Boohoo stole my bikini, claims designer

A bikini designer has launched a David and Goliath court battle against Boohoo over claims the fast-fashion clothing company stole her “novel” design.

Sonia Edwards, 53, alleges Boohoo and four other fashion companies infringed the copyright to five designs, including her signature “Infinite” bikini top.

The other companies in the firing line are Pretty Little Thing Ltd, Nasty Gal Ltd, Miss Pap UK Ltd and Debenhams Brands Ltd, the High Court in London has heard.

The businesswoman is seeking a court declaration that Boohoo infringed the design rights of her company Cwtchy Cwtchy and a court order preventing the big brands from importing or selling various items she claims are copies of her designs.

But lawyers for the fashion giants claim the alleged similarities are an “abstract cluster of features” and that her allegations are “misconceived”.

Ms Edwards began producing her “novel” creations in 2010 and claims she carved out a name in the UK fashion industry after exhibiting at the Clothes Show Live in 2011.

She has dressed celebrities including Liss Jones from The Voice and Lateysha Grace, the Welsh media personality, and also has an extensive online profile.

In written submissions to the High Court, she said: “I am a self-taught designer who relies on a hands-on, improvised approach when designing, through trial and error until I produce a design that satisfies my own visions. I don’t follow trends, and work with my own creative freedom.”

The alleged infringements relate to five designs marketed by Boohoo or the linked companies: a halter neck bikini top; rib organza mesh puff sleeve top; Taylor velvet ruched midi skirt; a twist front skirt, and leather front ruched leggings.

Ms Edwards claims she has complained about other alleged design copycats in the past, stating: “I have been widely publishing my issues in regard to design infringement issues. Amazon had removed 36 sellers that were infringing on a trademark and designs.”

She told Tom Mitcheson KC, the deputy judge: “The defendants had prior knowledge of my designs and access to them prior to publication on their platforms, at times the alleged infringed designs are paired with similar stylisation, giving an overall similar look to the outfit.”

Andrew Norris KC, for the five companies opposing Ms Edwards, insisted the offending products have not been adopted from her “novel” designs.

He said: “Ms Edwards has been complaining to the defendants and others in the fashion industry for years.

“As is evident from her witness statement, she has convinced herself that the fashion industry has been watching her and copying her extensively.

“She believes that the defendants are just a few of the large group of businesses and people from around the world who have spent years copying her designs.

“This is obviously unrealistic. Her belief is imagined and misconceived, but explains much of her motivation in this action.

“The claims are for generalised ideas and concepts that would cover many designs from around the world created over many decades. Fashion and trends follow themes, and Ms Edwards has convinced herself that because others follow a trend this means they have copied her designs.”

There are several telltale features in Ms Edwards “Infinite” bikini that she claims were copied by Nasty Gal. These include a top strap that forms “one piece” without fastening and two front breast panels with “openings at the top and bottom allowing the strap to be passed through”.

Boohoo’s KC argued that: “These features do not describe protectable shape and configuration. They are concepts and methods of construction and are not protectable features in design law in accordance with… the Act.”

The barrister said the “multiway” bikini was a “well established” design and claimed there was nothing unique about it.

After two days in court, the judge has now reserved his ruling in the case.