Yesterday, Deputy Judge Tom Mitcheson KC handed down his judgment in Edwards v boohoo [2025] EWHC 805 (IPEC), a case in which it was alleged that boohoo had copied five of the Claimant’s clothing designs.

Andrew Norris KC and Becky Knott, instructed by Pannone Corporate LLP, appeared for boohoo, the successful Defendants. The Judge dismissed the Claimant’s case in its entirety, finding that the Defendants had not copied her designs.

This decision is an important one for unregistered design rights. It sheds light on the consequences of claiming a more generalised description: whilst such generalisation may make a finding of “exactly of substantially to the design” easier, it is also likely to make demonstrating copying more difficult.

The Judge’s finding that aspects of a design which are materially influenced by the shape of the individual wearing them should be discounted is also significant. This suggests further challenges for claiming design rights in clothing, following on from the decision in Freddy SPA v Hugz Clothing Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 3032 (IPEC). Perhaps clothing designs form their own subset of UKUDR.

The judgment is available here.