Naghedi is one of several brands that have turned to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in efforts to combat dupes in the marketplace.[i] Founded in 2016, Naghedi became known for its signature handwoven neoprene tote.[ii] Considering themselves the originators of the design, Naghedi filed a trademark application in February 2023. To qualify for registration, a mark needs to satisfy two conditions: distinctiveness and non-functionality. Distinctiveness means that the mark is distinguishable from the goods or services of other businesses, which enables consumers to identify the source of the product.[iii] Non-functionality means that the trademark cannot serve a purely functional purpose.[iv] Functional, in this sense, refers to a feature that is essential to the use or purpose of the product. In its application, Naghedi described its design as a series of uniformly-sized neoprene straps that had been folded, interlaced, and woven into a repeating weave pattern seen across the surface of its products.[v] In June 2024, the USPTO ultimately refused the registration on the grounds that this design was only an ornamental design feature and not inherently distinctive.[vi]
Although Naghedi challenged that conclusion in October 2024, the USPTO rejected Naghedi’s acquired distinctiveness arguments once more.[vii] The USPTO highlighted that woven neoprene designs were widespread in the fashion market, citing to examples from other retailers ranging from Etsy and Net-A-Porter to Alibaba.[viii] The existence of these neoprene bags with similar constructions meant that Naghedi’s design was not substantially exclusive.[ix] It is this angle that Naghedi would focus on in its appeal, and in so doing, present a unique legal argument when it comes to using intellectual property law to protect beauty and fashion designs amongst the recent proliferation of dupes in the marketplace.
In its appeal, Naghedi stated that third-party dupes should come to serve as evidence of distinctiveness.[x] Typically, the wide presence of similar product designs would weigh against whether a brand or product can be trademarked, given that the generic nature of the design means that it cannot be used as a source identifier. However, Naghedi argued that the woven handbag dupes referred to by the USPTO in their rejection were created specifically to imitate their designs, and thus should weigh in favor of trademarkability since this imitation would serve as evidence of intentional copying.[xi] “Literally every single third-party example” that had been provided by the USPTO were products that were either “conceded imitations, inspired by its design, or otherwise recognized as imitations of its design.”[xii] This, Naghedi argued, should be interpreted as evidence that their woven design is specifically attributable to Naghedi as a brand, and that the dupes imitating them are meant to capitalize on this brand awareness, allowing the producers of these dupes to sell more product in a crowded field where many similar marks may exist.
Although Naghedi’s argument is unique, it is not the first designer brand to attempt to trademark an arguably functional and/or ornamental pattern. Bottega Veneta, a luxury fashion brand known for its handbags, successfully registered its iconic leather intrecciato design as a trademark in May 2013. Although its first application in 2007 was rejected, Bottega Veneta appealed and narrowed the mark in its application to specific design of the weave. This design was described as, “a configuration of slim, uniformly sized strips of leather, ranging from 8 to 12 millimeters in width, interlaced to form a repeating plain or basket weave pattern placed at a 45-degree angle over all or substantially all of the goods.”[xiii] This narrow description–coupled with evidence that included advertising budgets, consumer statements, and media coverage–convinced the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that Bottega Veneta’s weave design had acquired distinctiveness.[xiv] Thus, Bottega Veneta acquired the exclusivity and protection it sought while avoiding a monopolization that might have otherwise prevented others from using similar designs. Unlike Bottega Veneta, however, there appears to be very little about Naghedi’s woven design that elevates it from the functional and/or ornamental realm. Compared to Bottega Veneta’s hyper-specificity, Naghedi’s design specifications appear to be laxer and less uniform amongst all its products, which include not only bags, but also shoes and other apparel. In so, their application description is likely far too broad to warrant any protection.
After a line of refusals from the USPTO, Naghedi’s unique argument may not reach the threshold needed to secure trademark protection if they cannot get past the ornamentality of their weaving. Their argument about dupes is innovative, and if the appeal board grants their trademark, it may alter the scales for trademark protection and registration in the fashion and beauty space. However, as it stands, such a design is so common, and arguably functional, that allegations of intentional copying will still be notably weaker even if Naghedi can prove that the design began appearing in more products after they first put their products on the market. With that said, if a conclusive timeline can be established–alongside a specific and purposeful configuration to its weaving technique–Naghedi may still have a chance of attaining protection that will better position it to rise above a saturated market of dupes. In that case, their effects on the fashion and beauty industry may be much more substantial.
[i] See How Brands Are Fighting Back: The Dupes Defense Playbook, The Fashion Law (Jan. 22, 2026), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/how-brands-are-fighting-back-the-dupes-defense-playbook [https://perma.cc/A92T-QH8F] (“An increasing number of dupe-related lawsuits are actively creating a legal roadmap for brand protection in the copycat economy. From trademarks and design patents to trade dress and false advertising, these cases are refining how companies enforce their rights.”).
[ii] About Us, Naghedi, https://naghedinyc.com/pages/about-us [https://perma.cc/EEZ2-N7VB] (last visited Apr. 23, 2026).
[iii] See Trademark Distinctiveness – A Key Component of Intellectual Property Law & Brand Development, Gleam L., https://www.gleamlaw.com/blog/business-law/trademark-distinctiveness-branding [https://perma.cc/T7EG-89XY] (last visited Apr. 30, 2026).
[iv] See Elijah Hartman, U.S. Trademark Functionality and Protectable Aesthetics: Can I Trademark That?, Harris Sliwoski (May 7, 2024), https://harris-sliwoski.com/blog/u-s-trademark-functionality-and-protectable-aesthetics-can-i-trademark-that [https://perma.cc/9S2C-ZTCC].
[v] When “Dupes” Define Distinctiveness: Naghedi Tests Trademark Limits, The Fashion Law (Mar. 19, 2026), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/when-dupes-define-distinctiveness-naghedi-tests-trademark-limits [https://perma.cc/LP7E-KHXC].
[vi] Isabella Naef, From Bottega Veneta’s Trademarked Intrecciato to the US Patent Office’s Rejection of Naghedi’s Weave, FashionUnited (Feb. 18, 2026), https://fashionunited.com/news/fashion/from-bottega-venetas-trademarked-intrecciato-to-the-us-patent-offices-rejection-of-naghedis-weave/2026021770618 [https://perma.cc/A8F2-AAHT].
[vii] See NAGHEDI’s Woven Trademark Faces Uphill Battle in Crowded Market, The Fashion Law (July 7, 2025), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/naghedi-woven-trademark-faces-uphill-battle-in-crowded-market [https://perma.cc/85BX-6B9B].
[viii] Fashion’s Trademark Challenge: Drawing the Line Between Trend & Source, The Fashion Law (Jan. 7, 2026), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/fashion-trademark-challenge-naghedi-repetition-ornamentation [https://perma.cc/K4G2-U45E].
[ix] Pattern Trademarks: Bottega & Naghedi, Lux Juris (Feb. 11, 2026), https://luxjuris.com/pattern-trademarks-bottega-naghedi [https://perma.cc/EYB3-MUYB] (“[Naghedi’s application] made it more difficult to distinguish the claimed design from common woven styles in the market. As a general matter, broad claims over widely used design elements are more likely to encounter objections based on ornamentation and lack of distinctiveness.”).
[x] When “Dupes” Define Distinctiveness: Naghedi Tests Trademark Limits, supra note v.
[xi] Id.
[xii] Id.
[xiii] Lisa Y. Yang, Weaving a Trademark, The IP Law Blog (Oct. 28, 2013), https://www.theiplawblog.com/2013/10/articles/copyright-law/weaving-a-trademark [https://perma.cc/S3EK-2BVR].
[xiv] Id.
