How to avoid a sad beige ending: Lessons drawn from the 'Sad Beige Influencer' case
loading...
How can a trailblazer influencer protect themselves from others who mimic their style to unfair commercial advantage?
A short, sharp answer is to build a ‘brand’, not just an ‘aesthetic’. Vague claims and vanilla imagery don’t stand up in court. To be effectively enforced, intellectual property needs to be concrete, specific, and original – ideally to possess a unique and clearly distinct character of its own, with some formal IP rights to back it up.
A bit more depth!
A disappointing (if somewhat predictable) end has befallen the so-called “Sad Beige Lawsuit” between rival influencers Sydney Nicole Gifford and Alyssa Sheil. Gifford accused Sheil of copying – but has now withdrawn the claims, as there was little prospect of legal success.
However, reviewing sample images comparing the two influencers’ content, which promoted the same or similar products, could easily lead an ordinary common-sense person like myself to conclude that the visual resemblances weren’t all purely coincidental either.
So often, in these personality-led cases, there is immense emotional investment in the business and the fallout isn’t just financial. I also find this ‘damp-squib’ case very interesting as it does highlight modern challenges (which IP systems aren’t quite prepared for) – and it poses the challenge, how can a trailblazer influencer protect themselves from others who mimic their style to unfair commercial advantage?
A short, sharp answer is to build a ‘brand’, not just an ‘aesthetic’. Vague claims and vanilla imagery don’t stand up in court. To be effectively enforced, intellectual property needs to be concrete, specific, and original – ideally to possess a unique and clearly distinct character of its own, with some formal IP rights to back it up.
In a fast-moving market where copyright might be your only protection, evidence of creation including date and place is really important. Being mindful that broad aesthetics and styles are extremely difficult to enforce, trade dress and unfair competition claims require very strong proof of distinctiveness and consumer confusion. Building a brand and incorporating strong names and symbols can help provide clear IP assets (such as trade marks) which are much more straightforward to enforce.
All the details, for the curious readers
Sydney Nicole Gifford is a US-based influencer and content creator who gained recognition for her distinct “clean girl” aesthetic, characterized by neutral tones, minimalistic styling, and carefully curated photography. She built a significant following on platforms like Instagram and TikTok, leveraging her signature aesthetic to create lifestyle, fashion, and beauty content that resonated with a large audience. Alyssa Sheil is a digital content creator and social media influencer based in Austin, Texas. She has gained prominence for her fashion, beauty, and lifestyle content.
Gifford accused Shiel of copying her overall aesthetic style, and claimed this imitation led to confusion among followers and a loss of income from her Amazon affiliate links, in the United States District Court for California, which is a common jurisdiction for intellectual property and influencer-related litigation given California’s significant fashion, entertainment, and social media industries.
Gifford's lawsuit originally encompassed several claims, including copyright infringement (of specific photographs); trade dress infringement (alleging that Shiel’s content mimics the overall look and feel of her brand, potentially causing consumer confusion) and misappropriation of likeness (alleging copying of personal attributes, such as outfits and poses, to the point of impersonation). Sheil denied all allegations, arguing that the aesthetic in question is common among influencers and that her content is independently created.
In November 2024, the California court partially dismissed the case but allowed some key claims to proceed. In news reports on 28 May 2025, Shiel’s lawyers state that following mediation, Gifford has now withdrawn the remaining claims.
| Claim | Allowed initially? | Outcome/reason for dropping | US legal context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright on overall aesthetic | No | Courts ruled style/“aesthetic” is an unprotectable idea under US law | US Copyright Act protects expression, not ideas or styles. General looks or trends are not protected. |
| Copyright on specific photos | Yes | Dropped eventually due to insufficient evidence or settlement | Photographs qualify as protected works if original. Courts require clear proof of copying of specific works. |
| Trade dress | No/very limited | Lacked distinctiveness and evidence of consumer confusion | Trade dress must be distinctive and non-functional; common styles are rarely protectable in fashion context. |
| Unfair competition/false designation | Yes | Dropped due to lack of evidence of consumer confusion | US Lanham Act protects against false representation causing consumer confusion; difficult to prove in this case. |
This case was being closely watched by many IP lawyers with an interest in fashion as a test to see how far can competitors stretch ‘inspiration’ in the online creator economy.
For now, it is clear that having a strong point of view helps influencers stand out among the clutter. However, since influencer culture and the creator economy clearly thrive on fast-moving trends and fluid shared aesthetics, the lines between ‘being inspired by’ and ‘copy-cat’ seem even more blurry than a trolley dash through the aisles of a discount supermarket.
Typically, IP systems do not grant monopolies over broad ideas, general styles, or banal and commonplace expressions, because to do so would stifle creativity and competition. This present case reaffirms that broad concepts like a personal “aesthetic” or fashion style are not effectively protectable as intellectual property, under current US law. The inability to prove distinctiveness and consumer confusion in the context of an influencer’s look means trade dress and unfair competition claims rarely succeed. This restricts avenues to stop imitators who might leverage the goodwill built by the ‘trend-setter’.
Litigation is often expensive, stressful and uncertain, especially when courts are apparently reluctant to extend protection to intangible style elements. Many influencers may not have the resources or appetite to pursue such legal battles. So, influencers may have to consider either some ‘old school’ brand-building (to build a lasting reputation and avail of more protectable IP) or, (if they can keep up the pace) to continually and rapidly evolve, staying a step or two ahead of the copy-cats.
Stobbs was founded in 2013 with the aim of becoming the world’s leading brand advisory company. Our obsession with originality empowers us to stand alongside brand owners, supporting them in maximising and protecting their most valuable asset. Their intellectual property.
Originality is essential to the brands we represent, protect, optimise, monetise and value. Protecting original ideas is more competitive and more complex than ever before, motivating us to provide bespoke solutions. We can advise across the whole issue, creating a true, integrated solution; and maximising impact by implementing across the full range of disciplines. We have an unrivalled breadth of expertise including trademarks, copyright and designs, litigation, commercial contracts, disputes, licensing, online brand enforcement, anti-counterfeiting, domains and systems.