I disagree. You simply can't obstruct replication of "ideas", which is what this is. Her designs as a corpus are 1) not trademarks (it would one thing to actually use her name or call them Tuesday Pins or something related), 2) they are by no means patentable (they don't consist of a unique manufacturing process, protection of which would encourage the innovator, or artist, to continue to make improvements to the design at the expense of the market's participation without hurting the market)... and 3) they are not "characters" in the sense that fictional characters, such as Mickey Mouse, can be copyrighted. So what are they? They are a "style", and so in effect, are freely replicable, modifiable, salable.
This entire legal suit misses the point entirely. The hard truth is that what she does is replicable. At the end of the day, the only form of protection she has are her die-hard fans. If the consumer feels morally obligated to only purchase these designs from her because she originated the style, then by all means, consumers should do so, and this will be reflected in demand for the goods (hopefully a higher price). This is the only recourse, period. The law works this way because society would be worse off her work wasn't legally replicable. Production of these pins by Zara employs more people. If you don't like how Zara manufactures goods, or oppose their labor policies, buy Tuesday's pins. Vote with your dollar.
It may be emotionally traumatizing that the only major success this individual has accomplished is being pilfered, but the whole world isn't crying.
Should I be upset that RageOn created an iPhone app that allows users to create custom clothing and have them dye-sublimated printed on white-label products, such as t-shirts, leggings, etc., even though I began development and published the Android app a full two years before they did, and originally had plans to publish an iOS app but didn't have the funding, time, and resources? Because I did: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.elgami.customizer&hl=en, and I'm not upset.
The amount of work I did on that project that has been replicated by them, including potentially patentable technology that has already been reproduced by them without even looking at my source code is freakishly eerie. At the end of the day, what I did, and what Tuesday Bassen has accomplished, is simply not irreplaceable enough to warrant protection because the market suffers overall, by not being able to generate modifications to a replicable product that may ultimately reach a wider audience.
That being said, if the tables turn and she's asked to stop production of her product, then Zara would have no claim. She clearly originated the style. I clearly invented any potentially patentable technology that RageOn may have developed in their app far earlier than they did, and their only recourse would be to hope we don't magically go viral and take up more market share than they do.