FAST FASHION: A LEGAL UNDERSTANDING AND ANALYSIS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

ABSTRACT

Fast fashion is a rapidly growing phenomenon that has occupied an important place in digital commerce. Though seeking to provide affordable trendy clothing readily, it lands itself in a lot of gray areas regarding ethics, sustainability and piracy. This article explores the counterfeit culture of fast fashion module and how it affects the intellectual property rights of individual creators and fashion houses. Through a study of The Copyright Act 1957, Designs Act 2000 and landmark judgments, this article seeks to examine and observe legal loopholes and remedies. It propounds on several issues, arguing how ineffective enforcement affects creators. It concludes by restating the need for reform and highlighting the necessity for better and inclusive justice that balance interests of all citizens and creators.

Keywords: Fast fashion, Intellectual Property, Copyright, Designs, Counterfeiting, Infringement, Protection

1. INTRODUCTION

Contemporary life revolves around important conversations of intellectual property rights in fashion. This includes the growing phenomenon of ‘fast fashion’ and how it encroaches upon intellectual property rights by the cheap and ready commercialization of fashion trends, counterfeit of designs, mass production, replication of clothing and accessories and misusing the legal interpretation of free use in public domain. It becomes imperative to observe frameworks through which it can be regulated without affecting the basic consumer right to affordable and sustainable clothing.

Legal intervention and interpretation are crucial in differentiating between inspiration and plagiarism. Assessing this issue becomes necessary as it involves important questions of rights of fashion designers and label, creative liberty and reaping profits off protected entities.

This article seeks to study different instances of Intellectual Property Rights violation in the domain of fast fashion and highlight relevant laws and precedents that shall be applied to critically analyse the existing loopholes and ways to protect the creation. Understanding jurisdictions regarding clothing industries and garment factories and how copyright compliance plays out in industrial production points to legal gaps and loopholes. Through this article we dissect the gruelling complex of fast fashion giants and discuss what legal recourse exists and can be adopted.

2. BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: HOW FAST FASHION IS CONNECTED TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERT RIGHTS

Intellectual property is defined as “creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce”[1]. These creations are protected through certain legislation such as copyright, trademarks, patents and trade secrets.  Copyright refers to the protection granted to creators against indiscriminate imitation of artistic works. Trademark is a mark granted as a distinguished identity to IP creations that allows control over the brand image and usage. Patents are rights granted for innovations and trade secrets refer to certain confidential information of a company that can be traded.

Fast fashion is a business module that rapidly translates fashion trends and runaway designs into everyday apparel at a low cost[2]. It utilizes mass production and covert practices to produce cheap clothing ready for distribution at large. They fall in the intersection of quick commerce and self-expression as more and more consumers seek cheap and affordable clothing that also embodies the glamour of fashion statements.

Intellectual property rights are largely determined in India by The Copyright Act 1957, Designs Act 2000 and Trademarks Act 1999 which provide key definitions and clauses that regulate the fashion market. These laws alongside international treaties such as the Paris Convention, Madrid Protocol and definitions by the World Intellectual Property Organization provide remedies to designers and creators seeking to protect their designs against encroachment.

However, the fast-paced nature of the modern clothing manufacturers makes it difficult for creators to access protection. Legal hurdles and loopholes in existing jurisdiction and the lack of it enables the fast fashion giants to get away with large scale replications. With growing social media influence, this issue gets further compounded as companies profit off original designs in the name of following trends. It is pertinent to discuss laws and legislation that enable protections to independent creators and fashion houses from the claws of the mass-market industries.

Through legal statutes, case precedents and peer-reviewed journals, this article seeks to establish and analyse the complexities of modern fashion industries and how Intellectual Property Laws can be utilized to shield designers from rampant plagiarizing.

3. LEGAL ANALYSIS

The evolving modern fashion scene coupled with the growing social media influence and consumers tilting towards cheap replications without caring about the source indicates a booming market for the fast fashion industry. Hence IP laws take crucial stage in determining artistic, consumer and industrial rights.

Intellectual property rights in fast fashion have been concerning because of the difficulty to govern the difference between inspiration and infringement when it comes to rapid replication of fashion trends. Brands like Shein, Zara (considered monumental in popularizing fast fashion) have been accused of plagiarizing independent labels or creators. In 2024, Japanese clothing line Uniqlo sued Shein under Japan’s Unfair Competition Prevention Law, claiming the company had copied their shoulder bag[3]. Many instances of creators seeking legal protection of their designs being sold and produced outside of their umbrella highlight the interplay between authorship and encroachment.

In Christian Louboutin SAS vs Nakul Bajaj Ors[4], the court recognised the “Red sole” and the brand name trademark of the French company and established the unauthorized use of these through the defendant’s e-commerce website. It reaffirmed the Louboutin’s assertion that only approved distributors may sell them. This judgement propounds on the owners right to control the branding and distribution of their products and if “dupes” are being circulated it becomes a duty of the law to perform justice.

Legal gaps exist that make it hard to regulate industrial protection of designs. Though the Copyright Act 1957 allows protection to original works but under Section 15(2), copyright protection ceases if an artistic work falling in the ambit of registration under Designs Act 2000 has failed to be registered and is industrially produced more than 50 times. This is a particular grievance for brands, as before they follow the procedure and obtain registration, copies of their designs are produced. In Ritika Private Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. (2016), the plaintiff accused a clothing company of imitating their designs and sketches. The case was dismissed as the court observed that her designs were not registered under the Designs Act and had been reproduced more than 50 times[5].

IP laws further face criticality due to the “Piracy Paradox”[6], which highlights the cyclic nature of imitation and innovation. Fast Fashion giants shield themselves under the garb of producing functional designs through ones present in the public domain. Through this they can bypass patent or copyright claims stating they have utilized common textile techniques.  Importance is to be given in this regard as it forms the legal foundation of protecting fashion design from industrial churning while maintaining functional clothing production in a sustainable manner as in certain jurisdictions many clothing pieces are exempted from statutory protection owing to them being “useful articles” [7].

4. CASE LAW DISCUSSION

4.1 Rahul Mishra & Anr. Vs. John Doe & Anr  (High Court Of Delhi,2024)

The plaintiff- Rahul Mishra, an Indian designer, filed a John Doe suit against illegal copying and counterfeit of his designs on a dupe website. A John Doe suit is filed against unknown individuals, here a website with the name www.rahudress.com that was selling exact replicas of dresses made under Rahul Mishra’s brand and sold them at a lower price. Since the identity of the defendant could not be recognised, the plaintiff pursued a John Doe case, seeking an injunction against the infringement of his copyright and trademarks.

The plaintiff claims trademark protection of the brand name “RAHUL MISHRA”, protection of their handcrafted designs and official pictures from the runaway under Section 2(c) and Section 14 of the Copyright Act 1957 respectfully. The defendant is accused of performing the impugned act of using plaintiff’s intellectual properties and diluting his brand image. Further, by limiting production size below 50, the plaintiff is protected against Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act 1957.

The court contented a prima facie case and granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction, also known as a dynamic injunction. The website’s domain was locked and suspended to prevent further infringement.

This case highlights the importance of IP laws in protecting against plagiarizing through unsolicited online websites. It also highlights how legal awareness leads to reasonable industrial practices that further protect the authorship of a creator.

4.2 Stella McCartney vs. Steve Madden (Southern Court of New York,2015)

Steve Madden has been infamous for being caught up in a pile of litigation related to copyright infringement. In this case, the plaintiff – Stella McCartney Limited filed a lawsuit for “trade dress infringement, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, trade dress dilution, and design patent infringement” due to the sale of a knock-off version of the famous FALABELLA bag by Stella McCartney.

Trade dress is defined as “the overall commercial image (look and feel) of a product or service that indicates or identifies the source of the product or service and distinguishes it from those of others”.

The plaintiff alleged that the product sold under the name of BTOTALLY bag was virtually identical but inferior in quality and caused reputational harm to the brand name. It also caused economic harms as it diverted sales from the plaintiff’s brand. McCartney’s lawyers sought a permanent injunction to halt sales of Madden’s bag, destruction of the infringing inventory, and unspecified damages

The case was settled outside the court with detail kept confidential and a voluntary dismissal was filed leading the court to close the case.

This case further showcases how fast fashion tactics are applied to copy off original designs and how legal avenues can put a stop to it. At the same time, we must acknowledge the fact that it was largely due to the plaintiff’s reputation that she managed to extract a settlement whereas any compensatory pathway maybe hard to achieve for a small or little-known creator when their creations get pirated by big companies.

5. CRITICAL ANALYSIS

An analysis of the enforcement of IP laws in the fast fashion landscape points to some serious flaws.

On the face, it seems like these laws are the ultimate safeguard of the interests of creators, however, it largely depends on the financial strength of the owners. For big brands and names like Christian Louboutin and Sabyasachi[8], it is relatively easier to monitor and opt for legal action in case of encroachment. They can cover up the expenses of the litigation far easier than small and upcoming brands who have to face anxiety and uncertainty while considering legal pathways. 

This disparity furthers enables exploitation as big fast fashion brands are always on the lookout for trendy ideas and the small creators, due to lack of proper monitoring or awareness, fall prey to their infringing tactics. Further, during a litigation, it is more likely that a big fashion house will be given more importance owing to their high reputation stakes. Hence enforcement of IP laws becomes a bigger hurdle for new and small creators and gravely hampers the right to their creations.

Lack of legal awareness among the owners also hinders their pursuit. For example, Ritu Kumari lost her suit against Biba Apparels owing to the exemption under Section 15(2) while veteran designers like Rahul Mishra and Gaurav Gupta gained points by limiting production of their designs to less than 50 in order to protect its exclusive nature and landed victory in their respective cases. This highlights that better understanding of IP laws both in Indian and international context can help creators battle rampant plagiarism.

Increasing influence of social media on the market affects consumer patterns, making them more drawn towards quick, cheap and vast assortment of outfits without thinking of the ethical or environmental implication of quick fashion consumption. It makes the situation grave, as the fast fashion industry grows unchecked with more and more customer base. Social media further makes it easier for them to copy and replicate designs by algorithms designed to keep an eye on the newest fashion trends. So even before creators can understand what has happened, their designs maybe repurposed and sold in a quick cycle. By the time they understand, the market may be gripped by another sensation by another trend thus downplaying their cause, especially if they lack the resources to counter attack.

Another gap in jurisdictions arises when companies copy designs discretely, justifying it by calling it functional and utilitarian. This raises important questions of what constitutes an original creation and what is imitation and as fashion is largely an accumulation of standard functional entities and preceding styles.

The way to strengthen IP legislation would be to make legal processes smooth and transparent and by increasing legal awareness among creators. Consumer mindset must be influenced by robust conversations about the implications of fast fashion. The ways to access protection must be made speedy and accessible to small creators. Just authorship is the right of every creative mind and not just ones with big names and resources.

6. CONCLUSION

Fast fashion has become a persistent and booming industrial model that will only go on to grow further. The modern fashion industry and the growing presence of industrial fashion companies lead to several question of control, visibility and authorship. Hence it becomes important to have conversations regarding regulation, supervision and authorship of fashion creators.

Intellectual property laws gain much relevancy in this regard as they implement mechanisms through which creations and designs can be protected and brand owners gain autonomy over their productions.

However, several structural, foundational and enforcement issues persist that prevent a transparent legal pathway towards justice for all creators. This must be prevented by analyzing and undertaking better frameworks that balances both the right of citizens and ownership of creators.

A thorough understanding of this issue and collaboration among different sectors is essential to bridge present gaps.

REFERENCE(S):

1. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2019). The intersection of fashion and intellectual property rights. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int
2. Alyssa Hardy, ‘Everything You Need To Know About Fast Fashion’ https://www.vogue.com/article/what-is-fast-fashion
3. The Copyrights Act,1957 (India). https://www.copyright.gov.in/Documents/Copyrightrules1957.pdf
4. The Designs Act,2000(India). https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1917/1/200016.pdf
5. ‘Uniqlo sues Shein over claims firm copied viral shoulder bag’ https://bbc.com/news/business-67994135.
6. Christian Louboutin SAS v Nakul Bajaj and Ors, CS (COMM) 344/2018, Delhi High Court.
7. Ritika Private Limited Vs. Biba Apparels Private Limited,CS(OS)–182/2011, High Court of Delhi (India).
8. Kal Raustiala & Christopher Sprigman, ‘The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design’ (2006) 92(8) Virginia Law Review.
9. S Copyrights Act 1976.
10. Rahul Mishra & Anr. Vs. John Doe & Anr High Court Of Delhi | Cs(Comm) 1194/2024.
11. Stella McCartney Limited v. Steve Madden Ltd. Case Number. 1:15-cv-07906. Court. New York Southern.
12. Sabyasachi Calcutta LLP v. Mr. Ankit Keyal, proprietor of Asiana Couture & Ors. CS(Comm) 553/20.

[1] .  World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2019). The intersection of fashion and intellectual property rights. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int

[2] Alyssa Hardy, ‘Everything You Need To Know About Fast Fashion’

[3] ‘Uniqlo sues Shein over claims firm copied viral shoulder bag’ https://bbc.com/news/business-67994135

[4] Christian Louboutin SAS v Nakul Bajaj and Ors, CS (COMM) 344/2018, Delhi High Court

[5] RItika Private Limited Vs. Biba Apparels Private Limited,CS(OS)–182/2011, High Court of Delhi (India)

[6] Kal Raustiala & Christopher Sprigman, ‘The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design’ (2006) 92(8) Virginia Law Review

[7] U.S Copyrights Act 1976.

[8] Sabyasachi Calcutta LLP v. Mr. Ankit Keyal, proprietor of Asiana Couture & Ors. CS(Comm) 553/20