Month: August 2026

The dispute in context

In early July 2026, the Court of Turin, Italy, handed Loro Piana another legal victory in its ongoing campaign to protect the white-soled shoes that have become one of the brand’s most recognizable design signatures. The ruling granted a preliminary injunction against the French company Parijan SAS, prohibiting it from manufacturing, marketing, and using designations associated with the Summer Walk and Open Walk models, introduced by the Italian fashion house in 2003 and 2005, respectively. The court concluded that products such as the Monaco Old Money and other loafer lines marketed by the competitor constituted slavish imitations of Loro Piana’s original designs, creating a likelihood of confusion as to the commercial source of the products.

 

Recently reported by Exame in an article by Gustavo Frank, the decision represents another chapter in a legal strategy Loro Piana has pursued since 2022, when it publicly announced that it would take legal action against manufacturers copying the distinctive design of its footwear. The company had already secured favorable decisions in previous proceedings, including one before the Court of Bari and another also decided by the Court of Turin. Beyond its relevance to the fashion and luxury industries, the case provides valuable guidance for any business that relies on product design as a competitive differentiator. It also offers a timely opportunity to examine, from the perspective of Brazilian law, the legal mechanisms available to protect the visual identity of commercial products.

 

Contrary to what a quick reading of the headline might suggest, the dispute did not revolve around a word mark or a logo. The subject of protection was the appearance of the product itself: the contrast between the light-colored sole — originally conceived in 2003 as a nautical solution, designed not to mark a boat’s wooden deck — and the leather or suede upper. That combination, born of a functional requirement, moved from the world of sailing into everyday urban wardrobes and became established as an aesthetic signature associated with so-called quiet luxury, a discreet style that dispenses with conspicuous branding.

 

According to Judge Ludovico Sburlati, who authored the decision, the strong similarity between the two companies’ products was enough to lead the average consumer to interpret the French competitor’s shoes as a cheaper alternative to Loro Piana’s models, amounting to improper exploitation of the Italian brand’s distinctive value and commercial reputation built over more than two decades. The ruling also found that the French company had improperly appropriated the public image of creators and influencers associated with Loro Piana, including the persona known as Gstaad Guy, reinforcing the reading of parasitic exploitation of another party’s investment in building its reputation.

 

Beyond banning the manufacture and sale of the challenged models, the decision set significant daily penalties: one thousand euros for each day of delay in complying with the order, and five hundred euros for each unit placed on the market in breach of the injunction, with the French company also bearing the costs of the proceedings.

 

Why the shape of a product can be protected

The most legally significant aspect of the case is not its outcome—which is consistent with previous decisions involving similar disputes—but the legal reasoning underlying the decision. In a statement issued after the ruling, Loro Piana described the precedent as a milestone for the fashion and luxury sector, affirming that the appearance of a product may, in itself, be entitled to judicial protection, independently of the label or word mark displayed on it. Put simply, consumers may identify the commercial source of a product from its overall visual impression, even without seeing the brand name.

 

This reasoning reflects what is commonly referred to, in Brazil and in many common-law jurisdictions, as trade dress: the overall combination of visual elements—such as colors, shapes, textures, and the arrangement of components—that enables consumers to identify the commercial source of a product or establishment. It is not the color white itself that is protected, nor the shape of a loafer viewed in isolation. Rather, protection extends to the particular combination of those elements once, through continuous use and commercial exposure, they acquire a secondary meaning linking them to a specific commercial source.

 

Perhaps the best-known precedent illustrating this principle is Christian Louboutin’s iconic red sole, registered as a position mark in several jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, following years of litigation over whether a color applied to a specific part of a product could, by itself, function as a distinctive sign. Courts have consistently answered that question in the affirmative, provided that acquired distinctiveness is established and that the protection granted does not unduly restrict competition by monopolizing functional or generic product features.

 

 

The view under Brazilian law

Situations such as the one involving Loro Piana, if brought before a Brazilian court, could be addressed through at least three complementary legal mechanisms available under the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law No. 9,279/1996) and the broader legal framework governing unfair competition:

 

● Three-dimensional and position marks: Article 122 of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law establishes that visually perceptible distinctive signs are eligible for trademark protection. Based on this provision and on the regulatory framework adopted by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (INPI), Brazil currently recognizes the registration of three-dimensional and position marks, provided they are distinctive and do not consist exclusively of functional or technical features. Although registrations of this nature are already granted by INPI, examination tends to be particularly rigorous regarding evidence that consumers perceive the element as an indicator of commercial source rather than merely as an aesthetic or functional feature of the product.

 

● Industrial design: Where the shape of a product presents an original ornamental configuration that is not dictated exclusively by technical or functional considerations, it may be protected through industrial design registration before the INPI. Such protection is initially granted for a ten-year term and may be renewed for up to three consecutive five-year periods. Unlike trademark protection, however, industrial design rights are subject to a finite term, making this mechanism particularly suitable for products with a defined commercial life cycle rather than enduring designs that remain commercially relevant for decades, such as the footwear at issue in the Loro Piana case.

 

● Unfair competition and trade dress: Although Brazilian law does not expressly regulate trade dress, Brazilian courts have consistently protected it through the unfair competition provisions of the Industrial Property Law. In particular, Article 195 establishes criminal acts of unfair competition, while Article 209 provides the corresponding civil remedies. Together with general principles of civil liability, these provisions allow rights holders to seek protection against the imitation of a product’s overall visual identity whenever it is capable of creating confusion or creating an improper association with a competitor, even in the absence of a specific registration covering each individual element.

 

Although Brazilian case law is still less developed than its European counterpart in disputes specifically involving footwear, courts have consistently recognized trade dress protection in cases concerning packaging, storefronts, and product configurations. In doing so, they have applied substantially the same principles that underpinned the Loro Piana decision, including acquired distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion, and the absence of technical or functional necessity.

 

Conclusion

The Loro Piana case reinforces a trend that has steadily gained recognition in intellectual property law: when a product’s design becomes sufficiently distinctive and is perceived by consumers as an indicator of commercial source, it may constitute a valuable intellectual property asset in its own right, deserving protection independently of any logo or word mark.

 

Although Brazilian law does not expressly regulate trade dress, it provides effective mechanisms to protect distinctive product designs through trademark, industrial design, and unfair competition rules. The case also highlights the importance of adopting a comprehensive protection strategy, combining complementary intellectual property rights, maintaining records of the development and continuous use of distinctive designs, actively monitoring the market for potential infringements, and assessing legal risks before launching products inspired by existing market trends.

 

For Brazilian companies operating in fashion, consumer goods, product design, or any industry in which appearance plays a significant role in consumer choice, the decision serves as a timely reminder that a product’s visual identity should be treated as a strategic business asset. Ensuring that distinctive design elements are properly identified, protected, and consistently enforced can be just as important as safeguarding a company’s trademarks and other traditional intellectual property rights.

 

—

 

Authors: Andressa Vendramelli Natal, Thaís de Kássia R. Almeida Penteado, and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: Loro Piana vence batalha judicial pela sola branca de seus sapatos, https://exame.com/casual/loro-piana-vence-batalha-judicial-pela-sola-branca-de-seus-sapatos/ 

 

—

 

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

The peaceful coexistence of two trademarks for a certain period does not necessarily mean that they can continue to coexist across every market segment. This is the central issue in the recent dispute between Parfums Christian Dior and Sincerely Jules, a brand founded by influencer Juliana Sariñana.

 

In May 2026, Dior filed an opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the administrative tribunal of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, challenging an application to register the SINCERELY JULES trademark for cosmetics and perfumery products. The application covers, among other goods, fragrances, foundation, lipstick, mascara, eyeshadow, nail polish, and bronzers.

 

Dior bases its opposition on its prior JULES trademark, registered in the United States for perfumes, colognes, and related products. According to the company, the mark has been used for more than 40 years and is fully incorporated into the expression SINCERELY JULES. Given the proximity between the goods covered by the respective marks, Dior argues that consumers could mistakenly believe that there is an association, collaboration, or economic connection between the companies. The opposition, filed under proceeding No. 91307331, remains pending before the TTAB.

 

Sincerely Jules, in turn, argues that the marks create distinct commercial impressions, that the marketplace already includes several marks containing the term “Jules,” and that the companies have coexisted for years without any reported instances of actual confusion. Founded in 2009 as a personal style blog, Sincerely Jules has since evolved into a lifestyle brand operating in areas such as apparel, e-commerce, publishing, jewelry, and handbags.

 

 

It is precisely the brand’s expansion into the beauty market that makes the case particularly relevant. Dior did not challenge Sincerely Jules’ earlier trademark registrations covering fashion and accessories. It only took action when the brand sought protection for cosmetics and fragrances—goods that are directly related to those covered by Dior’s JULES trademark.

 

The dispute illustrates that trademark coexistence is inherently contextual. The absence of confusion while two companies operate in sufficiently distinct sectors does not, in itself, eliminate the possibility of conflict when one of them enters a new product category. In such circumstances, the analysis must consider not only the similarity between the marks, but also the relationship between the goods, the proximity of their sales channels, the profile of the relevant consumers, and whether the public might perceive the new business activity as a natural extension of the earlier brand.

 

Although the case is being examined under U.S. law, the discussion has a clear parallel in the Brazilian legal system. Article 124, item XIX, of the Brazilian Industrial Property Law prohibits the registration of a reproduction or imitation—even when accompanied by additional elements—of a prior trademark covering identical, similar, or related goods or services, whenever there is a likelihood of confusion or association. Trademark protection therefore does not depend exclusively on the class in which the marks are registered, but also on the commercial circumstances in which they are used.

 

The case also offers an important strategic lesson: trademark clearance searches should not be treated as a measure limited to a brand’s initial launch. Every expansion into a new product line should be preceded by a fresh assessment of the relevant trademark landscape. A name that is available for apparel may encounter significant obstacles when used for cosmetics, food, technology, or any other sector in which potentially conflicting prior rights already exist.

 

With no decision on the merits yet, the dispute between Dior and Sincerely Jules highlights the limits of trademark coexistence and reinforces that the growth of a brand requires legal planning as careful as its business strategy. After all, expanding a business also means entering new trademark territory—and the boundaries there may be entirely different.

 

—

 

Author: Marília de Oliveira Fogaça, Thaís de Kássia R. Almeida Penteado, and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: Dior, Sincerely Jules Trademark Clash Tests the Limits of Coexistence + https://www.thefashionlaw.com/dior-sincerely-jules-trademark-clash-tests-the-limits-of-coexistence/

 

—

 

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

The legal dispute between Shein and Temu has once again brought the ultra-fast fashion industry into the spotlight. This time, the battle is unfolding before the High Court in London, where allegations of large-scale copyright infringement are raising important questions about intellectual property protection, platform responsibility, supplier relationships, and competition in the digital retail market.

 

The case reflects a broader transformation within the ultra-fast fashion sector. As companies compete not only on price and speed but also on technology, logistics, and market dominance, intellectual property rights have become increasingly valuable strategic assets.

 

According to court filings, Shein alleges that Temu used thousands of photographs originally created for Shein’s online store to advertise similar or identical products on its platform. The company argues that these images were part of significant investments in content creation, supply-chain management, supplier development, and product commercialization.

 

Shein claims that the alleged unauthorized use of these photographs enabled Temu and its merchants to benefit from investments made by its competitor, effectively leveraging Shein’s commercial efforts to promote competing products.

 

Temu has rejected the accusations, maintaining that the merchants operating on its platform had authorization to use the disputed images. The company further argues that the lawsuit represents an attempt to hinder lawful competition in the highly competitive ultra-fast fashion market.

 

In response, Temu has filed a counterclaim seeking damages related to the removal of thousands of product listings following a court injunction obtained by Shein.

 

The dispute highlights the growing importance of copyright protection in e-commerce. While fashion designs themselves often face limitations in copyright protection depending on the jurisdiction, photographs used in marketing campaigns are generally protected as copyrightable works.

 

For digital retailers, product photography represents far more than a simple visual asset. Images are often the result of substantial investments involving creative direction, production teams, editing processes, and branding strategies. As online shopping increasingly depends on visual presentation, the unauthorized use of these materials can have significant commercial consequences.

 

The case therefore serves as a reminder that intellectual property disputes in fashion are no longer limited to trademarks, trade dress, or design rights. Copyright protection has become an increasingly relevant tool for safeguarding digital assets and brand investments.

 

Beyond the copyright claims, the litigation offers a rare glimpse into the operational structures that support the ultra-fast fashion business model.

 

 

Both Shein and Temu have built extensive supplier ecosystems, particularly in China, allowing them to rapidly identify consumer trends and bring products to market at competitive prices. The dispute raises questions regarding supplier management, content ownership, authorization practices, and the extent of platform oversight over third-party merchants.

 

As online marketplaces continue to expand, courts and regulators are increasingly examining the responsibilities of platforms when intellectual property violations are allegedly committed by independent sellers operating within their ecosystems.

 

The proceedings in the United Kingdom are only one aspect of a broader international conflict between the two companies.

 

In the United States, Shein and Temu have also initiated legal actions against one another. Recent developments have led to the consolidation of certain claims into a single proceeding, while allegations involving copyright infringement, unfair competition, platform misconduct, and misuse of legal enforcement mechanisms remain under judicial review.

 

The existence of parallel disputes across multiple jurisdictions illustrates how intellectual property enforcement has become a central component of global competition strategies among digital retail platforms.

 

At the same time, both companies face increasing regulatory pressure in key international markets.

 

Changes to customs regulations, import procedures, and cross-border shipping rules in the United States and Europe are creating new challenges for business models that rely heavily on low-cost international deliveries. These regulatory developments may significantly affect the economic advantages that helped fuel the rapid growth of ultra-fast fashion platforms over the last decade.

 

As governments seek greater oversight of international e-commerce operations, compliance considerations are becoming as important as pricing and logistics in determining long-term competitiveness.

 

The dispute between Shein and Temu illustrates how competition within the ultra-fast fashion industry is evolving. What began as a race centered on speed, affordability, and product availability has expanded into a broader contest involving intellectual property rights, supplier relationships, platform governance, and regulatory compliance.

 

Regardless of the outcome, the litigation is likely to influence future discussions about copyright enforcement in online retail, the responsibilities of digital marketplaces, and the legal frameworks governing global fashion e-commerce. As the sector continues to grow, intellectual property will remain a critical factor shaping how companies protect their investments and compete in increasingly crowded digital marketplaces.

 

—

 

Author: Marília de Oliveira Fogaça, Thaís de Kássia R. Almeida Penteado and Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados.

Source: Shein v. Temu: Copyright Claims, Supplier Tensions & the Business of Ultra-Fast Fashion + https://www.thefashionlaw.com/shein-v-temu-copyright-claims-supplier-tensions-the-business-of-ultra-fast-fashion/ 

 

—

 

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”