In recent years, Indonesia’s local fashion industry has experienced significant growth. The emergence of local brands offering appealing designs at more competitive prices has made the domestic market increasingly dynamic. However, amid this positive development, concerns have also surfaced regarding alleged design imitation by local businesses of products originally created by international brands. One notable example is the striking resemblance between the Ivory Lilydale sandals by local brand, Pix Footwear and the Cassidy Sandal, a product from the U.S.-based brand, Cult Gaia.
At a glance, the two products appear highly similar, particularly in terms of heel shape, the color and arrangement of the straps, and most notably, the placement of a decorative lily flower element on the strap. This raises an important question from the perspective of intellectual property law to what extent can a fashion product’s design be legally protected? Can copying a design from a foreign brand—especially one that has not registered its rights in Indonesia—be considered a legal violation? And if such a violation does exist, what legal remedies are available to both the original designer and the local business involved?
This type of situation not only opens the door to potential legal disputes, but also impacts the ethical standards and reputation of the local creative industry. On the other hand, design protection in fashion carries unique legal complexities, particularly in distinguishing between genuine inspiration and outright imitation. For that reason, it is important to examine the legal framework governing design protection—both domestically and internationally—as well as to highlight the preventive and enforcement mechanisms available to rights holders.
This article will explore key legal issues surrounding the protection of fashion designs under the intellectual property regime, using the design similarities between Pix Footwear and Cult Gaia as a case study. It will discuss the legal basis for design protection, the potential implications of cross-jurisdictional infringement, and the legal options available to parties who feel their rights have been violated. In addition, the article will also provide recommendations on preventive measures that designers and businesses can take to safeguard their creations from potential copying.
Design Protection under the Intellectual Property Law Regime
Fashion product designs, including footwear, can in principle be protected under intellectual property (IP) law through several legal regimes, depending on the nature of the design and how it is registered. In Indonesia, the legal basis for such protection generally refers to Law No. 31 of 2000 on Industrial Designs (hereinafter reffered to as “Law 31/2000”).
According to Article 1(1) of Law 31/2000, an Industrial Design is defined as:
“… a creation on the shape, configuration, or composition of lines or colors, or a combination thereof, in two-dimensional or three-dimensional form which gives an aesthetic impression and can be realized in a two- or three-dimensional pattern, and used to produce a product, good, industrial commodity, or handicraft.”
Based on this definition, the design of footwear—including the shape of the heel, strap configuration, and decorative elements—may qualify as an industrial design, provided that it meets the following requirements:
- It must be new, meaning it has not been disclosed or publicly used anywhere prior to the filing date (Article 2 (1) Law 31/2000);
- It must have an aesthetic element; and
- It must be industrially applicable (suitable for mass production).
Industrial design registration in Indonesia is processed through the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP). Once registered, the design is protected for 10 years from the filing date (Article 5 of Law 31/2000).
However, a challenge arises when a design is not registered. In such cases, it becomes difficult for the creator to enforce their rights or claim protection under the industrial design regime, as unregistered designs do not enjoy the same legal recognition.
Alternative Protections: Copyright and Trademark
In certain cases, fashion product designs may also be protected as applied works of art under Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright. Article 40(1)(g) of the law states that one of the protected works includes “applied art, which refers to visual art created by applying artistic elements to a product to create an aesthetic impression while fulfilling a practical function, such as the use of images, motifs, or ornaments on a product.”
However, copyright protection for applied art tends to be weaker in the context of fashion design, as it does not cover ideas, concepts, or general styles, but only protects specific, unique, and original expressions. Moreover, although copyright arises automatically without the need for registration, proving ownership and originality in the event of a dispute may be more challenging than with registered industrial designs.
As for Trademark elements, such as a distinctive shape or look of a shoe that is consistently used in commerce, protection can be sought under the concept of trade dress which refers to the overall appearance of a product that functions as a source identifier and creates a commercial association with a particular brand.
Unfortunately, Indonesia does not explicitly recognize trade dress protection in the same way as the United States, where it is covered under the Lanham Act. In Indonesia, such visual elements can only be protected if they qualify as a trademark, for example, as a three-dimensional mark, as provided under Article 1(1) and Article 20 of Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications (hereinafter reffered to as “Trademark Law”).
Case Review: Pix Footwear vs Cult Gaia
On its official website, Pix Footwear showcases a product variant called Ivory Lilydale—a pair of high-heeled sandals featuring distinct design elements such as thin heels, light green ankle-wrap straps, and a large decorative lily flower. This design was officially launched by Pix Footwear on May 5, 2025. At first glance, it bears a striking resemblance to the Cassidy Sandal by Cult Gaia, which had already been released earlier in January 2025, several months prior to the launch of Ivory Lilydale. Cult Gaia, a fashion brand based in Los Angeles, United States, is widely recognized for its artistic and experimental approach to design. Given the visual similarities and the timeline of each product’s release, the situation raises concerns regarding potential design imitation by Pix Footwear, especially in light of Cult Gaia’s earlier product release date.
Indications of Design Similarity
A visual comparison between the Ivory Lilydale and the Cassidy Sandal reveals several elements that are either identical or strikingly similar, including:
- The basic structure of the shoes — both are open-toe high heels;
- The heel shape — narrow and tapered downward;
- The use of straps — light green straps that wrap around the ankle;
- A prominent round ornament — a standout decorative piece on the strap resembling a lily flower.
Under industrial design law, this degree of visual similarity may give rise to a potential dispute, especially if the original design has been registered and protected within a certain jurisdiction, and the other party is commercially distributing a product that is substantially similar in appearance.
Jurisdictional Challenges and Applicable Legal Regimes
The main issue in cases like this lies in the difference in legal jurisdiction between the alleged infringer (an Indonesian brand) and the original design owner (a foreign brand). Indonesia adheres to the principle of territoriality, meaning that Intellectual Property protection is only valid in the country where the rights are registered and legally recognized. Therefore, if Cult Gaia has not registered the Cassidy Sandal design as an industrial design in Indonesia, there is technically no exclusive right being infringed under Indonesian law.
Nevertheless, this does not entirely preclude the possibility of legal action, particularly where certain circumstances may strengthen the case for infringement. For instance, if Cult Gaia’s design enjoys strong global recognition and is widely known among Indonesian consumers, then its presence may lead to significant brand association with a similar local product. Moreover, if Pix Footwear is found to have commercially benefited from marketing a product that is substantially similar in design to Cult Gaia’s, such conduct could amount to commercial exploitation. A claim may also arise if there are indications of bad faith or consumer deception, such as creating the impression that the local product is affiliated with or derived from the global brand.
In this context, a claim of unfair competition or a civil tort claim (perbuatan melawan hukum) under Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code (KUHPerdata) may also be considered as an alternative or supplementary legal approach.
Potential Legal Actions Against Pix Footwear
If Cult Gaia believes it has suffered damages and possesses strong evidence that its design has been copied by Pix Footwear, there are several legal avenues that may be pursued:
a. If the design is registered in Indonesia:
Cult Gaia may file a civil lawsuit before the Commercial Court based on the infringement of its industrial design rights, seeking monetary damages and a court order to cease the circulation of the allegedly infringing product. This claim would be grounded in Article 9(1) of Law No. 31 of 2000, which grants the exclusive right to the design holder to prohibit others from manufacturing, using, selling, exporting, importing, and/or distributing products bearing the registered design without prior consent.
Article 9(1) of Law No. 31/2000 stipulates: “The holder of the Industrial Design Right shall have the exclusive right to exercise the Industrial Design Right and to prohibit others who, without their consent, manufacture, use, sell, import, export, and/or distribute goods covered by the Industrial Design Right.”
In addition to a civil claim, Cult Gaia may also file a cancellation lawsuit against the industrial design registration of Pix Footwear (if it has registered the design) before the Commercial Court, on the grounds that the design lacks novelty as required by Article 2(1) of Law No. 31/2000, which states: “Industrial Design Rights shall be granted for new Industrial Designs.”
This cancellation mechanism is regulated under Article 38(1) of Law No. 31/2000, which provides: “A lawsuit for cancellation of an Industrial Design registration may be filed by any interested party on the grounds as referred to in Article 2 or Article 4 to the Commercial Court.”
If Cult Gaia has registered its design in Indonesia by invoking priority rights based on an earlier filing in a country that is a member of the Paris Convention, Cult Gaia may rely on Article 1 (12) of Law No. 31/2000 as the legal basis for recognizing that the filing date in Indonesia shall be deemed the same as the original filing date in the country of origin, provided that the application in Indonesia is submitted within the time frame prescribed under the Paris Convention.
Article 1(12) of Law No. 31/2000 reads: “Priority Right means the right of an Applicant to file an application originating from a country that is a party to the Paris Convention in order to obtain recognition that the Filing Date in the target country, which is also a member of the Paris Convention or the WTO Agreement, shall be deemed the same as the Filing Date in the country of origin, within the time limit set under the Paris Convention.”
Furthermore, Cult Gaia may also pursue criminal legal action, as stipulated in Article 54(1) of Law No. 31/2000, which states: “Any person who, without right and intentionally, commits any act as referred to in Article 9 shall be subject to imprisonment of up to 4 (four) years and/or a fine of up to IDR 300,000,000 (three hundred million rupiah).” However, such violations are categorized as complaint-based offenses (delik aduan), meaning criminal proceedings can only be initiated upon a formal complaint by the aggrieved party, in this case, Cult Gaia.
b. If the design is not registered in Indonesia:
The case may still be pursued under the doctrine of unfair competition, potentially invoking Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement[1], via proceedings under the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
Alternatively, Cult Gaia may file a civil tort claim (Gugatan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum) before the District Court in the jurisdiction where Pix Footwear’s products are being sold or distributed. The claim may argue that the Cassidy Sandal design has acquired global recognition, including among Indonesian consumers, and that Pix Footwear’s use of a substantially similar design creates a misleading impression of affiliation, thereby unfairly exploiting Cult Gaia’s reputation and goodwill. Such lawsuits typically center on consumer confusion, bad faith, and economic or reputational harm suffered by the original design owner.
c. Non-litigation options:
Cult Gaia may begin by sending a warning letter or cease and desist notice to Pix Footwear, requesting that they stop the sale and promotion of the alleged infringing product. If both parties are willing, the dispute may also be resolved through business negotiations or mediation, offering a more amicable and cost-effective alternative to litigation.
Preventive Strategies and Legal Protection
To mitigate the risk of design imitation, fashion industry players are advised to consider the following steps:
- Register Designs as Industrial Designs
Design protection in Indonesia is governed by Law No. 31 of 2000 on Industrial Designs. Designs that are new and possess aesthetic value may be registered to obtain legal protection for a period of 10 years from the filing date (Article 5 of Law No. 31/2000).
In the context of global trade, this provision also accommodates the principle of priority rights, as stipulated in Article 1 point 12 of Law No. 31/2000, previously discussed. Accordingly, if a design was first filed in a country that is a member of the Paris Convention, the applicant—including foreign businesses such as Cult Gaia—may claim the priority date when filing the same design in Indonesia, provided that the application is submitted within six months of the original filing date. This rule is essential to ensure cross-jurisdictional protection and to prevent the design from losing its novelty due to prior disclosure in the country of origin.
- Pursue International Registration
Local designers seeking protection abroad may consider using the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs[2], or alternatively, register their designs directly through the IP office of the target country. This is essential for securing cross-jurisdictional protection.
- Protect Brand Elements Through Trademarks
In addition to industrial design protection, businesses may also safeguard elements of product identity—such as the shoe name, logo, and overall trade dress—through trademark registration under the Trademark Law.
One effective strategy is to incorporate design elements of the shoe into the visual logo, for example by including the shape of the straps, distinctive ornaments, or the silhouette of the shoe within the logo design. This approach provides additional legal protection for the design, particularly in cases where the design cannot be registered as an industrial design.
Although the concept of trade dress is not explicitly regulated under Indonesian law, protection may still be granted if the form or appearance of the product has a strong distinguishing character and is consistently used as a brand identifier—potentially including three-dimensional trademark registration.
- Use Contracts and NDAs with Partners
When working with manufacturers, distributors, or third-party collaborators, it is crucial to include design protection clauses and non-copying provisions in cooperation agreements. These contractual safeguards can reinforce legal standing in the event of a dispute.
- Build Reputation and Public Presence
A strong brand reputation can serve as an indirect form of protection against imitation. Widely recognized products are easier to defend under unfair competition or civil tort (PMH) principles, even in cases where formal registration has not yet been obtained.
The design similarity between Pix Footwear and Cult Gaia reflects a classic issue in the realm of intellectual property—an ongoing tension between creativity, inspiration, and imitation. Within Indonesia’s legal framework, which adheres to the principle of territoriality, registration of designs and trademarks remains the most essential step for securing effective legal protection.
From a moral and business ethics standpoint, it is equally important for entrepreneurs to recognize the value of originality in design as a form of respect toward intellectual property rights. On the global stage, there is an increasing trend toward zero tolerance for plagiarism, whether it involves product design, branding, or innovation.
For local designers and fashion brands, this case also serves as a reminder of the importance of equipping themselves with a solid understanding of Intellectual Property law—not only to create, but also to protect and defend the rights to their own work.
This article has explored the issue of design imitation in footwear within the context of Indonesian intellectual property law. Cases such as Pix Footwear and Ventela illustrate how thin the line between inspiration and imitation can be in the fashion industry, and how such disputes often spark debates from both legal and ethical perspectives. If you are a business owner, designer, or party facing challenges related to design protection, potential IP violations, or would simply like to ensure the legal compliance of your product designs, our team at TRNP Law Firm is ready to assist you with tailored legal insights and strategic guidance.
[1] Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, Article 22 : Protection of Geographical Indications (2) In respect of geographical indications, Members shall provide the legal means for interested parties to prevent: (b) any use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967).
[2] The Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs is an international mechanism administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which allows designers or design owners to register a single industrial design in multiple countries through a single, streamlined application. This system simplifies administrative procedures and reduces costs compared to filing individually in each country. Indonesia has been a member of the Hague Agreement since 2017, enabling local creators to utilize this system for design protection in other member countries.
Image sources :
https://cultgaia.com/products/cassidy-sandal-multi?variant=41608639971402
