AMVCA 2026 and the Growing Intellectual Property Debate in Fashion

AMVCA 2026 and the Growing Intellectual Property Debate in Fashion

In honour of completing my World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) course on Intellectual Property with a final score of 94, I decided to examine one of the most talked-about controversies from the just concluded AMVCA 2026.

The Africa Magic Viewers’ Choice Awards (AMVCA) did not only showcase fashion, creativity and artistry; it also reignited an important conversation about intellectual property protection within the fashion industry.

At the centre of the controversy was the now viral “Cathedral Gown” worn by Nana Akua Addo. Cambodian fashion house Almée Couture accused Nana Akua Addo and her team of copying their original design sketches and concepts. According to the allegations, Almée Couture had initially developed the design before the project was later discontinued and the deposit refunded.

However, Nana Akua Addo maintained that the creative direction and concept originated from her. She stated that she later collaborated with another designer, Abbass Woman, to execute the final outfit.

The controversy did not end there.

Another debate emerged surrounding the butterfly-themed dresses worn by Laura Ikeji and Leslianna Pereira. Designer Rexhep Nuhiji alleged that their respective designers, Lipex Stitches and Abikss Couture, replicated his original design without authorization.

Similarly, British illustrator Hayden Williams alleged that the outfit worn by Toni Tones closely resembled a design he had originally created for Hollywood star Teyana Taylor. According to him, proper credit was not given until concerns were publicly raised.

These incidents have sparked a larger legal and ethical conversation: Where does inspiration end and intellectual property infringement begin?

It is important to state that inspiration itself is not unlawful. Fashion, like every other art form, naturally evolves through inspiration, trends, references and reinterpretation. Designers constantly draw ideas from architecture, culture, history, nature and existing artistic works.

The issue, however, arises when there is substantial copying without permission, acknowledgment or sufficient transformation.

Take the Cathedral Gown controversy as an example.

The Cologne Cathedral is a public historic monument. Legally, no individual or fashion house can claim ownership over the general idea of “a dress inspired by a cathedral.” Ideas and concepts are not protected under copyright law.

However, if Almée Couture can establish that the secondary designer reproduced their original technical sketches, structural detailing or artistic arrangements, then a claim for copyright infringement may arise.

This is because intellectual property law protects not the idea itself, but the expression of that idea.

Courts usually determine fashion copyright disputes through the test of “substantial similarity.” This means the court examines whether the designs are so alike that an ordinary person would likely believe one was copied from the other.

However, common fashion elements such as corsets, silhouettes, ruffles, necklines and other standard design features are generally not protected because they already exist within the public domain. Courts focus mainly on the designer’s original creative contributions.

The AMVCA controversies reveal a larger issue within the African fashion industry: the absence of clear contractual protections, proper attribution practices and stronger intellectual property awareness.

As African fashion continues to gain international recognition, conversations surrounding originality, ownership and creative protection will only become more important.

Fashion is art. But art still requires legal protection.