A recent settlement between social media influencers ended a dispute that could have tested an issue at the outer edges of intellectual property law in the digital creator economy. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the case (Sydney Nicole LLC et al. v. Alyssa Sheil LLC et al., case number 1:24-cv-00423) involved allegations of copyright infringement and trade dress misappropriation over what plaintiff Sydney Gifford described as her “beige” aesthetic, which incorporated minimalist styling in neutral hues and featured prominently in sponsored Amazon content on Instagram and TikTok.

At the heart of Gifford’s claim was the idea that her carefully curated monochrome “vibe” constituted protectable expression and brand identification. She accused competing influencer Alyssa Sheil of mimicking everything from her product choices and backgrounds to her haircut and cadence, and argued that these elements, taken together, formed a copyrightable work and distinctive brand identity. While the infringement claims survived a motion to dismiss, the case ultimately settled before a final adjudication on whether a social media “vibe” could rise to the level of protectable trade dress or copyrightable content.

While Gifford’s copyright claim would have been an uphill battle (I was unable to locate a copyright registration—a prerequisite for a viable copyright infringement claim in the United States—owned by the plaintiff), her trade dress claim presented a more legally viable path. Trade dress law protects the total image and overall appearance of a product or service, including elements such as size, shape, color, texture, and graphics, provided they are non-functional and have acquired distinctiveness. Color alone can serve as protected trade dress, as demonstrated by the magenta used in connection with cell phone services (T-Mobile) or the pink color used for insulation (Owens Corning). But trade dress also extends to store and retail designs. For example, the following store layout is the subject of a registered trade dress with the United States Patent and Trademark Office:

“The mark consists of the design and layout of a retail store. The store features a clear glass storefront surrounded by a paneled facade consisting of large, rectangular horizontal panels over the top of the glass front, and two narrower panels stacked on either side of the storefront. Within the store, rectangular recessed lighting units traverse the length of the store's ceiling. There are cantilevered shelves below recessed display spaces along the side walls, and rectangular tables arranged in a line in the middle of the store parallel to the walls and extending from the storefront to the back of the store. There is multi-tiered shelving along the side walls, and an oblong table with stools located at the back of the store, set below video screens flush-mounted on the back wall. The walls, floors, lighting, and other fixtures appear in dotted lines and are not claimed as individual features of the mark; however, the placement of the various items is considered to be part of the overall mark” (USPTO Reg. No. 4,277,914).

Many will immediately recognize this as the blueprint for Apple's retail stores.

The Gifford-Sheil dispute would have tested whether a social media aesthetic, which is arguably more ephemeral and fluid than traditional product packaging or retail decor, can clear that bar. The court’s early willingness to entertain the claims suggests a growing judicial awareness of the commercial value of digital personas.

The case also reflects broader uncertainties in IP law as applied to influencers and digital creators, many of whom blend personal identity, style, and commerce into a single stream of content. As creator disputes become more common, courts may need to draw sharper lines around what constitutes protected branding versus fair use, trend-following, or cultural overlap.

For now, the beige war ends in a draw. But it may signal that aesthetic imitation could, in the right context, raise justiciable claims under existing IP frameworks.