Longchamp has built an enviable business around its Le Pliage bag, a design that has reached cult status thanks to a silhouette instantly recognizable as its own – and with it has come an influx of fakes. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”)’s Invalidity Division took on one such iteration in a decision in July, invalidating a handbag design registered to Chinese designer Jie Yu. According to the EUIPO, the design at the center of the registration was too similar to the Longchamp Le Pliage staple, and as a result, lacked the “individual character” required under EU law.
More than a case over a copycat design, the matter sheds light on Longchamp’s aggressive enforcement strategy and in particular, how fiercely the French accessories company intends to protect its accessible icon.
The Background in Brief: In the invalidation proceeding that it launched with the EUIPO, Longchamp argued that the disputed design was a copy of its Le Pliage bag, a model it has marketed since 1993 and that has become one of the most recognizable silhouettes in modern luxury accessories. The brand identified a series of hallmark features – including a trapezoidal-shaped body with triangular side panels; tubular handles attached with pointed oval tabs and shield-shaped stitching; a rectangular flap with rounded ends and a central clasp, and zipper tabs on either end – that makeup its “it” bag.
These elements, Longchamp argued, give the Le Pliage its distinctive identity.
Individual Character & the “Overall Impression” Test
The EUIPO’s Invalidity Division agreed with Longchamp, holding that the contested design failed to produce a different overall impression on the “informed user” (the benchmark set out in the European Union Design Regulation) than its Le Pliage design. Under this standard, a design has “individual character” if it creates a different overall impression compared to any earlier design made public before its filing date.
In assessing this, the EUIPO considered the similarity of the designs and the degree to which functional or market constraints limit creativity in that category, among other things. On the latter point, the EUIPO noted that the handbag sector allows “at least an average degree of freedom” in design, meaning that when two bags share the same core silhouette and structural features, minor cosmetic changes – such as slightly longer handles or a switch from brown to black leather accents – will rarely be enough to avoid infringement or invalidity.
The differences between the two bag designs at issue “are clearly less striking than the common features that the designs have in common and that will have a significant impact on the overall impression,” the EUIPO held, ultimately finding that the similarities in shape, proportion, and distinctive detailing far outweighed the minor variations.
Part of a Bigger Movement
The ruling is a textbook example of how design rights can serve as a powerful enforcement tool for fashion brands, especially when the goal is to protect iconic product shapes. While copyright protection in fashion is notoriously difficult to secure and enforce, EU design law offers a relatively low-bar, high-impact route – one that has been increasingly embraced by luxury houses.
Longchamp’s win is part of a broader pattern in which brands are weaponizing EU design law to safeguard product silhouettes that might otherwise fall outside the scope of copyright or trademark protection. In recent years, names from Hermès to Telfar have leveraged the “overall impression” test under Article 6 of the European Union Design Regulation to secure victories, sidestepping the higher threshold required for trademark distinctiveness or copyright originality.
For Longchamp, whose business and brand identity are deeply tied to the minimalist silhouette of the Le Pliage, the case reinforces that even “simple” designs can be enforceable when they are commercially successful, culturally resonant, and backed by proactive IP strategy. The Le Pliage decision further cements the role of design registrations as the IP weapon of choice for defending fashion icons in Europe, particularly those whose value rests as much on brand heritage and market recognition as on decorative detail.
The matter is Longchamp v. Jie Yu (Invalidity No. 128 495).
Share
