Several months later, the New York Times also carried an article essentially denouncing the counterfeiting of Paris couture. In a practice that has parallels today, labels carrying the names of French couture and millinery houses were imported to the States and used in American-made products.(63) Jacques Worth and Paul Poiret headed attempts over the next four years to control how purchasers of models from the top couture houses were allowed to use them. In July 1914, the Couturier's Defense Syndicate was established with Worth, Poiret, Premet, Chéruit, Rodier, Paquin, Callot, Lucien Vogel et Compagnie, and Atuyer, Bianchini, Férier as the first subscribers. A tiered pricing system was suggested with the purpose of adding to the standard cost of a couture gown a copyright fee, payable by business customers who wished to reproduce the design for sale. Wholesalers and retailers were barred from the major couture openings unless specifically invited.(64) These moves were so controversial that the Times printed both the articles of the Syndicate and a speech by Poiret on the subject of design protection in January 1916, by which time it appeared that the Syndicate was near collapse.(65) The Times reported that many of the smaller houses had refused to abide by the Syndicate's rules with the result that the reputations of couturiers such as "Arnold, Germaine, Bulloz, Patou, Chanel, Royant, Bernard, and Mme Groult, Poiret's sister" grew rapidly.(66) The same article went on to state that

these houses have already begun to show collections privately to the American buyers, so anticipating the ‘openings" of the syndicate houses, which are mostly set for the first week of February. Realizing that no monopoly of styles was possible, these early birds boldly struck out on new lines, with the certainty of getting such a start on the former headliners that the latter would be compelled to follow where they used to lead.

It is a measure of how important the couture industry was to France that this debate could be sustained during some of the worst months of the Great War.

In spite of the failure of the couture establishment to maintain a united front at this time, it seems that some of the rules were generally implemented. Another spate of press coverage in the early 1920s suggests that efforts were made to prohibit photographing or sketching a Paris model even at public social events or private showings for fear that the circulation or publication of the illustration would enable copying. In addition, admittance to the couture openings was limited to those who "are well known and have been honest in former transactions."(67)

In 1921, for the first time, American garment manufacturers began to discuss seriously the need for adopting Paris-style regulations to protect their own products. A member of the Cloak, Suit and Skirt Manufacturers Protective Association stated that "the garment in a new style is merely an idea, and its value depends upon how good that idea is... Therefore, the garment possesses something besides its intrinsic value, and it would be entirely proper for the manufacturers to get together and agree to protect their designs and to bar out those who rob them of what is probably the most valuable part of their product."(68) From this time on, a variety of trade organizations appear, lobbying for tighter or looser controls on copying, depending upon which side they represented: the copied or the copiers.