This really seems like a lot of smoke without there being much of a fire. Fashion, like music, film and books, does not involve a technological advance to bring about the next design. The US Supreme Court's 1982 ruling on what constitutes obviousness in an invention not withstanding, it doesn't seem like there would be many designs in the fashion industry that could warrant that kind of protection. Moreover, if indeed a technology is invented, in the way of a machine or device, that makes a new fashion design possible, that technology can be patented but not the resultant design. Both the machine and the dress require a creative effort, but the nature of that creation is vastly different. So, it's probably no coincidence that high-value industries like manufacturing and pharmaceuticals enjoy strong patent protection, while relatively low-value industries like fashion do not (even though I'm hesitant to call Versace "low-value"). Just consider for a moment what goes into designing a skirt and computer CPU, and the rationale for the dichotomy should be clear.

The basic bottom like still remains, copy a Burberry and go to Target, copy Intel and go to court.

People are willing to pay absurd premiums to have a specific label on an otherwise identical piece of clothing. If it stopped serving as a status symbol for the wealthy and frivolous, high fashion would collapse overnight.

I mostly follow IP issues affecting IT, but I believe that the EU grants copyright protection to fashion designs for three years. The protection of design as IP goes back for centuries in Europe (e.g. French petit patents).

The US has generally disallowed such copyright protection by classifying them as utilitarian and not artistic enough to qualify. A great example of hair-splitting. I remember seeing that efforts continue to obtain similar protections in the US, but face a difficult future.