Finocchio & Ustra Sociedade de Advogados | View firm profile
For a long time, prints were regarded merely as transient ornaments — accessories within a collection or aesthetic variations of fashion and consumer products. That perception has radically changed in recent decades.
Today, those patterns can function as distinctive signs, comparable to traditional trademarks or industrial designs, and have become strategic assets within a company’s intellectual property portfolio.
This evolution aligns with the growing recognition of trade dress protection, particularly in jurisdictions such as the United States and the European Union. Trade dress acknowledges that a product’s identity can be expressed not only through names or logos, but also through the combination of visual elements — including colors, shapes, and graphic patterns. In this context, prints that become recognizable to consumers cease to be decorative details and instead form part of a company’s core brand identity.
International cases illustrate this transformation. The Burberry check pattern, initially associated with trench coats and accessories, has evolved into a global icon. To ensure its exclusivity, the company had to register and actively enforce this asset in multiple jurisdictions, combating unauthorized reproductions that threatened to dilute its value. Similarly, Louis Vuitton continues to defend its monogram canvas in courts worldwide — a design that transcends aesthetics and represents billions in brand equity.
Another emblematic example is Hermès, whose silk scarves have become enduring symbols of heritage and sophistication. By securing legal protection for its graphic designs, the maison ensures that consumers immediately associate the product with the brand, leaving no room for imitation. Legal enforcement, in this sense, is not merely about safeguarding design — it is about preserving a cultural narrative built over decades.
These examples reveal a recurring legal challenge: distinguishing what is purely ornamental from what has evolved into a distinctive element. Common prints, widely used across the market such as polka dots, are unlikely to receive robust protection, although distinctive patterns that have acquired a unique identity and direct association with a company may be recognized as registrable and enforceable assets. This boundary is strategic — it separates companies that lose creative value through lack of protection from those that transform design into intangible capital.
From a business perspective, ignoring this dimension can be costly. In globalized markets, graphic patterns circulate rapidly and can be appropriated by competitors in countries where they are not registered or actively monitored. Without proper registration and protection, a print can be misappropriated — and, in extreme cases, its creator may even be prevented from using it in certain jurisdictions.
An effective protection strategy should combine three layers: the first is formal registration, whether as a figurative mark or as an industrial design, the second is active monitoring, essential to detect unauthorized uses across marketplaces, social media, and competing products, and the third is contractual governance: licensing and distribution agreements must include clear provisions on the use of prints, defining territory, scope, and duration to prevent misappropriation.
It is important to emphasize that the strategic value of prints extends far beyond the fashion sector. Companies in stationery, cosmetics, home décor, and even food use visual patterns as a key differentiator at the point of sale. Coca-Cola, with its iconic graphic waves, and Ben & Jerry’s, with its playful illustrations, demonstrate how prints can adapt across industries while reinforcing immediate brand recognition.
At the same time, regulatory boundaries must be observed. Competition authorities in some jurisdictions monitor excessive exclusivity practices that may restrict free competition. This calls for proportional and economically justified protection measures, ensuring that exclusivity rights are not interpreted as an abuse of market dominance.
For companies seeking to transform creativity into protected assets, the lesson is unequivocal: a print must be treated as an intangible asset from conception. This involves not only its creation but also the structured development of a robust intellectual property portfolio aligned with international expansion strategies.
The takeaway is clear: prints are not fleeting trends. When integrated into a brand’s identity, they can transcend decades, becoming timeless symbols of enduring economic value. In this process, specialized legal guidance is essential — translating creative sensitivity into solid legal instruments capable of resisting imitation and generating competitive advantage.
Talita Orsini de Castro Garcia Partner, Intellectual Property | [email protected]
Luiza Fernandes de Andrade Ramos de Oliveira– Lawyer, Intellectual Property | [email protected]
Beatriz de Araújo Fonseca– Trainee, Intellectual Property | [email protected]