AUTHOR: Disha Verma, ITM UNIVERSITY GWALIOR
• Logo evolution: Christian Dior founded the house in 1947. The Dior logo was typically a typographic wordmark with a use of serif font (black and white) for its tradition, reliability, and sophistication; it also represented timeless elegance and had a classic heritage. Currently, the trademark is a simple “DIOR” word in the sharp black serif font with the brand’s star or CD (Christian Dior) monogram to honour its superstitions.In 2025, the creative director of Dior, ‘Jonathan Anderson, aimed to ‘decode to recode’ the logo from the old 1946 Christian Dior ‘Cochin’ font “Dior”, which was designed by Georges Peignot in 1912 in the name of “Charles Nicolas Cochin”. In 1967 the “Oblique” monogram was introduced by Marc Bohan and the all-caps version was used for menswear during 2000s “DIOR”. But in 2025 Anderson again started the cochin font and stated that we have to follow the French graphic tradition which combines the engraving, printing, publishing and which give a push to human weight, he doesn’t have the intention to remove “oblique” from the monogram but it will only show in the surface/ texture while the cochin logo is an “institutional perimeter” while will deal with label, caption, title and future packaging.
• Signature Element: The key Signature Elements from new look era to its present day the post war featuring ankle length gowns with cinched waist beside that the most iconic piece from the first collection wasthe bar jacket with softened shoulder and cinched waist with bulbous peplum like flower petals,full fine fleeted skirt. the bar jacket has been continuously visited again and again by the creative directors and then its unique brand codes the reflection of its heritage by its symbols, colors or codes, these patten became an unmistakable popularity of a brand which make it look like a future collection for which a wide range of follower fall into a line and consistently carried brant identity for the future collections. From 1967 to 1989 Marc Bohan is known for introducing the “slim look” a sleek interpretation for “new look” silhouette.Then in 1995, creative director Gianfranco Ferre changed the Dior Brand Identity through iconic Lady Dior Bag, the arm of lady Diana, Princess of Wales during her trip to Paria. The name was taken by the predecessors of street styled photography, in 2016 the first women managed the post named as Valentino’s Maria Grazia Chiuri, she brought t-shirt printed with “We Should All Be Feminists” because of her feminism commitment and as theme to resonate her collection.
• copyright or Design Protection: All the text, structure, animated item, photographs, illustration drawings, graphic representation, logos, all are protected under the (articles L. 111-1 et seq.) of the French Intellectual Property Code. These are the sole property of Christian Dior Couture and all the intellectual Property which include brands, logos, symbols, models and creative works are the property of Christian Dior Couture through license or ownership. Use of all or parts of websites for the purpose of downloading, reproduction, transmission or any other purpose with a non-commercial intention, then the Christian Dior Rights maybe Sanctioned and which is prohibited under the provisions of the French Intellectual Property Code relating to copyright infringement (article L. 335-1 et seq.) and trademark infringement (article L. 716-1 et seq.) as well as with the provisions of the French Civil Code relating to civil liability (article 9, Sections 1382 et seq.). Christian Dior Couture is informing Internet users who are accessing the Website that these legal terms may be amended at any time. Such amendments shall be published online and shall be deemed accepted without reserve by any and all Internet users accessing the Website after said amendments have been published online.
• In India a Dispute arise in Parfums Christian Dior v. M/s. Maja Health Care Division & Ors .CS(COMM)355/2019 A Delhi district court has dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by luxury French perfume house Parfums Christian Dior against Indian cosmetics maker Maja Health Care Division and two others over the ‘Poison Pot’ mark. Dior had sued Maja Health Care Division, Kanshi Ram Pawan Kumar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., and Manish Sethi. It alleged that the ‘Poison Pot’ mark was phonetically and visually deceptively similar to its registered ‘POISON’ mark, which it claimed to have adopted in 1985. The suit sought a permanent injunction, delivery of infringing goods, and rendition of accounts of profits. On the question of legal identity, the court noted that Dior’s authorised representative, Meena Bansal, was the sole plaintiff witness. The court held that Dior failed to establish its legal identity and proper authorisation to sue. It also failed to prove infringement and passing off on their merits. District Judge Anubhav Jain of Patiala House Courts delivered the judgment on May 12, nearly 14 years after the suit was filed in 2012. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State Bank of Travancore v. Kingston Computer, the court held that a letter of authority from an officer without a board resolution delegating such power “was nothing but a scrap of paper.” The court imposed ₹2 lakh in costs on Dior, payable to Maja Health Care Division, which contested the proceedings for 14 years.
• Dior vs. Sincerely Jules (United States, Ongoing 2026): Dior is opposing sincerely Jules Application as SINCERELY JULES it argued that sincerely Jules should not be registered as SINCERELY JULES because it confused the consumer over more than 4o year old Dior mark with Jules fragrance trademark and its registering application covers a range of class 3 goods and overlaps with Dior’s existing Registration. In a Defence sincerely Jules argued that SINCERELY JULES were into existence and have a impression that market is crowded with Jules, Dior didn’t oppose sincerely Jules fashion and lifestyle not it challenged the Jules for any other application but it only came into interference when the company sought for cosmetics and Fragrance goods that only overlap with Dior Jules Registration. In defence sincerely Jules produced evidence on having concurrently using the mark continuously by two companies that distinction is in question because both the parties had historically confined by the fashion and lifestyle the U.S. Trademark trial and Appeal board “TTAB” views both the parties’ years of coexistence as evidence may prove likely to its central analysis. These are lessons for the other brands to take which specify governing law for the dispute management related to that particular brand and the intellectual property control mechanism made it to create a milestone and an inspiration for future brands with the proper hospitality service not mandatory only for fashion week with the proper time period make it more tradition and experienced brand.
• Legal Backbone: the important and interesting provision from Dior is: 1. Article 7. Cancellation policy, where the hospitality service is on the guest, whether he/she want to stay or not during Paris fashion week, if they want to cancel hospitality service, they have to give at least 30 days prior notice to the check in date then, they will get refund in the reservation confirmation and if outside of fashion week guest wants to cancel the service, they have to give at least 15 days prior notice to the check in date then they will get refund. 2. Article 9. Intellectual property, the “30 Montaigne” trademark whether it is figurative or non-figurative are remained the property of Christian Dior Couture and through license or registration, on the other hand, the downloading, transmitting for those other purposes are strictly prohibited 3. Article 13. Applicable laws-Dispute settlements, the French lawhas the consumer protection law if any guest find any kind of difficulties at the time of reservation the guest can seek consultation with the Christian Dior Couture before filing a suit before the court where they have a mediator for listening under whose jurisdiction Christian Dior Couture Falls to submit the dispute to the mediator guest have to fill the form on CMAP (Paris Mediation and Arbitration Centre) website.
• Fashion law and AI: In the contemporary time, it is important to understand the impact of AI on Intellectual Property, it is important to establish that whose ownership will remain in the innovation of that particular design, because now-a day AI driven platform can produce, recommend color combination, some systems can create entirely full fashion brand, trademark, symbol just in a blink of time but it is a terrified experience for a human being because copyright is for the protection of human idea and innovations but when the author itself make any sketch or any drawing from his inside imagination then also the copyright automatically pop up and then automatically AI itself make a image or sketch, it is clearly hard to identify the author. The three claimants want an ownership first, that person who gave the prompt to the AI and other one is the developer who created AI because of the Architecture and the last one isthe company that owns the AI System in ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI OPCO LLC & Anr. CS(COMM) 1028/2024 in this case ANI filed a lawsuit against open AI, its large language model used ANIs copyrighted news content for training purposes without a fully taking consent or any registered licence invoking section 51 and 55 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 this case highlighted the critical legal grey area in India.
• In Dior vs Ash (2013): In this Dispute Dior Discovered that a company name Ash was selling knock off of this model and filed an action before the Paris Court against infringement of copyright and unregistered community design (UCD). The Paris court found according to the Previous laws that there is an absence of a claim of Ownership by its author, according to the Article 14(3) and 15(1) of the Community design Regulation the rights of the community design vest on the employer in the furtherance of his employee duties, the person claim to become legitimate holder by the provision if the person who disclosed and claimed the unregistered community design in not legally entitled to do so under article 14. The court found that according to French law the design in question met all the originality criteria as set forth. The court held that the only applicable criteria for validity defined under article 4 and 5 of the Community Design Regulation, which emphasized two terms: Novelty and Individual Character as argued by the ash’s end but the court stated that novelty doesn’t mean any “creative effort”, the court found UCD was valid Dior was the owner of both of them and the court analysed the case thoroughly and gave the judgement that both the copyright and UCD must be treated separately when filing before the French court regarding infringement disputes.
• Conclusion: In this whole study, there is a brief introduction of the fashion icon and the most well known luxury brand which is more than 4o years old, started from 1946 from the founder Christian Dior to 2026 Jonathan Anderson created its year massive challenges, significant milestone and a impressive evolution of trademark and brand with some legal disputes, recent developments and impressive provision that is enough for encouraging future brand but if those brand got any ownership decided between AI and Human Being in this Era of Digitalization.
• Endnotes:
• Erin McLaughlin, House of Solo Magazine: The DNA of: Dior, from Glamour to Feminism (2025)
• nss magazine, Manuela Irena D’Orso: The history of the Dior logo From 1946 to the present day (2025)
• VESAURA: Dior Logo Evolution: Luxury Branding Through Time (2025) • Bird & Bird, LEXOLOGY: Christian Dior v Ash: lessons for filing infringement claims in France (2013)
• Dior: Legal Terms and Conditions
• Dior: 30 Montaigne La Suite Dior: Legal Terms and Conditions
• Adv. Archana Shukla, KINGS & ALLIANCE LLP LAW FIRM: AI vs Artistry: Indian Copyright Law at a Crossroads for Fashion Designers (2026)
• Samyak Sinha, Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research: Artificial Intelligence as a Fashion Designer: Who Owns the Rights? (2026)
Disclaimer: This article is published for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or professional counsel. It does not create a lawyer–client relationship. All views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and represent their independent analysis. Times Law does not endorse, verify, or assume responsibility for the author’s views or conclusions. While editorial standards are maintained, Times Law, the author, and the publisher disclaim all liability for any errors, omissions, or consequences arising from reliance on this content. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional before acting on any information herein. Use of this article is at the reader’s own risk.
