When Logos Go Quiet: Design Patents and the New Language of Luxury

When Logos Go Quiet: Design Patents and the New Language of Luxury

Donny Barrios-Mason

Introduction

While fashion is a global industry, this article focuses primarily on U.S. design-patent and trade-dress protection, with comparative notes on European Union design law. The distinction matters: the United States places greater emphasis on design patents and the limits imposed by §43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) [3], while the European Union offers immediate, automatic protection through unregistered Community design rights (UCDs). As “quiet luxury” shifts brand identity away from logos and toward silhouette, craftsmanship, and construction, understanding how these two systems diverge has become essential.

This legal conversation is unfolding against a fragmented market backdrop. The Row reached a $1 billion valuation in 2024 [1], and Brunello Cucinelli outperformed its peers despite a difficult year for luxury [1]. Meanwhile, Gucci saw a 26% revenue drop [2], and LVMH posted its first decline in five years [2]. Increasingly, the brands gaining market share are those protecting their design language rather than their logos.

I. The New Visibility of Design in a Logo-Light Era

Luxury houses once relied on overt trademarks and repeating patterns to signal identity. Today, distinctiveness increasingly emerges from form rather than from symbol. Bottega Veneta’s intrecciato weave, originally a construction technique rather than a monogram, now functions as a legally protectable brand signifier (Vogue 2024; LuxJuris 2024).

Yet U.S. law protects these features inconsistently. In Wal-Mart v. Samara Brothers, the Supreme Court held that product design is never inherently distinctive and therefore must acquire secondary meaning to qualify for trade-dress protection [4]. In TrafFix v. Marketing Displays, the Court further restricted trade dress by excluding functional features [5].

These cases leave silhouettes in a precarious position under U.S. trademark law, making design patents and EU design rights increasingly critical.

II. The Economics of Design Patents in Fast-Moving Fashion

A. Do design patents make financial sense for seasonal fashion?

U.S. design patents, governed by 35 U.S.C. § 171[6], offer 15 years of protection for a product’s ornamental features. They have been decisive tools in industries adjacent to fashion, as seen in Apple v. Samsung, where design patents anchored major aspects of the litigation [7], and in Columbia v. Seirus, where overall visual impression guided infringement analysis [8].

But design patents involve significant cost and time. Preparing and prosecuting a design-patent application can take a year or more. Most garments, however, remain on the market for only a single season. For these short-lived designs, the economics rarely make sense. Scholars have described the system as a “screen,” naturally filtering out designs too transient to justify long-term monopoly rights.

B. When design patents do make sense: recurring silhouettes

Some fashion items, however, develop stable structural identities that persist despite seasonal updates. Bottega Veneta’s intrecciato-centered designs, Loro Piana’s softly structured leather goods, and The Row’s consistent accessories silhouettes exemplify objects that evolve in detail but not in fundamental shape.

These are the kinds of designs that benefit from long-term protection: the “silent signatures” that consumers recognize instantly, even without a logo.

C. The Row’s Margaux: A Case Study in Protectable Shape

Few contemporary accessories demonstrate the commercial value of a recurring silhouette as clearly as The Row’s Margaux. Since its 2018 debut, the Margaux has become one of the most identifiable bags in the quiet-luxury category (Vogue 2024) [2]. Its identity rests on a gently structured doctor-bag shape, belted side panels, rounded top handles, and proportions often described as “quietly luxurious” (WhoWhatWear 2025) [2].

Although The Row introduces new materials each season, ranging from calfskin to suede to canvas, and releases the bag in varying sizes from 10" to 17", the underlying form remains consistent. It is this continuity of silhouette, not surface styling, that makes the Margaux a strong candidate for U.S. design patents, for trade-dress protection once secondary meaning is established, and for EU design rights. The Margaux illustrates how a modern luxury house can build a franchise on recurring shape rather than on overt branding.

III. The Limits of Copyright for Fashion

After Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, copyright protection remains limited to separable graphic or sculptural elements, not the shape or cut of a garment or handbag [9]. This leaves many of the most valuable aspects of fashion, silhouettes, proportions, construction logic, outside the reach of copyright.

As a result, brands increasingly rely on design patents, trade dress, and European design rights to fill the gap.

IV. Europe’s Advantage: Automatic Unregistered Design Rights

A. Why UCDs matter

The European Union’s unregistered Community design (UCD) regime, created by Council Regulation 6/2002 [11], is uniquely suited to fashion. When a design is first publicly disclosed within (or now, accessible to) the EU, it automatically enjoys three years of protection with no filings or fees. UCDs cover shape, lines, contours, and ornamentation, precisely the features that define many fashion products.

The system’s strength is reinforced by foundational CJEU decisions such as Karen Millen v. Dunnes Stores (shifting the burden of proving lack of individual character to the defendant), PepsiCo v. Grupo Promer (clarifying the informed-user test), and Gautzsch v. Münchener (defining first disclosure).

Design scholars regularly contrast the EU’s proactive, designer-friendly approach with the United States’ narrower system (Monseau 2009; Buccafusco & Fromer 2017) [12].

B. Should U.S. brands exhibit in the EU first?

Historically, UCD protection required first disclosure within the EU, prompting some U.S. brands to debut collections in European cities. But recent reforms, supported by scholars such as Annette Kur, have relaxed this requirement, allowing global-first disclosure to trigger UCD protection so long as the design is accessible to EU audiences [12].

While an EU-first debut is no longer legally required, some U.S. designers still choose Paris or Milan strategically. For hero products with long life cycles, such as The Row’s Margaux, EU-first disclosure can help synchronize protection with editorial visibility, cultural positioning, and enforcement strategies.

C. The global trend

The WIPO Design Economy Report 2023 emphasizes the growing economic importance of design rights across markets, noting that industries dependent on aesthetic value have increasingly turned to design registrations and automatic regimes such as UCDs [10]. For global fashion houses, the strongest strategy blends U.S. design patents for long-lived silhouettes with EU UCDs for fast-moving collections.

Conclusion

Although centered on U.S. design-patent and trade-dress law, this article underscores that the European Union’s design-rights regime offers essential complementary tools. As quiet luxury elevates silhouette over logo, recurring shapes, like The Row’s Margaux, have become central to brand identity and long-term commercial strategy.

Through a coordinated combination of U.S. design patents, EU UCDs, and trade-dress protection, today’s fashion houses can secure the “quiet” elements of their design language before competitors replicate them. In a market defined by understatement, silhouette has become a form of speech, and speech must be protected.

[1] The Business of Fashion, “The Row’s $1 Billion Valuation Explained” (May 2024); Financial Times, “Brunello Cucinelli Defies Luxury Slowdown” (Apr. 2024).

[2] Reuters, “Kering Shares Slide After Gucci Sales Drop 26%” (Oct. 2024); Bloomberg, “LVMH Posts First Revenue Decline in Five Years” (Oct. 2024).

[3] 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

[4] Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000).

[5] TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001).

[6] 35 U.S.C. § 171.

[7] Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

[8] Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, 942 F.3d 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

[9] Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. 405 (2017).

[10] World Intellectual Property Organization, Design Economy Report 2023, at 45.

[11] Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 on Community Designs.

[12] Susan Monseau, Protecting Creativity in Fashion Design, 18 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 75 (2009); Christopher Buccafusco & Jeanne C. Fromer, Fashion’s Function in Intellectual Property Law, 93 Notre Dame L. Rev. 51 (2017); Annette Kur, “TRIPS-Compliance and EU Design Law,” JIPLP (2023).

[13] U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Part II (Mar. 2024).