When we think of fashion, we usually think in terms of silhouette, fabric, colour and style. Yet for high-end fashion houses, footwear–bag brands and independent design studios, the real competitive edge is no longer only visual. Increasingly, it lies in the technical solutions hidden inside the product.
Special zipper systems, locking mechanisms, adjustable strap structures, foldable bags, modular buckles, magnetic closures, security-focused hidden compartments… Many of these are, in fact, genuine technical inventions that can be protected by patents or utility models.
At that point, the risk of so-called “patent theft” – in legal terms, patent infringement – becomes highly relevant for fashion businesses. This article examines the problem of infringement in zipper, hardware and mechanism patents from the perspective of fashion houses and design studios: the legal framework, when liability arises, and how to protect and enforce rights.
1. What Is a “Technical Invention” in the Fashion Industry?
In the fashion world, innovation is usually associated with aesthetics: the cut of a dress, the shape of a bag, the lines of a shoe, colour transitions, prints and patterns. These are elements that can be protected through design registration.
But many fashion products also have a less visible side: the technical layer directly affecting how the product functions and is used. For example:
- A special locking mechanism on the flap of a bag,
- A shoe lacing system that tightens and loosens according to pressure on the ankle,
- Two-way or lockable zippers on jackets and dresses,
- Magnetic closures or couplings that snap into a specific position and stay there,
- Security-oriented hidden zippers and compartments that are not obvious from the outside,
- Strap adjusters that prevent slipping once the length is set,
- Folding or hinging structures that let a bag collapse to a compact size but retain its form when opened.
These are not merely matters of “appearance”. They solve concrete technical problems and change how the product works. If a solution is:
- New (not previously made available to the public),
- Inventive (not obvious to a person skilled in the art), and
- Industrially applicable,
it can qualify as an invention, protected by a patent. Smaller, more incremental technical improvements may be eligible for utility model protection, depending on the jurisdiction.
2. Design Registration, Patents and Utility Models: What Is the Difference for Fashion Houses?
Fashion houses and design studios are typically familiar with design registration, because:
- It protects the appearance of a product (lines, contours, shapes, colours, texture, ornamentation),
- It is often relatively fast and practical.
However, when it comes to zippers, hardware and mechanisms, design protection is usually not enough. At this point, patents and utility models enter the picture.
- A patent:
- Offers strong, long-term protection,
- Covers the technical solution, not the external look,
- Grants the owner the right to prevent others from using the invention without permission.
- A utility model:
- Operates as a more practical or “smaller” patent in some legal systems,
- Often has a lower inventive step threshold,
- Works well for “improved versions” of known structures – for example, a more functional variant of an existing fastening or hinge.
Take a bag clasp as an example:
- The external look of the clasp can be protected by design registration,
- The internal mechanism that gives the clasp its special function can be protected by a patent or utility model,
- The logo or brand name stamped on the clasp can be protected by trademark law.
The ideal approach for innovation-heavy fashion products is a multi-layered IP strategy, combining:
- Design protection (appearance),
- Patents or utility models (technical function),
- Trademarks (brand identity).
3. What Is “Patent Theft”? How Does Infringement Arise in Zipper, Hardware and Mechanism Patents?
“Patent theft” is a colloquial expression. In legal language, the issue is patent infringement: unauthorised use of a patented invention.
For fashion houses, common infringement scenarios around zippers, hardware and mechanisms include:
- Using a patented zipper system from another brand without licence,
- Implementing a patented hardware connection mechanism (e.g. multi-directional rotating rings, special locks) in your own bags or belts,
- Copying a non-standard, technically advanced fastening system that goes beyond ordinary zippers or buckles,
- Reproducing a patented magnetic closure, hinge or folding mechanism and integrating it into your products without permission.
If a technical solution is protected by a patent or utility model, it is generally an infringement to:
- Make/produce the patented invention,
- Use it,
- Sell or offer it for sale,
- Import it,
- Keep it for any of these purposes,
without the consent of the right holder.
The risk is especially high when fashion houses source ready-made hardware components (zippers, locks, hinges, buckles) from third-party suppliers without verifying where the technology comes from. In doing so, they may unknowingly become part of a patent infringement chain.
4. Suppliers, Contract Manufacturers and Design Studios: Who Is Liable, and to What Extent?
Fashion products using technical inventions usually involve more than one actor. A typical chain might look like this:
- A design studio or in-house team conceives the idea,
- A supplier provides the technical hardware or mechanism,
- A contract manufacturer integrates that mechanism into the product,
- The fashion house / brand owner sells the finished product under its label,
- A distributor or retail chain brings the product to consumers.
If a patented mechanism is involved, each actor along this chain can bear some level of responsibility:
- The supplier who manufactures and sells the mechanism,
- The contract manufacturer who builds it into the product,
- The fashion house that puts its brand on the product and markets it,
- Importers and distributors who help bring the product to market.
Liability for the fashion house is typically aggravated where:
- It has received a patent warning (cease-and-desist letter) regarding the mechanism but continues production and sales,
- It has encouraged the supplier in writing to “go ahead and produce” despite known patent concerns,
- It actively markets the technical solution as its own innovation, while the underlying mechanism belongs to someone else.
For technical zippers, hardware and mechanisms, fashion houses should therefore adopt an approach that legally audits the entire supply chain, not just the visible exterior of the design.
5. The Line Between “Making Something Similar” and Patent Infringement
In fashion, it is normal for a particular lock type, zipper style or strap mechanism to become a “trend”. Once a design or feature gains traction, similar aesthetics spread across the market. For technical inventions, however, similarity is a much more sensitive area.
A particularly risky approach is:
- Taking a mechanism known (or likely) to be patented,
- Creating a copy that provides the same technical solution and operates on the same principle,
- Only making small geometric or dimensional changes, and assuming that this avoids infringement.
Patent law typically does not only protect exact literal copies. It can also cover equivalent technical solutions, where:
- The same technical problem is solved,
- By the same or essentially the same technical principle,
- Producing the same type of effect or result.
In such cases, merely changing dimensions or cosmetic aspects may not be enough to escape the scope of the patent. The mindset of “we will just slim it down or change the angle and we’ll be safe” can be misleading and dangerous.
A safer strategy is to develop:
- A genuinely different technical principle,
- A different mechanical structure,
- A different functional logic,
and, where appropriate, to protect this new solution under your own patent or utility model.
6. A Dual Strategy for Fashion Houses: Protect Your Own Inventions, Avoid Infringing Others
Fashion houses and design studios that work with functional zippers, accessories and mechanisms need a two-pronged strategy:
- Protect their own technical inventions, and
- Ensure they do not infringe the patented inventions of others.
6.1 Protecting Your Own Technical Invention
When a new lock, zipper, strap adjuster or hinge structure is developed:
- Document the R&D process thoroughly (drawings, prototypes, test notes, dates).
- Involve a patent or utility model specialist at an early stage to assess the protectability of the solution.
- Consider protection not only for the outer look, but also for the internal mechanism and its technical operation.
- If the solution is genuinely new and inventive, think about filing patent or utility model applications:
- in your home country, and
- in key export markets for your products.
If and when another brand starts using the same mechanism, you will have a much stronger legal position: you are not just claiming a copied look, but asserting infringement of a protected technical invention.
6.2 Avoiding Infringement of Third-Party Patents
To avoid infringing others’ rights:
- For technical hardware supplied by third parties (zippers, locks, complex buckles, hinges), obtain written warranties that:
- the products do not infringe third-party patents or utility models, and
- the supplier will bear responsibility if such infringement is established.
- For complex or innovative solutions (e.g. advanced security locks, sophisticated folding/hinge systems), consider:
- conducting at least a basic patent search in relevant markets (e.g. EU, US),
- checking whether similar mechanisms are already known to be patented.
- Do not simply assume that a mechanism is “probably out of patent” just because it has been on the market for some time. Confirm the actual legal status instead of relying on guesswork.
7. What Can Fashion Houses Do When Patent Infringement Is Detected?
The usual scenario for fashion houses and design studios is:
- They invest considerable time and money in developing a special mechanism,
- Shortly afterwards, competitors in a similar segment start using a very similar or essentially identical mechanism,
- From a technical perspective, the mechanism appears to work on the same principles.
In such cases, a structured legal response is crucial.
7.1 Technical Comparison Report
- Commission a technical expert or engineer to compare your mechanism with the suspected one.
- Analyse and document:
- operating principles,
- number and type of parts,
- connection points and axes of movement,
- the specific technical features that provide the desired function.
- Assess the findings against the claims of your patent or utility model to determine whether infringement is likely.
7.2 Securing Evidence
- Use notarial or court-assisted procedures (depending on the jurisdiction) to:
- purchase and document the competing products,
- archive catalogues, lookbooks, website and social media content,
- establish evidence of the presence and marketing of the products in the market.
7.3 Cease-and-Desist Letter and Licence Discussions
- In many cases, the first step is to send a cease-and-desist letter setting out:
- your patent or utility model rights,
- the alleged infringement and its technical basis,
- demands to stop production and sales, and
- an invitation to discuss a licensing arrangement if appropriate.
Some disputes can be resolved commercially at this stage via licensing or settlement.
7.4 Litigation and Damages
Where:
- Infringement is knowing and systematic,
- Negotiations have failed, and
- The product or mechanism is strategically important to the brand,
it may be necessary to bring a patent or utility model infringement action, requesting:
- a declaration of infringement,
- injunctions to stop use and sales,
- recall and destruction of infringing products,
- monetary damages and, in some systems, publication of the decision.
Conclusion: In Fashion, Real Value Lies Not Only in Design but Also in Technical Invention
For fashion houses and design studios, technical inventions are no longer just background details. They are long-term assets that shape the brand’s competitive position and often require substantial investment.
In the field of zippers, hardware and mechanisms, it is therefore essential to:
- Protect your own technical solutions through patents or utility models, not only design registration,
- Avoid infringing others’ patented inventions by checking suppliers and doing basic patent due diligence,
- Build contracts and supply chains that take intellectual property risks seriously,
- Respond to copying with technical analysis, evidence and a clear legal strategy, rather than purely emotional reactions.
Only then can a fashion brand truly protect not just how its products look, but also how they work – and in modern fashion, both are key parts of the brand’s value.
Yanıt yok