In a “first of its kind” lawsuit pending in the Western District of Texas, two social media influencers—Sydney Nicole Gifford and Alyssa Sheil—are engaged in a heated dispute over alleged copying of aesthetic branding and content. While the case primarily hinges on copyright infringement claims, its inclusion of a trade dress infringement claim is novel. If the plaintiff is successful, this could set a new trend in IP disputes in the influencer space.
Background
The dispute centers on two Texas-based social media influencers, Sydney Nicole Gifford and Alyssa Sheil, both of whom curate Amazon product lists and promote items to their respective audiences. Gifford has garnered over half a million followers and claims her brand identity is built around a “neutral, beige, and cream” aesthetic. Her posts often feature minimalist styling, carefully selected product placements, and captions aimed at evoking a clean, aspirational lifestyle.
The relationship between Gifford and Sheil began cordially when they met in late 2022, with the intent to collaborate. However, as Gifford explains it, tensions rose after their initial meeting when Gifford noticed similarities between her content and Sheil’s. Some of these similarities included color schemes, styling choices, product selections, social media captions, and even font styles. Gifford asserts that Sheil’s posts began mirroring her aesthetic closely enough to confuse followers and dilute her brand. She also contends that Sheil imitated her aesthetic on Amazon Storefronts and other platforms, where Sheil supposedly created near-identical product lists and promotional materials.
Sheil denies the accusations and contends that any shared aesthetic merely reflects broader trends within the influencer industry. She argues that the “clean girl” image—characterized by neutral tones and minimalist design—is a popular trend associated with celebrities like Hailey Bieber and not owned by any single influencer. She also insists that any similarities in promoted products stem from Amazon’s affiliate program, which provides influencers with pre-curated lists of trending items.
In her lawsuit, Gifford asserts claims for copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and additional state law claims, including tortious interference, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Sheil responded by seeking dismissal of many of the claims, arguing that Gifford’s aesthetic is essentially unprotectable by any form of intellectual property.
In his recommendation to the district court, the magistrate judge suggested Gifford’s claims for copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, and DMCA violations should proceed, while the remaining claims should be dismissed. According to the magistrate, the copyright claim was well-pleaded, detailing Gifford’s ownership of specific registered works and alleging substantial similarity with Sheil’s posts. Similarly, the trade dress claim, though novel, was permitted to proceed, as the court recognized its potential to address the alleged misappropriation of Gifford’s aesthetic branding. The DMCA claim was also sufficiently pleaded, with allegations that Sheil removed or altered copyright management information from Gifford’s works.
If the case proceeds, then it will be the first of its kind to include a trade dress claim in this space, focusing on the aesthetic branding of influencers. If Gifford is successful in proving trade dress infringement, what does this mean for the influencer space?
Trade Dress in Influencer IP Disputes
At its core, a trademark is a source identifier. Consumers associate the origin of a product or service with a specific source, thereby building consumer trust and recognition. While trademarks typically protect brand names, logos, and even sounds, trade dress protects the overall appearance (the look and feel) of a product. Classic examples include Coca-Cola’s iconic soda bottle and Apple’s minimalist retail stores. Extending these principles to social media content, however, ventures into largely uncharted territory.
For Gifford to succeed on her trade dress claim, she must demonstrate that her aesthetic has achieved “secondary meaning” (consumer recognition)—a legal standard requiring that consumers associate her neutral tones and minimalist style with her personal brand. This poses a significant obstacle to Gifford because protectable trade dress must be inherently distinctive and not merely functional. In other words, her aesthetic must do more than serve a practical purpose or reflect popular trends—it must uniquely identify her brand in a way that sets it apart from others in the minds of consumers. In this case, Sheil asserts that Gifford’s “neutral, beige, and cream” aesthetic reflects a popular cultural trend often described as the “clean girl” look, which is not inherently unique, nor was it created by Gifford.
But this presents an important question: who is truly reinventing the wheel? Whether in the corporate world or the influencer space, success often involves capitalizing on existing trends rather than inventing entirely new ones. Apple, for example, was not the first to use clear glass storefronts and minimalist designs, but its application of those elements became synonymous with its branded retail stores once it maximized those aspects in its branding. Similarly, UPS is not the sole proprietor of the color brown, but its strategic branding turned the color into an unmistakable symbol of its services. The influencer industry operates on similar principles. Influencers curate popular trends, applying their individual touch to create an appealing narrative for their audiences. So, what constitutes functional and distinctive trade dress in the influencer space?
The answer may lie in determining where cultural trends end, and individual branding begins. Gifford argues that her aesthetic distinguishes her brand, but Sheil contends it merely reflects a popular social trend, followed by millions. True, the “clean girl” aesthetic includes neutral colors and a “clean” or “chic” appearance, but what about Gifford’s emoji color choices, font style, and social media profile backgrounds? How many details will it take to cross the line from cultural trend to individual branding? Courts will need to explore these issues as they decide whether trade dress law can appropriately extend to personal aesthetics on social media.
Conclusion
By pursuing trade dress claims alongside copyright infringement, Gifford has officially charted new territory in IP law. The case may set a significant precedent for digital creators who wish to protect their unique style in an increasingly crowded marketplace. This should be a reminder for influencers of the importance of a solid IP strategy. Securing copyrights, defining aesthetic branding, and entering clear agreements with collaborators are vital to an influencer’s success in the content creator marketplace.
