiting at the Clothes Show Live in 2011, where her signature ‘Infinite’ multiway bikini top first hit the catwalk.
Sonia Edwards, 53, pictured here in a social media post, had taken Boohoo to London’s High Court over claims the firm copied five of her designs
Pictured: Ms Edwards is pictured outside of London’s High Court where she represented herself against Boohoo’s team of lawyers
Celebrities, including Liss Jones from The Voice and Welsh media personality Lateysha Grace, have worn her designs, while her work has also featured in Vogue.
Judge Micheson found that despite ‘evidence…indicating that designs are copied from social media on occasion’ by Boohoo companies, it was unlikely hers was as she ‘had just 268 Instagram followers in 2020′.
The companies Ms Edwards sued alongside Boohoo.com were Prettylittlething.com Ltd, Nasty Gal Ltd, Miss Pap UK Ltd, and Debenhams Brands Ltd.
The alleged infringements related to five designs marketed by Boohoo or the linked companies: a halter neck bikini top; rib organza mesh puff sleeve top; Taylor velvet ruched midi skirt; a twist front skirt, and leather front ruched leggings.
Presenting her own case against a team of lawyers representing Boohoo and the other companies she told the judge she began to notice more of her designs proliferating online during the Covid lockdown.
Focusing on her ‘infinite bikini’ line, she said the garment could be ‘tied in lots of different ways,’ alleging that a similar item has been marketed by one of the defending companies, Nasty Gal Ltd.
At issue with the bikini were several telltale features which she said betray the products marketed by Nasty Gal as copied from her work.
This included a top strap that forms ‘one piece’ without fastening and two front breast panels with ‘openings at the top and bottom allowing the strap to be passed through’.
The bikini design that Ms Edwards said had been copied by Boohoo was described by the judge as having ‘low originality’
Pictured: A design by Boohoo which is alleged to have been similar to Ms Edwards’s infinite bikini top
SONIA’S DESIGN: Skirt designed by Ms Edwards, which she alleges has been copied by the fashion giant
BOOHOO’S DESIGN: The Taylor velvet ruched midi skirt
However, Boohoo’s KC, Andrew Norris, argued that the alleged similarities are not specific enough to be protected under copyright law.
‘These features do not describe protectable shape and configuration,’ he said. ‘They are concepts and methods of construction and are not protectable features in design law in accordance with the Act.’
Adding that the concept of a ‘multiway’ bikini was ‘well established,’ the barrister claimed there was nothing unique about the disputed design, noting that its ‘selling point’ for Ms Edwards was the fact that its wearer can change how they wear it according to their whims.
‘Whether the top strap forms one piece or is two pieces – i.e. which way the ends of the strap go – is the wearer’s choice and is not the shape or configuration of the design,’ he said.
Giving his ruling, the judge said: ‘The claimant has been complaining for a number of years about the alleged copying of her clothing designs by various big fashion brands, including ASOS, Missguided, Moschino and Shein. Her complaints against boohoo have also been going on for some years.’
Dealing with the bikini, the judge threw out Ms Edwards’ claim, saying the opportunity for any copying was ‘extremely limited,’ citing the ‘relatively low profile’ of Ms Edwards’ social media channels.
‘The contemporaneous material shows that the claimant had only a handful of likes and comments on the Facebook pages showing her designs over the relevant period. Her Instagram account Scrunchbooty had just 268 followers in 2020,’ the judge said.
He said it was more likely that someone would have come up with a similar design themselves without copying Ms Edwards’ ideas.
SONIA’S DESIGN: Top designed by the Welsh independent fashion retailer
BOOHOO’S DESIGN: The rib organza mesh puff sleeve top
‘That is a function of the low originality of the claimant’s design…which is generic enough that other people in the industry are quite capable of coming up with the same design independently,’ he said.
‘For all these reasons and in spite of the evidence…indicating that designs are copied from social media on occasion by the defendants, I reject the suggestion that the claimant’s (bikini) has been copied in the present case.’
He went on to dismiss the claims relating to the other garments too, finding that the ‘defendants did not copy the claimant’s designs.’
‘I recognise that Ms Edwards will be disappointed in this outcome. She has campaigned for some time to shine a light on what she sees as injustice against the small designer in the fashion industry.
‘I have no doubt that her grievances are sincerely held, but she has subjected the defendants and others to a torrent of complaints over a period of many years.
‘Regrettably, the complaints that I have had to adjudicate are misdirected, either as a matter of fact or law, or both.
‘I acknowledge that copying undoubtedly takes place within the fashion industry, particularly in fast fashion. Every time the defendants ask manufacturers to reproduce images found on social media, there is a risk of someone’s design right being infringed.
‘But the stark truth is that there are also only so many ways to design clothing to fit the human body.
‘Given the enormous numbers of articles being churned out by the likes of the defendants each week, it is completely unsurprising that as a matter of chance, some of these resemble articles designed previously by others, including the claimant.
‘And whilst the probability of chance reproduction in such circumstances is high, the likelihood of a fast fashion company using a social media feed with few followers published many years ago is low.
‘It is for these reasons that I have dismissed the claimant’s suspicions about alleged copying by the defendants.’
