Either at the end of this year or beginning of next year there will be a once in a decade opportunity to share your case studies and provide evidence of the need to address the cost of taking legal action, the time taken from business building activities in enforcement, not to mention the stress involved with fighting David & Goliath infringement battles. This will be in the form of a government consultation on design law reform.

Take a look at one of the most recent examples of ACID member Tremart against The Range owned by CDS here What do you think? Is this fair competition or yet another David & Goliath lookalike? This is a typical example of big business perpetuating irrelevant legal arguments and stonewalling any legal challenge. Or another in a long string of copycat cases with Aldi and Triclimb who not only used their trade mark without permission but produced a cheap lookalike of a registered design.

It’s time for a change in the copycat culture and big business must be held to account. It’s gone on for far too long. Why? because taking legal action against large retailers and manufacturers is a daunting, if not impossible challenge for independent designers. The cost, time, and complexity involved can be overwhelming, creating immense financial and emotional strain that often outweighs potential benefits. These barriers are chilling for creativity and innovation in the design industry, as smaller businesses fear the consequences of standing up to powerful corporate giants.

One of the primary hurdles is the sheer cost of litigation. Designers, who typically operate on much smaller budgets than multinational retailers, often struggle to afford the legal representation necessary to pursue a case. Legal fees for intellectual property or copyright/design disputes can skyrocket into the tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds. Meanwhile, large corporations have vast legal teams and resources at their disposal, allowing them to prolong cases, driving up costs for the plaintiff. For an independent designer, these financial demands can cripple their business, potentially forcing them into debt or even bankruptcy. No wonder the IP lawyers of big business do not support ACID’s stance of protecting the originators.

Time is a premium and, in addition to the financial burden, legal battles take a significant amount of time. Cases can drag on for months or years, during which a designer’s attention is diverted away from their core business. This not only hinders their ability to create and innovate but can also lead to missed opportunities for growth and collaboration. The long timeline also means that any resolution, even if favourable, may come too late to recover lost market share or prevent damage to their brand. Litigation is a luxury of the few and deep legal pockets fuel unethical defence where IP respect and compliance are not part of corporate social responsibility conversations.

The daunting complexity of intellectual property laws, especially in international contexts, adds another layer of difficulty. Large retailers often operate in multiple jurisdictions, making it harder for designers to navigate the legal system and protect their rights. The process requires specialised legal expertise, which is both expensive and difficult to find, increasing the pressure on designers to settle early or drop their claims altogether. And then, worse, be made to sign a confidentiality agreement. It’s shocking.

The stress of legal battles can be overwhelming, leading to mental health struggles and burnout. The uncertainty of the outcome adds further strain, as designers must grapple with the potential loss of earnings and the risk that they may never see any compensation for their efforts. This uncertainty creates a chilling effect on innovation, as many designers may choose not to pursue bold, creative ideas for fear of theft or exploitation by larger entities.

The combined effects of cost, time, complexity, and uncertainty ultimately discourage independent designers from taking legal action, creating an environment where innovation is stifled, and large corporations can operate with relative impunity.

ACID has cajoled, jostled, and fought for successive governments to focus on a designs’ consultation for a decade. We are counting on all designers, especially lone, micro and SMEs to unite, tell your story and make the case for long overdue design law reform.

Please write to us at [email protected] to share your IP infringement story.