Authored By: Shreeparna Pareek
National Law University, Jodhpur
Abstract
Luxury fashion law is one of the rapidly evolving branches of intellectual property law, shaped through landmark judgments and new commercial practices. With every new dispute, courts face a layered question: how far should the law protect the value, exclusivity and identity of a luxury brand, without unnecessarily restricting artistic expression and the creativity of others? This article examines this balance through India’s evolving luxury trademark law, especially the recognition of the Birkin bag’s three-dimensional shape as a well-known trademark, and compares it with the global MetaBirkins dispute involving NFTs and digital fashion. It analyses the Trade Marks Act, 1999, along with relevant design, copyright and international IP frameworks. The article argues that India is progressing in physical luxury-brand protection, but its readiness for digital fashion disputes remains largely untested.
Keywords
Luxury Trademark Law, Fashion Law, Well-Known Trademarks, Shape Marks, Trade Dress, NFTs, Digital Brand Disputes
1. Introduction
Law does not evolve in a vacuum. It develops with society, market conditions, technology and consumer behaviour. Therefore, India’s present stage of development in digital-fashion jurisprudence must be understood in light of India’s own fashion market and litigation landscape. If legal reasoning alone were sufficient to determine the universal direction of law, then any well-reasoned judgment delivered in a developed jurisdiction would automatically be adopted everywhere else. However, legal systems do not function through mechanical transplantation. They evolve through local realities, judicial opportunities, technological change, commercial disputes and the changing needs of the society they regulate.
This is particularly visible in fashion and luxury law. Traditionally, luxury-brand protection focused on counterfeiting, passing off, unauthorised use of logos and physical imitation of goods. However, the value of a luxury brand is no longer limited to its name or label. It also lies in product shape, trade dress, exclusivity, consumer association and, increasingly, digital identity. The growth of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), virtual goods and metaverse fashion has expanded the boundaries of luxury-brand protection beyond the physical marketplace.
Against this background, this article examines India’s evolving approach to luxury fashion law through the recent recognition of the Birkin bag’s three-dimensional shape as a well-known trademark, and compares it with the international MetaBirkins dispute, where courts had to consider trademark rights in the context of NFTs and digital luxury goods. The central research question is whether India’s recognition of luxury product-shape protection reflects a meaningful evolution in fashion law, and whether Indian law is prepared for digital-fashion challenges already visible in international jurisprudence.
The article first explains the conceptual framework of luxury fashion law, then analyses the Indian Birkin judgment and the MetaBirkins dispute, and finally argues that India is evolving, but its digital-fashion jurisprudence remains at an earlier and largely untested stage.
2. Background and Conceptual Framework: Luxury Fashion Branding and Legal Protection
2.1 Background: Luxury Fashion Branding
Luxury fashion branding refers to the process through which clothing, accessories and lifestyle products acquire an identity beyond their functional use. A product may perform the same basic function as another product, yet command a much higher price because consumers are also paying for prestige, exclusivity, craftsmanship, reputation and social association. In luxury fashion, therefore, the brand itself becomes a valuable commercial asset. Fashion and luxury law protects these non-functional attributes from misappropriation while ensuring that protection does not unnecessarily restrict creativity, competition and new ventures.
2.2 Indian Legal Framework
In India, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 forms the central statutory basis for protecting luxury brand identity. Section 2(1)(m) includes shape of goods, packaging and combination of colours within the meaning of “mark”.[1] Section 2(1)(zb) requires a trademark to be graphically representable and capable of distinguishing one person’s goods or services from those of others.[2] These provisions allow protection for brand names, logos, product shapes, packaging and visual features when they identify commercial origin. Well-known trademark protection further strengthens luxury marks with wider reputation.[3]
The Designs Act, 2000 protects the visual appeal of fashion products, including features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to an article and judged solely by the eye.[4] The Copyright Act, 1957 protects artistic works such as sketches, prints, patterns and motifs, although section 15 limits copyright where a registrable design is industrially applied beyond the statutory threshold.[5]
2.3 International Legal Framework
Internationally, luxury fashion protection is shaped by instruments such as the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, which provide broader intellectual property standards for trademarks, industrial designs and protection against unfair competition. In the United States, the Lanham Act addresses trademark infringement, dilution and unfair competition in both physical and digital markets.[6]
2.4 Link to the Present Article
This framework shows that fashion and luxury law protects brand identity through multiple routes: trademark law protects source-identifying signs, design law protects visual appearance, and copyright law protects artistic expression. It helps compare the Indian Birkin judgment on product shape with the MetaBirkins dispute on NFTs and digital fashion.
3. Legal Analysis: India’s Evolving Luxury Fashion Law and Its Readiness for Digital Fashion Disputes
The central issue of this article is where Indian fashion and luxury law currently stands in its journey of evolution, and whether it is prepared for digital-fashion disputes already emerging in international jurisprudence. India has begun moving beyond the narrow protection of brand names and logos by recognising that luxury value may also exist in product shape, visual appearance, trade dress and consumer association. However, the real question is whether this developing framework is capable of addressing disputes involving NFTs, virtual goods, metaverse fashion and digital representations of luxury products.
Indian trademark law provides a flexible foundation for protecting luxury brand value. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 includes the “shape of goods”, packaging and combination of colours within the definition of a mark, and requires a trademark to be capable of graphical representation and of distinguishing one trader’s goods or services from those of others.[7] These provisions show that Indian law is not limited to traditional marks such as names or logos. It can protect non-traditional identifiers, including product shape and trade dress, where they indicate commercial origin.
This flexibility is important in the luxury industry because consumers may recognise a product even without seeing the brand name. A luxury handbag, shoe or accessory may become identifiable through its silhouette, structure, stitching, colour combination or overall presentation. When such features acquire distinctiveness, their unauthorised imitation may mislead consumers or unfairly benefit from the goodwill of the luxury house. The recognition of well-known trademarks also supports this protection because luxury brands often possess reputation beyond their actual purchasers. They operate not only in a market of buyers, but also in a wider market of aspiration and recognition.
The Indian Birkin judgment reflects this stage of development. By recognising the three-dimensional shape of the Birkin bag as a well-known trademark, Indian law acknowledged that the physical form of a luxury product may itself function as a source identifier.[8] The importance of the judgment lies not merely in protecting one handbag, but in recognising that in luxury markets, product form can become a legal signifier of origin, reputation and exclusivity. It also strengthens protection against lookalike products that avoid copying the brand name but imitate the overall visual impression of the original product.
However, this development remains largely connected to the physical marketplace. Indian fashion and luxury disputes have mostly concerned counterfeiting, imitation of tangible goods, passing off, unauthorised use of marks and copying of visual designs. Even when courts protect shape or trade dress, the dispute usually involves material products sold through physical or online channels. The Birkin judgment is therefore progressive, but it does not directly answer how Indian law would treat an NFT handbag, a virtual wearable or a metaverse accessory resembling a famous luxury product.
Digital fashion creates a different legal problem. In physical infringement, courts can compare competing goods. In digital disputes, the alleged infringement may exist only as an image, token, virtual object or digital artwork. This raises harder questions: can a virtual representation of a luxury product create consumer confusion, dilute brand exclusivity or damage goodwill in the real world? Equally, how should courts distinguish between commercial exploitation of a luxury mark and genuine artistic expression, parody or commentary?
The MetaBirkins dispute shows that international jurisprudence has already begun confronting these issues. Unlike a traditional counterfeit case, it concerned NFTs inspired by the Birkin bag. The court had to consider whether the use of luxury-brand identity in digital assets could amount to trademark infringement or dilution, and whether such use could be defended as artistic expression.[9] This marks a shift from protecting luxury goods as physical products to protecting luxury brand value in digital environments.
When compared with this international development, India appears to be in an intermediate stage. It has recognised that luxury value can exist beyond words and logos, but its jurisprudence has not yet fully entered the digital-fashion phase. This gap should not be treated simply as legal backwardness. Legal systems respond to local commercial conditions, consumer behaviour, technological adoption and litigation patterns.
India is therefore not without legal tools. Passing off, dilution, well-known trademark protection and shape-mark recognition may all assist courts in future digital-fashion disputes. The difficulty lies in the absence of tested judicial application to NFTs, virtual goods and metaverse fashion. The real test for India will arise when courts must decide whether a virtual imitation can cause real-world trademark harm. Thus, India’s current evolution shows maturity in protecting physical luxury identity, but its response to digital luxury remains the next stage. The challenge will be to extend existing principles to virtual brand identity while preserving space for artistic expression, commentary, parody and technological innovation.
4. Case Law Discussion: Birkin, MetaBirkins and the Evolution of Luxury Protection
4.1 Hermès International v Macky Lifestyle Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court, 2025)
In this recent Indian decision, the Delhi High Court recognised the three-dimensional shape of the Hermès Birkin bag as a well-known trademark in India.[10] The dispute concerned protection of Hermès’ luxury marks, including the Birkin bag’s distinctive shape, against unauthorised imitation and use. The Court accepted that the shape had acquired strong recognition and could function as an indicator of commercial origin. This decision is significant because it confirms that luxury fashion protection in India is not limited to brand names and logos. A product’s physical form, when sufficiently distinctive and associated with a fashion house, may itself receive trademark protection. The judgment therefore marks an important stage in India’s protection of luxury identity, trade dress and product shape in the physical marketplace.
4.2 Hermès International v Mason Rothschild / MetaBirkins (United States, 2023-2024)
The MetaBirkins dispute represents a major international development in digital fashion and luxury-brand protection. Mason Rothschild created and sold NFTs titled “MetaBirkins”, which were digital artworks inspired by the Hermès Birkin bag. Hermès argued that the NFTs infringed and diluted its Birkin trademarks, while Rothschild claimed that the works were artistic expression. In 2023, a New York jury found in favour of Hermès and held Rothschild liable for trademark infringement, dilution and cybersquatting.[11] The dispute later continued in appellate proceedings, where the balance between trademark rights and artistic expression remained central.[12] This case shows that luxury-brand value may require protection even in digital spaces, including NFTs and virtual goods. The wider significance of the dispute is that the court did not treat NFTs as automatically protected from trademark liability merely because they were connected with artistic works. The case shows that where digital art or virtual goods commercially use the goodwill of a famous luxury mark, courts may look at consumer perception, market effect and brand association, along with the claim of artistic expression. For Indian law, this is especially relevant because future NFT or metaverse disputes may require courts to decide whether a virtual representation can create real-world confusion, dilution or unfair commercial advantage.
4.3 Ritika Pvt Ltd v Biba Apparels Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court, 2016)
In this Indian case, the plaintiff, associated with the Ritu Kumar brand, claimed copyright protection over drawings and sketches used in garments and alleged that Biba had copied them. The Delhi High Court applied section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and held that where a design capable of registration under the Designs Act, 2000 is industrially reproduced more than fifty times without design registration, copyright protection ceases.[13] The decision exposes the limitations of copyright protection for mass-produced fashion designs in India. It also shows why fashion-law disputes in India often require a combined reading of copyright, design and trademark principles rather than reliance on one branch of intellectual property law alone. Against this background, the Birkin judgment becomes important because it shifts attention towards trademark-based protection of distinctive luxury identity, while MetaBirkins shows how that identity is now being tested in digital environments.
5. Critical Analysis and Findings
The comparison between the Indian Birkin judgment and the MetaBirkins dispute reveals that Indian fashion and luxury law is evolving, but its evolution is still concentrated around the protection of physical luxury goods. Indian courts have begun recognising that luxury value may exist not only in words and logos, but also in product shape, trade dress and visual distinctiveness. This is an important judicial trend because it reflects a broader understanding of how luxury brands function in the market. In luxury fashion, consumers often associate reputation, exclusivity and prestige with the appearance of the product itself.
However, the major gap lies in India’s limited engagement with digital-fashion disputes. Indian law has statutory tools such as shape marks, well-known trademarks, passing off and dilution, but these tools have not yet been fully tested in relation to NFTs, virtual goods or metaverse fashion. The problem is therefore not the complete absence of law, but the absence of developed judicial application in digital environments. This makes India’s position transitional: it has moved beyond basic anti-counterfeiting protection, but it has not yet reached the stage where courts are regularly addressing virtual luxury identity.
The MetaBirkins dispute shows how international jurisprudence is already confronting questions that India may soon face. These include whether a digital representation of a luxury product can confuse consumers, dilute brand value or commercially exploit goodwill, and how courts should balance trademark protection with artistic expression. This balance is crucial because excessive protection may allow luxury brands to control too much creative space, while insufficient protection may encourage digital misappropriation of famous marks.
A comparative observation is that India should not mechanically import foreign decisions. International cases can guide Indian courts when similar disputes arise, but Indian courts will still have to adapt the reasoning to India’s market and consumer context. This creates an important policy concern. India should clarify how existing trademark and IP principles may apply to NFTs, virtual goods and metaverse branding, while still preserving space for parody, commentary, artistic expression and new creative ventures.
6. Conclusion
India’s fashion and luxury law has clearly moved beyond the basic protection of brand names and logos. The recognition of the Birkin bag’s three-dimensional shape as a well-known trademark shows that Indian courts are increasingly willing to protect luxury value embedded in product shape, trade dress, visual distinctiveness and consumer association. This reflects a meaningful stage in the evolution of Indian luxury-fashion jurisprudence.
However, the comparison with the MetaBirkins dispute shows that international jurisprudence has already entered a more complex digital phase. Questions relating to NFTs, virtual goods, metaverse fashion, digital dilution and artistic expression have not yet been fully tested before Indian courts. Therefore, India is not without legal tools; rather, its existing trademark and IP principles await application in digital-fashion disputes.
The research question can therefore be answered clearly: India is evolving steadily in physical luxury-brand protection, but its readiness for digital-fashion disputes remains largely untested. Going forward, Indian courts should adapt existing principles of shape marks, well-known trademarks, passing off and dilution to virtual brand identity, while ensuring that protection of luxury brands does not suppress artistic expression, parody, commentary or technological innovation.
7. References and Bibliography
7.1 Cases
Hermès International and Anr v Macky Lifestyle Private Limited and Anr CS(COMM) 716/2021 (Delhi High Court, 24 November 2025).
Hermès International and Hermès of Paris, Inc v Mason Rothschild No 22-CV-384-JSR, 2023 WL 1458126 (SDNY, 2 February 2023).
Ritika Pvt Ltd v Biba Apparels Pvt Ltd 230 (2016) DLT 109.
Christian Louboutin SAS v Abubaker and Ors 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12215.
7.2 Statutes
Copyright Act 1957.
Designs Act 2000.
Trade Marks Act 1999.
Lanham Act 1946, 15 USC §§ 1051-1141n.
7.3 International Instruments
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994.
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 1883.
7.4 Articles / Online Sources
World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘Hermès Int’l v Rothschild, No 22-CV-384-JSR, 2023 WL 1458126 (SDNY Feb 2, 2023)’ (WIPO Lex) <https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/judgments/details/1841> accessed 8 June 2026.
Reuters, ‘MetaBirkins NFT creator, Hermes square off in US trademark appeal’ (Reuters, 23 October 2024) <https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/metabirkins-nft-creator-hermes-square-off-us-trademark-appeal-2024-10-23/> accessed 8 June 2026.
Times of India, ‘The three-dimensional shape of Birkin is a well-known trademark: Delhi High Court’ (Times of India, 2025) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/spotlight/the-three-dimensional-shape-of-birkin-is-a-well-known-trademark-delhi-high-court/articleshow/125611328.cms> accessed 8 June 2026.
The Fashion Law, ‘Hermès and Rothschild’s MetaBirkins Fight Heads to the Second Circuit’ (The Fashion Law, 24 October 2024) <https://www.thefashionlaw.com/hermes-and-rothschild-metabirkins-fight-heads-to-the-second-circuit/> accessed 8 June 2026.
[1] Trade Marks Act 1999, s 2(1)(m).
[2] Trade Marks Act 1999, s 2(1)(zb).
[3] Trade Marks Act 1999, ss 2(1)(zg), 11(6), 11(7).
[4] Designs Act 2000, s 2(d).
[5] Copyright Act 1957, s 15.
[6] Lanham Act 1946, 15 USC §§ 1051-1141n; Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994; Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 1883.
[7] Trade Marks Act 1999, ss 2(1)(m), 2(1)(zb).
[8] Hermès International and Anr v Macky Lifestyle Private Limited and Anr CS(COMM) 716/2021 (Delhi High Court, 24 November 2025).
[9] Hermès International and Hermès of Paris, Inc v Mason Rothschild No 22-CV-384-JSR, 2023 WL 1458126 (SDNY, 2 February 2023).
[10] Hermès International and Anr v Macky Lifestyle Private Limited and Anr CS(COMM) 716/2021 (Delhi High Court, 24 November 2025).
[11] Hermès International and Hermès of Paris, Inc v Mason Rothschild No 22-CV-384-JSR, 2023 WL 1458126 (SDNY, 2 February 2023).
[12] Reuters, ‘MetaBirkins NFT creator, Hermes square off in US trademark appeal’ (Reuters, 23 October 2024) <https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/metabirkins-nft-creator-hermes-square-off-us-trademark-appeal-2024-10-23/> accessed 8 June 2026.
[13] Ritika Pvt Ltd v Biba Apparels Pvt Ltd 230 (2016) DLT 109; Copyright Act 1957, s 15(2).
