PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL TEXTILE DESIGNS AND INDIGENOUS FASHION UNDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW: CHALLENGES AND THENEED FOR STRONGER LEGAL SAFEGUARDS IN INDIA

Abstract

India’s traditional textile heritage represents an invaluable repository of cultural identity, artistic expression, and indigenous knowledge accumulated over centuries. Textiles such as Banarasi brocades, Kanchipuram silk, Pochampally Ikat, Chanderi, and Kashmiri Pashmina have attained international recognition and contribute significantly to the country’s creative economy. However, the growing commercialization of fashion and the rise of fast fashion have intensified concerns regarding unauthorized reproduction, cultural appropriation, and misappropriation of traditional textile designs. Existing intellectual property mechanisms, including copyright, design, trademark, and geographical indication laws, provide fragmented protection and often fail to adequately safeguard collective cultural expressions. This article critically examines the extent to which the Indian intellectual property framework protects traditional textile designs and indigenous fashion. It argues that the existing legal regime is inadequate and advocates the adoption of a sui generis framework capable of addressing the unique characteristics of traditional cultural expressions. The article further analyses relevant judicial decisions and international developments under the TRIPS Agreement and the World Intellectual Property Organization.

1. Introduction

The global fashion industry has undergone remarkable transformation over the last few decades, emerging as one of the most influential sectors of the creative economy. Fashion today extends beyond aesthetics and commercial value and increasingly intersects with intellectual property law, cultural heritage, and indigenous rights. In this context, traditional textile designs and indigenous fashion occupy a unique position because they embody not merely artistic creativity but also centuries of accumulated knowledge, social practices, and cultural identity passed down through generations.[1]

India possesses one of the richest textile traditions in the world. Handwoven fabrics and intricate patterns such as Banarasi brocades, Kanchipuram silk sarees, Chanderi textiles, Pochampally Ikat, and Kashmiri Pashmina represent the cultural heritage of distinct communities and have acquired immense national and international recognition.[2] These textiles contribute substantially to employment generation and the preservation of traditional craftsmanship. According to the Ministry of Textiles, the handloom sector remains one of the largest sources of livelihood in rural India, supporting millions of artisans and weavers.[3]

Despite their cultural and economic significance, traditional textile designs remain vulnerable to unauthorized copying and commercial exploitation. Contemporary fashion brands frequently draw inspiration from indigenous patterns and motifs, often without attribution or economic benefit accruing to the communities responsible for their creation.[4]The phenomenon of cultural appropriation and imitation has intensified with globalization and the rise of fast fashion, thereby raising complex questions concerning ownership, authorship, and the adequacy of existing intellectual property laws.[5]

Conventional intellectual property systems are primarily founded upon concepts such as originality, novelty, and identifiable authorship. However, traditional cultural expressions are communal creations that evolve over generations and generally lack a single identifiable creator.[6]Consequently, they do not fit comfortably within the framework of copyright, design, or trademark law. Although the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999 has emerged as an important mechanism for protecting traditional products, it does not comprehensively safeguard traditional motifs and artistic expressions associated with such goods.[7]

International organizations, particularly the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), have increasingly recognized the need for stronger protection of traditional cultural expressions and indigenous knowledge systems.[8]Nevertheless, the absence of a universally accepted framework continues to expose indigenous communities to exploitation and deprives them of equitable economic benefits arising from the commercialization of their cultural heritage.

This article seeks to answer the following research question:

Whether the existing intellectual property framework in India provides adequate protection to traditional textile designs and indigenous fashion, and whether stronger legal safeguards are required to prevent their misappropriation and ensure equitable protection of cultural heritage?

To address this question, the article first examines the conceptual foundations of traditional cultural expressions and the legal framework governing intellectual property protection in India. It then critically analyses the limitations of existing laws, discusses relevant judicial decisions, and evaluates international developments concerning traditional knowledge and cultural heritage. Finally, the article proposes reforms aimed at establishing a more comprehensive and effective framework for the protection of traditional textile designs and indigenous fashion.

2. Background and Conceptual Framework

Traditional textile designs constitute an important category of traditional cultural expressions. These expressions encompass artistic and cultural manifestations developed, preserved, and transmitted collectively by indigenous and local communities across generations.[9] Unlike conventional forms of intellectual property, traditional cultural expressions are characterized by collective ownership, continuity, and their close association with cultural identity and heritage.[10]

Traditional textiles embody the customs, beliefs, and artistic practices of communities and often represent centuries of accumulated knowledge. India’s diverse textile traditions, including Banarasi silk, Chanderi, Kanchipuram silk, Pochampally Ikat, Patola, and Pashmina, illustrate the richness of indigenous craftsmanship and demonstrate the interrelationship between culture and commerce.[11]These textiles have acquired both economic significance and symbolic value, serving as markers of identity and preserving the historical legacy of communities engaged in their production.

The protection of traditional textile designs presents significant challenges because conventional intellectual property regimes were originally designed to reward individual innovation rather than collective creativity.[12] Copyright law generally requires identifiable authorship and originality, while design law is premised upon novelty and industrial applicability.[13]Since many traditional designs have existed for centuries and have evolved through collective contributions, they often fail to satisfy these requirements.

Similarly, trademark law primarily seeks to prevent consumer confusion and protect commercial goodwill rather than preserve cultural heritage.[14] Consequently, traditional textile motifs and patterns frequently remain outside the scope of effective legal protection. This inadequacy has become increasingly evident in the context of globalization and digital commerce, where unauthorized reproduction and cultural appropriation can occur on a global scale.

Recognizing the importance of protecting products associated with geographical origin, India enacted the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999. Geographical indications protect goods possessing qualities, reputation, or characteristics attributable to a specific geographical region.[15] Under this framework, several traditional textiles, including Banarasi Brocades and Sarees, Kanchipuram Silk Sarees, and Pochampally Ikat, have received registration and recognition.[16]

Although geographical indications provide valuable protection against misuse of geographical names, they do not necessarily prevent the copying of artistic motifs or cultural expressions detached from their geographical identity.[17] Consequently, while producers may prevent others from falsely representing the geographical origin of products, they cannot effectively restrain the unauthorized use of traditional designs themselves.

At the international level, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) recognizes geographical indications and establishes minimum standards for their protection.[18]Furthermore, the World Intellectual Property Organization has undertaken significant efforts through its Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore to develop an international framework concerning traditional cultural expressions.[19] Despite these initiatives, the absence of binding international norms continues to create uncertainties regarding ownership and protection.

Therefore, the existing legal framework reveals an inherent tension between traditional knowledge systems and conventional intellectual property doctrines. This tension forms the basis of the contemporary debate regarding the necessity of specialized legal mechanisms for safeguarding indigenous fashion and traditional textile designs.

3. Legal Analysis

The protection of traditional textile designs and indigenous fashion under Indian intellectual property law presents a complex challenge because conventional intellectual property regimes were primarily designed to reward individual innovation rather than collective and intergenerational creativity. While India possesses a comprehensive intellectual property framework consisting of copyright, design, trademark, and geographical indication laws, these mechanisms provide only fragmented protection to traditional cultural expressions. Consequently, traditional textile heritage remains vulnerable to misappropriation and unauthorized commercial exploitation.

3.1 Copyright Protection and its Limitations

The Copyright Act 1957 grants protection to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works.[20] Artistic works include paintings, drawings, engravings, and works of artistic craftsmanship.[21]In principle, textile patterns and motifs may qualify as artistic works capable of copyright protection. However, copyright law is fundamentally based upon originality and identifiable authorship.[22]

Traditional textile designs differ from conventional artistic works because they evolve through the collective efforts of communities over generations and often lack a single identifiable creator.[23] As a result, many indigenous motifs fail to satisfy the originality requirement envisioned under copyright law.

Furthermore, Section 15 of the Copyright Act creates an additional limitation. Where an artistic work capable of registration under the Designs Act is reproduced industrially more than fifty times, copyright protection ceases.[24] Since fashion products and textile designs are frequently manufactured on a commercial scale, copyright protection becomes short-lived and inadequate.

The inadequacy of copyright law is particularly problematic in relation to indigenous communities. The law recognizes individual ownership and limited duration of protection, whereas traditional cultural expressions are collective creations that communities seek to preserve indefinitely.[25] Consequently, copyright law fails to address the unique nature of traditional textile heritage.

3.2 Protection under the Designs Act, 2000

The Designs Act 2000 was enacted to protect novel and original industrial designs.[26] Registration under the Act grants exclusive rights for ten years, extendable by five additional years.[27]

Although textile patterns and fabric designs may qualify for registration, the requirement of novelty creates a significant obstacle for traditional designs. Indigenous motifs such as Banarasi floral patterns, Pochampally Ikat designs, and Kashmiri embroidery have existed for centuries and are therefore incapable of satisfying the statutory requirement of novelty.[28]

The rationale behind design protection is to encourage innovation and industrial creativity. However, traditional cultural expressions derive their value not from novelty but from continuity, authenticity, and historical significance.[29]Consequently, many traditional designs remain outside the scope of protection under the Designs Act.

The limited duration of design protection also undermines the preservation of cultural heritage. Traditional communities seek perpetual protection against unauthorized exploitation, whereas the Designs Act provides only temporary monopolies.[30] Thus, the legislation is ill-equipped to accommodate the interests of indigenous communities.

3.3 Trademark Law and the Protection of Reputation

Trademark law protects signs, symbols, names, and marks capable of distinguishing goods and services.[31] The Trade Marks Act 1999 primarily aims to prevent consumer confusion and safeguard commercial goodwill.[32]

Luxury fashion brands have effectively utilized trademark law to preserve their identity and market reputation. However, the application of trademark principles to traditional textile designs remains limited because trademark law protects indicators of commercial origin rather than artistic motifs or cultural expressions.[33]

Collective marks and certification marks provide certain opportunities for protecting traditional products.[34]Nevertheless, these mechanisms do not adequately prevent third parties from reproducing traditional designs detached from their source communities.

Moreover, trademark law does not address broader concerns of cultural appropriation and equitable benefit-sharing. Consequently, indigenous communities often remain unable to assert meaningful control over the commercial use of their traditional heritage.[35]

3.4 Geographical Indications as the Principal Mode of Protection

Among existing intellectual property mechanisms, geographical indications represent the most effective instrument available for protecting traditional textiles in India. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999 was enacted to implement India’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and to safeguard products possessing qualities or reputation attributable to a specific geographical origin.[36]

Several Indian textile products have acquired geographical indication status, including:

• Banarasi Brocades and Sarees;
• Kanchipuram Silk Sarees;
• Pochampally Ikat;
• Chanderi Fabrics;
• Kashmir Pashmina;
• Patan Patola.[37]

Geographical indications confer collective rights upon authorized users and enable communities to prevent misuse of geographical names.[38] These rights contribute to preserving authenticity and enhancing the commercial value of traditional products.

Despite these advantages, geographical indications suffer from inherent limitations. They protect the geographical identity of goods rather than the underlying artistic motifs or designs themselves.[39] Therefore, a foreign manufacturer may reproduce Banarasi or Ikat patterns provided that no false indication regarding geographical origin is made.

Consequently, geographical indications offer only partial protection and fail to address cultural appropriation occurring outside the framework of geographical misrepresentation.

3.5 International Developments under TRIPS and WIPO

At the international level, Articles 22 to 24 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights recognize geographical indications and establish minimum standards of protection.[40]Nevertheless, the TRIPS Agreement does not specifically address traditional cultural expressions or indigenous fashion.

Recognizing this gap, the World Intellectual Property Organization established the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC).[41] The Committee has undertaken extensive negotiations aimed at developing an international legal instrument for protecting traditional cultural expressions and indigenous knowledge systems.[42]

WIPO has emphasized that traditional cultural expressions differ fundamentally from conventional intellectual property because they are collective, intergenerational, and closely linked to cultural identity.[43] Accordingly, many scholars have advocated the establishment of a sui generis regime specifically designed to accommodate the distinctive characteristics of traditional heritage.[44]

Countries such as Panama and New Zealand have already adopted specialized legal frameworks recognizing indigenous cultural rights and providing stronger protection against unauthorized commercialization.[45] These developments demonstrate the growing international consensus regarding the need for legal mechanisms that extend beyond traditional intellectual property doctrines.

3.6 The Need for a Sui Generis Framework in India

The fragmented nature of existing intellectual property laws reveals their inability to provide comprehensive protection to traditional textile designs and indigenous fashion. Copyright law emphasizes originality and authorship, design law prioritizes novelty, trademark law focuses on commercial reputation, and geographical indications merely protect geographical identity.[46]

Traditional cultural expressions, however, are collective creations transmitted across generations and embody cultural, historical, and spiritual significance. Their protection requires legal principles based upon community ownership, perpetual duration, prior informed consent, and equitable benefit-sharing.[47]

Accordingly, India should consider introducing a sui generis framework specifically tailored to traditional cultural expressions. Such a regime would recognize the collective rights of indigenous communities, prevent cultural appropriation, and ensure that economic benefits arising from commercialization are shared with the custodians of traditional knowledge.[48]

4. Case Law Discussion

Judicial interpretation has played a significant role in defining the scope and limitations of intellectual property protection available to fashion designs and artistic expressions. Although Indian courts have not directly addressed the issue of traditional textile designs and indigenous fashion, several decisions concerning copyright, design, and trademark protection provide valuable insights into the challenges faced by traditional cultural expressions.

4.1 Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co (2009)

One of the most important decisions concerning the protection of textile designs is Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co.[49] The dispute arose when the plaintiff alleged infringement of artistic works embodied in upholstery fabric designs. The defendant argued that once such artistic works were industrially applied, they fell within the scope of the Designs Act, 2000, rather than copyright law.

The Delhi High Court examined the relationship between the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Designs Act, 2000 and observed that the purpose of Section 15 of the Copyright Act was to prevent dual protection under both statutes.[50] The Court held that where artistic works capable of registration under the Designs Act are reproduced industrially more than fifty times, copyright protection ceases.

The judgment clarified the distinction between artistic works and industrial designs and emphasized that mass-produced designs should ordinarily be protected under the Designs Act rather than copyright law.[51]

The decision is particularly relevant to traditional textile designs because it exposes a significant gap within the intellectual property framework. Since indigenous motifs are frequently reproduced on a large scale and often fail to satisfy the novelty requirement under the Designs Act, communities may effectively be deprived of meaningful legal protection. Thus, the case demonstrates the inadequacy of existing laws in accommodating traditional cultural expressions.

4.2 Ritika Private Limited v Biba Apparels Private Limited (2016)

In Ritika Private Limited v Biba Apparels Private Limited,[52] the Delhi High Court dealt with allegations concerning the unauthorized reproduction of printed patterns and garment designs. The plaintiff claimed copyright infringement in relation to sketches and designs used in clothing articles.

The Court held that once such designs were capable of registration under the Designs Act and had been reproduced more than fifty times through industrial processes, Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act extinguished copyright protection.[53]Consequently, the plaintiff could not claim copyright infringement.

The judgment reaffirmed the principle laid down in Microfibres and emphasized that copyright protection in fashion designs is subject to statutory limitations intended to prevent overlapping monopolies.[54]

The case is significant because it highlights the vulnerability of fashion-related artistic works under Indian intellectual property law. Traditional textile motifs, which are often reproduced extensively and have existed for generations, face even greater difficulties in securing protection. Accordingly, the decision illustrates the inability of copyright law to preserve collective cultural heritage and strengthens the argument for specialized legal mechanisms.

4.3 Christian Louboutin SAS v Nakul Bajaj (2018)

In Christian Louboutin SAS v Nakul Bajaj,[55] the Delhi High Court considered whether the unauthorized use of the luxury brand’s trademarks and reputation by an online platform constituted infringement.

The Court recognized the immense commercial value attached to luxury brands and held that unauthorized association with such brands could amount to trademark infringement and passing off.[56]The Court emphasized that trademarks serve not merely as indicators of origin but also as repositories of reputation and goodwill accumulated through years of investment and consumer recognition.[57]

Although the dispute concerned luxury trademarks rather than indigenous designs, the principles articulated by the Court possess broader implications. Traditional textile products such as Banarasi silk and Kanchipuram sarees similarly derive their value from reputation developed over centuries. Their goodwill and cultural significance are closely associated with the communities that have preserved these traditions.

The judgment therefore underscores the importance of protecting intangible cultural identity and supports the proposition that legal frameworks should recognize and preserve the collective reputation attached to traditional textile heritage.

4.4 Star Athletica LLC v Varsity Brands Inc (2017)

The United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of copyright protection for fashion designs in Star Athletica LLC v Varsity Brands Inc.[58]The dispute concerned decorative patterns appearing on cheerleading uniforms and whether such designs could be protected independently of the utilitarian aspects of the garments.

The Supreme Court held that artistic features incorporated into useful articles may qualify for copyright protection if they are capable of being identified separately and can exist independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article.[59]The Court thereby adopted the principle of conceptual separability.

The decision represented a significant development in fashion law by expanding the scope of copyright protection available to decorative elements embodied in functional objects.[60]

However, even this liberal approach remains inadequate for traditional textile designs because indigenous motifs generally lack identifiable authors and have evolved collectively over centuries. Consequently, despite differences between Indian and American approaches, both systems continue to encounter difficulties in protecting traditional cultural expressions.

Collectively, these judicial decisions reveal that existing intellectual property doctrines are primarily designed to protect individual creativity and commercial innovation rather than communal and intergenerational knowledge systems. The cases expose significant gaps within conventional intellectual property frameworks and strengthen the case for establishing a sui generis regime capable of providing effective protection to traditional textile designs and indigenous fashion.

5. Critical Analysis and Findings

The foregoing analysis demonstrates that the existing intellectual property framework in India is inadequate to effectively safeguard traditional textile designs and indigenous fashion. Although the Copyright Act, 1957, the Designs Act, 2000, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 collectively provide a degree of protection, these statutes operate independently and fail to address the distinctive characteristics of traditional cultural expressions.[61]

A fundamental weakness of the current legal framework lies in its reliance upon concepts such as originality, novelty, identifiable authorship, and limited duration of protection. These principles are suitable for modern commercial creations but are incompatible with traditional textile designs that have evolved collectively over centuries and are preserved as part of a community’s cultural heritage.[62] Consequently, indigenous communities frequently find themselves excluded from meaningful protection under conventional intellectual property doctrines.

Although geographical indications have emerged as the most effective mechanism for protecting traditional textiles, they provide only limited safeguards. Geographical indications protect the reputation and geographical origin of products rather than the underlying artistic motifs and cultural expressions associated with them.[63] As a result, unauthorized reproduction of traditional patterns and designs remains largely permissible so long as geographical origin is not falsely represented.

The increasing globalization of fashion has further intensified concerns regarding cultural appropriation. International luxury brands and commercial enterprises often incorporate indigenous designs into contemporary collections without obtaining consent or providing economic benefits to the communities responsible for preserving such traditions.[64]Such practices raise important questions concerning ownership, equity, and cultural justice.

Recent controversies involving the appropriation of traditional Indian craftsmanship by global fashion houses have highlighted the limitations of existing legal mechanisms and underscored the urgent need for reform.[65]These incidents reveal that traditional communities frequently lack both bargaining power and access to effective legal remedies.

In light of these deficiencies, India should consider adopting a sui generis framework specifically designed to protect traditional cultural expressions. Such a framework should recognize collective ownership, provide perpetual protection, ensure prior informed consent, and establish mechanisms for equitable benefit-sharing.[66] Similar approaches have already been adopted in jurisdictions such as Panama and New Zealand, which recognize the unique relationship between indigenous communities and their cultural heritage.[67]

Furthermore, India should establish a Traditional Textile Digital Library, modelled upon the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), to document and preserve traditional motifs and designs. Such a database would facilitate defensive protection by preventing unauthorized registration and promoting international recognition of India’s textile heritage.[68]

Greater awareness among artisans and weavers regarding intellectual property rights, combined with stronger institutional support and international cooperation through the World Intellectual Property Organization, would significantly enhance the protection of indigenous fashion and contribute to the preservation of India’s cultural legacy.[69]

Therefore, the study finds that the current legal regime remains fragmented and insufficient. The protection of traditional textile designs requires a shift from conventional intellectual property principles towards a more inclusive framework that recognizes the collective and intergenerational nature of cultural heritage.

Below is an additional section that you can insert in Part IV (Critical Analysis and Findings) before the conclusion. This will make the article more contemporary, original, and publication-oriented.

5.1 Cultural Appropriation and the Commercial Exploitation of Indigenous Fashion

The increasing globalization of the fashion industry has intensified concerns regarding cultural appropriation and the unauthorized commercial exploitation of indigenous cultural expressions. Fashion houses and multinational brands frequently incorporate traditional patterns, motifs, embroidery styles, and artisanal techniques into their collections without obtaining permission from the communities responsible for preserving such traditions.[70]Although such practices may generate substantial economic value, indigenous communities often receive neither recognition nor equitable financial benefits.

Cultural appropriation differs from cultural appreciation in that the former involves the adoption or commercial use of cultural elements without meaningful acknowledgement, consent, or benefit-sharing.[71] In the context of fashion law, this issue raises fundamental questions relating to ownership, cultural identity, and distributive justice. Conventional intellectual property regimes are generally ill-equipped to address such concerns because they focus primarily on individual rights and commercial innovation rather than collective heritage and intergenerational knowledge.[72]

Recent controversies involving international luxury brands have brought these issues to the forefront. In 2025, allegations emerged that Italian luxury fashion house Prada had incorporated design elements resembling traditional Kolhapuri footwear into its collections, leading to concerns regarding cultural appropriation and the inadequate protection available to Indian artisanal traditions.[73] Although such controversies may not always result in formal litigation, they reveal the vulnerability of indigenous craftsmanship in an increasingly interconnected fashion market.

Similar controversies have arisen internationally. Indigenous communities in North America and New Zealand have repeatedly criticized commercial entities for exploiting traditional designs without authorization or compensation.[74] These disputes underscore the need to reconceptualize intellectual property law in a manner that recognizes collective rights and cultural dignity.

Consequently, legal scholars have increasingly advocated a shift away from conventional intellectual property doctrines toward frameworks grounded in community participation, prior informed consent, and equitable benefit-sharing.[75]Such an approach would better accommodate the distinctive characteristics of traditional textile heritage and contribute to preserving cultural diversity.

5.2 Towards a Sui Generis Framework for Traditional Textile Designs

The inadequacies of existing intellectual property mechanisms necessitate the development of a specialized or sui generis framework for the protection of traditional cultural expressions. A sui generis regime refers to a distinct legal mechanism specifically designed to address subject matter that cannot be adequately protected through existing intellectual property laws.[76]

Unlike copyright and design protection, which are limited by requirements of originality and novelty, a sui generis framework could recognize collective ownership and provide perpetual protection to indigenous communities.[77] Such a system would acknowledge that traditional textile designs are not merely commercial assets but constitute manifestations of cultural identity and historical continuity.

A comprehensive framework should incorporate the following features:

(a) Recognition of Collective Ownership

Traditional textile designs are communal creations developed and preserved over generations. Accordingly, ownership should vest collectively in the communities responsible for maintaining such traditions rather than in individual creators.[78]

(b) Prior Informed Consent

Commercial entities seeking to utilize indigenous designs should be required to obtain prior informed consent from the concerned communities. Such consent would promote transparency and prevent unauthorized exploitation.[79]

(c) Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms

Communities contributing traditional knowledge and craftsmanship should receive equitable economic benefits arising from commercialization. Benefit-sharing arrangements would promote both economic development and cultural preservation.[80]

(d) Perpetual Protection

Unlike conventional intellectual property rights, which are limited in duration, traditional cultural expressions require continuous protection because they embody living heritage transmitted across generations.[81]

(e) Establishment of a Traditional Textile Digital Library

India may consider creating a Traditional Textile Digital Library (TTDL) on the model of the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library. Such a repository would document traditional motifs, weaving techniques, and indigenous designs and could serve as evidence against unauthorized registrations and acts of misappropriation.[82]

6. Conclusion

Traditional textile designs and indigenous fashion represent an integral component of India’s cultural identity, artistic heritage, and creative economy. Products such as Banarasi brocades, Kanchipuram silk, Pochampally Ikat, Chanderi fabrics, and Kashmiri Pashmina embody centuries of accumulated knowledge and craftsmanship and deserve effective legal protection against misappropriation and cultural exploitation.

This article examined the extent to which the existing intellectual property framework protects traditional textile designs and found that current laws provide only fragmented and inadequate safeguards. Copyright law emphasizes originality and authorship, design law requires novelty, trademark law focuses upon commercial goodwill, and geographical indications protect geographical identity rather than the underlying artistic expressions themselves. Consequently, traditional cultural expressions often remain outside the scope of comprehensive legal protection.

Judicial decisions such as Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co, Ritika Private Limited v Biba Apparels Private Limited, and Christian Louboutin SAS v Nakul Bajaj further illustrate the limitations of conventional intellectual property doctrines when applied to fashion-related creations. While these decisions clarify the scope of existing laws, they also reveal significant gaps in the protection of collective cultural heritage.

Accordingly, stronger legal safeguards are necessary. India should adopt a sui generis regime specifically tailored to traditional cultural expressions, establish a Traditional Textile Digital Library, strengthen awareness among artisans, and actively participate in international initiatives undertaken by the World Intellectual Property Organization. Such reforms would not only preserve India’s rich textile traditions but also ensure that indigenous communities receive recognition and equitable economic benefits from the commercialization of their cultural heritage.

Ultimately, protecting traditional textile designs is not merely a matter of intellectual property law; it is a matter of cultural preservation, social justice, and safeguarding the civilizational heritage of India for future generations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cases

1. Christian Louboutin SAS v Nakul Bajaj 2018 SCC Online Del 12215.
2. Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co 2009 SCC Online Del 1647.
3. Ritika Private Limited v Biba Apparels Private Limited 2016 SCC Online Del 3522.
4. Star Athletica LLC v Varsity Brands Inc 580 US 405 (2017).

Legislation

1. Copyright Act 1957.
2. Designs Act 2000.
3. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999.
4. Trade Marks Act 1999.

International Instruments

1. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1869 UNTS 299 (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995).
2. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (adopted 20 March 1883, revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967, entered into force 26 April 1970) 828 UNTS 305.

Books

1. Bently L and Sherman B, Intellectual Property Law (6th edn, Oxford University Press 2024).
2. Chaudhuri SK, Handbook of Indian Textile and Handloom Industry (Oxford University Press 2018).
3. Dutfield G, Intellectual Property, Biogenetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge (Earthscan 2004).
4. Frankel S, The Object and Purpose of Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar Publishing 2019).
5. Gangjee D, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (Cambridge University Press 2012).
6. Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (17th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2023).
7. Raustiala K and Sprigman C, The Knockoff Economy: How Imitation Sparks Innovation (Oxford University Press 2012).
8. Scafidi S, Fashion Law: A Guide for Designers, Fashion Executives and Attorneys (Fairchild Books 2011).
9. Sunder M, From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Property and Global Justice (Yale University Press 2012).

Journal Articles

1. Riley AR and Carpenter KA, ‘Owning Red: A Theory of Indian (Cultural) Appropriation’ (2016) 94 Texas Law Review

Government Reports and Official Publications

1. Intellectual Property India, GI Registry Journal (Government of India).
2. Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, Annual Report 2024–2025.
3. World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions/Folklore (WIPO Publication No 913E, 2017).
4. World Intellectual Property Organization, Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO 2023).
5. World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore’.

[1] Susan Scafidi, Fashion Law: A Guide for Designers, Fashion Executives and Attorneys (Fairchild Books 2011) 3.

[2] S K Chaudhuri, Handbook of Indian Textile and Handloom Industry (Oxford University Press 2018) 121.

[3] Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, Annual Report 2024–2025 18.

[4] Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman, The Knockoff Economy: How Imitation Sparks Innovation (Oxford University Press 2012) 127.

[5] Angela R Riley and Kristen A Carpenter, ‘Owning Red: A Theory of Indian (Cultural) Appropriation’ (2016) 94 Texas Law Review 859.

[6] World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions/Folklore (WIPO Publication No 913E, 2017) 5.

[7] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999.

[8] World Intellectual Property Organization, Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO 2023).

[9] WIPO (n 6) 9.

[10] Madhavi Sunder, From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Property and Global Justice (Yale University Press 2012) 89.

[11] S K Chaudhuri (n 2) 143.

[12] Lionel Bently and Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (6th edn, Oxford University Press 2024) 57.

[13] Copyright Act 1957; Designs Act 2000.

[14] Trade Marks Act 1999.

[15] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, s 2(1)(e).

[16] Intellectual Property India, GI Registry Journal (Government of India).

[17] Dev Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (Cambridge University Press 2012) 254.

[18] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1869 UNTS 299 (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) arts 22–24.

[19] World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore’ (WIPO).

[20] Copyright Act 1957, s 13.

[21] ibid s 2(c).

[22] Lionel Bently and Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (6th edn, OUP 2024) 120.

[23] World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions/Folklore (WIPO Publication No 913E, 2017) 12.

[24] Copyright Act 1957, s 15.

[25] Madhavi Sunder, From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Property and Global Justice (Yale University Press 2012) 94.

[26]  Designs Act 2000.  

[27] ibid s 11. 

[28] Dev Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (Cambridge University Press 2012) 257.

[29] WIPO (n 23) 14.

[30] Bently and Sherman (n 22) 664.

[31] Trade Marks Act 1999, s 2(1)(zb).

[32] Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (17th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2023) 3.

[33] Susan Scafidi, Fashion Law: A Guide for Designers, Fashion Executives and Attorneys (Fairchild Books 2011) 71

[34] Trade Marks Act 1999, ss 61–78.

[35] Angela R Riley and Kristen A Carpenter, ‘Owning Red: A Theory of Indian (Cultural) Appropriation’ (2016) 94 Texas Law Review 859, 869.

[36]Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999.

[37] Intellectual Property India, GI Registry Journal (Government of India).

[38] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, ss 21–24.

[39] Dev Gangjee (n 28) 261.

[40] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1869 UNTS 299 (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) arts 22–24.

[41]World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore’. 

[42] ibid

[43] World Intellectual Property Organization, Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO 2023). 

[44]  Graham Dutfield, Intellectual Property, Biogenetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge (Earthscan 2004) 86.

[45] Susy Frankel, The Object and Purpose of Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar Publishing 2019) 204.

[46]  Bently and Sherman (n 22) 682.

[47] WIPO (n 43).

[48] Madhavi Sunder (n 25) 107.

[49] Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1647.

[50] ibid [31].

[51] ibid [42].  

[52]  Ritika Private Limited v Biba Apparels Private Limited 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3522.

[53] ibid [34].

[54] ibid [38].

[55] Christian Louboutin SAS v Nakul Bajaj 2018 SCC Online Del 12215.

[56] ibid [84].

[57]  ibid [91].

[58] Star Athletica LLC v Varsity Brands Inc 580 US 405 (2017).

[59] ibid 414–415.

[60] Susan Scafidi, Fashion Law: A Guide for Designers, Fashion Executives and Attorneys (Fairchild Books 2011) 84.

[61] Lionel Bently and Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (6th edn, OUP 2024) 682.

[62] Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions/Folklore (WIPO Publication No 913E, 2017) 18.

[63] Dev Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (Cambridge University Press 2012) 261.

[64] Angela R Riley and Kristen A Carpenter, ‘Owning Red: A Theory of Indian (Cultural) Appropriation’ (2016) 94 Texas Law Review 859, 874.

[65] Susan Scafidi, Fashion Law: A Guide for Designers, Fashion Executives and Attorneys (Fairchild Books 2011) 103.

[66] Graham Dutfield, Intellectual Property, Biogenetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge (Earthscan 2004) 89.

[67] Susy Frankel, The Object and Purpose of Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar Publishing 2019) 204.

[68] World Intellectual Property Organization, Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO 2023).

[69] ibid

[70]Copyright Act 1957; Designs Act 2000; Trade Marks Act 1999; Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999.

[71]Angela R Riley and Kristen A Carpenter, ‘Owning Red: A Theory of Indian (Cultural) Appropriation’ (2016) 94 Texas Law Review 859, 875.

[72] ibid 878.

[73] Madhavi Sunder, From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Property and Global Justice (Yale University Press 2012) 102.

[74]Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, ‘Protection of Indian Handicrafts and Traditional Products’ (Press Release, 2025).

[75]Susy Frankel, The Object and Purpose of Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar Publishing 2019) 206.

[76]Graham Dutfield, Intellectual Property, Biogenetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge (Earthscan 2004) 92.

[77] World Intellectual Property Organization, Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO 2023).

[78] ibid

[79] WIPO, Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions/Folklore (WIPO Publication No 913E, 2017) 24.

[80] Graham Dutfield (n 76) 96.

[81] Madhavi Sunder (n 73) 110.

[82] WIPO (n 79) 28.