Major Issues as Supreme Court Rules on the Fashion Industry

The fashion industry won a potentially powerful new tool for preventing knockoffs as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a manufacturer of cheerleader uniforms that sought copyright protection for its distinctive decorative patterns. The court ruled in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands  that Varsity Brands isn't precluded from obtaining copyrights on more than 200 patterns of stripes and chevrons it places on male and female cheerleader uniforms under a provision of federal copyright law that allows for protection of graphic works incorporated in a "useful article," which is otherwise not eligible for copyright. The design of an elegant Shaker chair or a particularly beautiful shovel can't be copyrighted, for example, but graphic elements applied to those articles might be.
In this case, Varsity argued the graphic elements of its cheerleader uniforms were separate from the function of the uniforms themselves, which can't be copyrighted. Star Athletica, a competitor that Varsity sued for copyright infringement, disagreed. The very purpose of the graphic designs on a cheerleader uniform are to identify the wearer as a cheerleader and enhance their appearance, Star said. The design is inseparable from the utility, in other words.
The majority disagreed. In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that if the graphic designs can be imagined as separate entities eligible for copyright on their own -- and in a footnote, Thomas said the court took no position on whether Varsity's stripes and chevrons meet that test -- then the fact they also appear integral to the function of the uniform doesn't matter.

The ruling of 6-2 in favour of Varsity Brand's allows elements of a garment's design to be protected by copyright law, as stated in the Court's documents. "The Copyright Act of 1976 makes 'pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features' of the 'design of a useful article' eligible for copyright protection as artistic works if those features 'can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.' "
Basically, this means that certain aesthetic elements of the designs of cheerleader  uniforms which are 'designs for a useful article' are protected from being incorporated into, say, a ready-to-wear collection unless they are different enough from the original article's useful or functional aspect.
The ruling as it stands does not necessarily protect all designers from imitations and knockoffs but opens the door to that conversation by providing designers grounds on which to defend themselves from high street retailers such as Topshop and H&M who put out replicas of designer collections before the originals have a chance to be in stores.
So that deceptively Gucci-like pair of slip on loafers you're wearing from Zara, affordable though it may be, might be illegal in years to come.