IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—M.D. Ga.: Copying claims over equestrian designs move forward, (Apr 10, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

Allegations of replicated horse-show apparel survive early challenge as disputes over originality, similarity, and trade dress remain unresolved, and a sanctions request is denied.

A dispute over allegedly copied equestrian apparel designs will proceed after the federal court in Georgia found that competing claims over originality, similarity, and market recognition cannot be resolved on the pleadings alone, allowing copyright and trade dress allegations to move forward while declining to impose sanctions at this stage. The case arises from a conflict between Blond Apparel and All That Show Clothing LLC (ATSC) involving customized shirts used in horse shows. Blond Apparel alleges that ATSC copied distinctive elements of its designs after the company posted them on social media, including motifs, textures, and the placement of appliques. ATSC disputes those allegations and contends that the claims fail as a matter of law (Daniel v. All That Show Clothing LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00088-TES (M.D. Ga. Apr. 8, 2026)).

Copyright claims. The court determined that the copyright claims could not be dismissed because material factual disputes remain unresolved. To establish infringement, a plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright and copying of protected elements. Blond Apparel alleged ownership of registered copyrights in two designs, identified as RTW2 and Liston, which creates a presumption of validity.

The dispute centers on whether ATSC copied protectable aspects of those designs. According to Blond Apparel, its shirts incorporate original combinations of familiar design elements, including specific arrangements of appliques and patterns. While individual design features may not be independently protectable, Blond Apparel asserts that the overall combination reflects sufficient creative authorship.

ATSC argued that the claims rest on generalized allegations of copying. The court rejected that position at this stage, noting that Blond Apparel alleged both access and substantial similarity. Blond Apparel claimed ATSC viewed its designs online and produced garments that closely resemble them.

The court explained that substantial similarity turns on whether an average observer would recognize the accused's work as appropriated from the original. Based on the pleadings and images referenced in the complaint, the court found that this question cannot be resolved without further factual development. One unresolved issue is which party created the designs first. Because competing accounts remain, the court declined to resolve the claims on the pleadings.

Trade dress. The Lanham Act claim based on trade dress infringement also survived. To establish liability, a plaintiff must allege that the asserted trade dress is distinctive, nonfunctional, and likely to cause confusion. Blond Apparel alleged that its designs have acquired distinctiveness through recognition within the equestrian community, including references to industry reputation and media exposure. The company also asserted that its products are known as custom, one-of-a-kind items associated with the Blond Apparel brand.

The court concluded that these allegations are sufficient, at the pleading stage, to support a claim of secondary meaning. Product design generally requires such a showing, and the complaint included facts suggesting that consumers associate the designs with a particular source.

On functionality, Blond Apparel alleged that the visual features of its shirts serve an aesthetic and branding purpose rather than a utilitarian one. The court noted that functionality is typically a fact-intensive inquiry and that the record is not sufficiently developed to determine whether the design features are essential to the product’s use or affect its cost or quality.

The likelihood of confusion analysis also presented factual questions. The court considered factors such as similarity of design, overlap in customers and marketing channels, and alleged intent. Based on the pleadings, including side-by-side comparisons of the garments, the court found sufficient allegations to support a plausible inference of confusion. Because disputes remain as to distinctiveness, functionality, and similarity, the trade dress claim will proceed alongside the copyright claims.

Preemption deferred. ATSC also argued that certain state law claims are preempted by federal law. The court did not reach that issue, explaining that it would be addressed at a later stage after further factual development. Because the court declined to resolve Blond Apparel’s federal copyright and Lanham Act claims on the pleadings, it deferred consideration of whether the related state law claims are preempted, leaving that question for a more developed record.

Sanctions denied. ATSC sought sanctions under Rule 11, asserting that Blond Apparel failed to investigate its claims, misapplied governing law, and pursued the case despite evidence of prior creation. The court rejected that request without prejudice. It found that the current record does not establish that the claims lack a reasonable factual basis or were filed in bad faith. The evidence cited by ATSC did not conclusively demonstrate prior creation or negate the alleged similarities between the designs.

The court emphasized that Rule 11 sets a high threshold and is not intended to resolve disputes over the merits of a case. Questions about factual support are better addressed after discovery, when the record is more complete. The court left open the possibility that ATSC may renew its request for sanctions after discovery concludes, particularly if the evidence does not support the claims.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-00088-TES.

Judge: Self, T.

Attorneys: Anna Ashley (Dorsey & Whitney LLP) for Amber Daniel. Lanie Bandell (Lorium PLLC) for All That Show Clothing LLC.

Companies: All That Show Clothing LLC

Cases: Copyright GeorgiaNews