What the Edwards v Boohoo Case Teaches Us About Protecting Unregistered Designs — And How Etched Can Help

In the fast‑moving world of fashion, designers often rely on unregistered design rights rather than formal registration. It’s practical, cost‑effective, and makes sense when products evolve quickly. But the 2025 High Court decision in Edwards v Boohoo is a stark reminder that unregistered rights are only as strong as the evidence you can produce.

And that is exactly where designers tend to fall short.

Below, we unpack what happened in the case, why the designer lost, and how tools like Etched^® can transform your ability to protect — and enforce — your designs.

The Case: What Actually Happened in Edwards v Boohoo

In April 2025, independent clothing designer Sonia Edwards brought a claim against Boohoo in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, alleging that the company had copied five separate garments:

• a multiway bikini top,
• a puff‑sleeved top,
• two ruched skirts, and
• a pair of ruched leggings  Boohoo strongly denied copying.

They said their designers created the items independently and were simply responding to prevailing trends — a common defence in the fast‑fashion sector. The judge, Deputy Judge Tom Mitcheson KC, had to examine two key issues:

1. Did unregistered UK design right actually subsist in each garment?
2. If so, had Boohoo copied them?  

The answers to both ultimately went against Edwards — but the reasons why are essential learning points for any designer relying on unregistered rights.

1. Some Designs Weren’t Protected at All

The judge assessed each garment individually and found major problems.

Multiway bikini top (Design 1)

The design was first created in 2011, not in 2016 as Edwards claimed. That meant any unregistered design right had expired long before Boohoo’s products existed.
Even if still valid, the key feature — the strap arrangement — was classified as a method of construction, not protectable design subject matter.  

Puff‑sleeved top (Design 2)

A narrow design right did subsist here: a puff sleeve combined with an unusually long cuff.
But only one Boohoo garment was even close, and there was no evidence of copying.  

Ruched skirts & leggings (Designs 3–5)

Original features existed (like chevron waistlines or centre‑front ruching), but the designs were so broadly defined that the scope of protection became extremely limited.
Again, Boohoo had not copied them.

What the judge emphasised

Unregistered design right only protects the shape or configuration of a product —

• not surface decoration,
• not construction methods,
• not body‑dependent features,
• and not vague or conceptual design ideas.  

This is critical: a design must be defined precisely to be enforceable.

2. The Evidence Was Too Weak — Photos Weren’t Enough

Edwards relied on photographs and finished garments, not design drawings.
Although the court confirmed that design right can arise from a physical article, it also explained why this approach makes litigation harder:

• Photos don’t capture precise dimensions or configuration.
• Broad definitions allow defendants to argue the “design” is just a concept, which isn’t protectable.
• Without detail, the court cannot identify telltale signs of copying.

The judge reiterated that concealed features (e.g. inner waistbands) are unprotectable and that clothing must be assessed off the body, because the wearer’s shape changes the appearance.  

Put simply: If you can’t show exactly what your design is, the court can’t enforce it.

3. The Fatal Issue: No Evidence Boohoo Ever Saw Her Designs

Even if Edwards’ designs had been strongly documented, she still needed to prove copying — the foundation of unregistered design right.

The court found no evidence Boohoo ever encountered her designs:

• no sales history,
• no social media analytics,
• no disclosure records,
• no showings to buyers,
• no proof Boohoo designers had access.  

Without evidence of access, copying couldn’t be shown — not even subconsciously.
And without copying, there is no infringement, even if designs look similar.

This is where countless designers lose cases.

What the Industry Learned From This Case

Commentary from practitioners analysing the judgment highlighted further issues:

• Fast‑fashion output is so vast that resemblance is inevitable. Similarity alone is meaningless.
• Broadly defined designs make infringement easier to allege, but impossible to prove, because copying cannot be tied to concrete features.
• Some fast‑fashion groups lack robust internal design documentation — meaning a claimant’s documentation matters even more.  

These points reinforce the core lesson: the burden of proof is entirely on the designer, and most designers do not have the evidence the court needs.

Where Etched^® Changes Everything

The Edwards v Boohoo case is almost a blueprint for how Etched would have fortified the designer’s position.

✔ 1. Immutable, time‑stamped design records

Edwards’ case faltered because she couldn’t show when each design came into existence or define them precisely.
With Etched^®, every design drawing or render is hashed, time‑stamped, and immutably recorded — no ambiguity, no disputes about dates.

✔ 2. Detailed design‑evolution history

Courts look for specific features. Etched^® lets you record every iteration, update, and refinement — establishing originality and demonstrating what makes your design yours.

✔ 3. Disclosure logs to prove “opportunity to copy”

This was the fatal missing link in Edwards’ case. With Etched^®, designers can record:

• where the design was shared (Instagram, TikTok, lookbooks),
• when buyers or partners were shown it,
• which third parties had access.

This creates a robust evidential chain showing that a fast‑fashion label could have seen the design.

✔ 4. Secure, encrypted, decentralised storage

Your designs remain confidential, while their existence and authorship remain verifiable.