Authored By: Medha Shekhar Jha
Bihar Institute of law ( Patliputra University)
Abstract
This article started from a question I had while studying law: what happens if a fashion designer in India makes something new and original? The law does not do much to protect it which is what this article tries to show.
The Copyright Act of 1957 and the Designs Act of 2000 are the focus. These laws have gaps when it comes to protecting fashion designers. The problem is that these laws were made without thinking about the fashion industry.
As a result the outcomes are not consistent hard to enforce and unfair to fashion designers. I looked at three court decisions and compared them to how the European Union protects designs.
The article finds some problems with the laws and suggests changes that can actually be made. These changes are fair. Can be done.
The existing laws for fashion designers in India need to change.
The current laws do not help fashion designers.
Fashion designers in India need protection.
That is what this article is, about.
- Introduction
When I first read about Section 15 of the Copyright Act while studying intellectual property law I was confused. Then I was surprised. This part of the law basically says that if you are good at selling your work you get legal protection. That seemed strange to me. I still think my first thought was not wrong.
Indias fashion industry is huge and culturally rich. It includes luxury fashion, affordable clothing, traditional textiles and streetwear.. Designers, especially independent ones do not have strong legal protection against copying. Their original designs are often copied by others with fear of legal trouble.
The main laws that apply here are the Copyright Act of 1957 and the Designs Act of 2000. These laws seem like they should cover fashion design.. In reality they have many gaps. Some of these gaps are on purpose while others came from court decisions that prioritized following rules, over fairness. This article looks at these gaps questions if the current law is enough. Concludes that it is not.
The article is organized as follows.
* Section 2 explains the legal framework.
* Section 3 analyzes the legal problems.
* Section 4 looks at three court decisions that show how these issues work in life.
* Section 5 assesses the framework.
* Section 6 makes conclusions. Offers suggestions
- Background and Conceptual Framework
To understand why the law works the way it does. And why it often fails fashion designers. We need to look at the two laws involved and how they relate to each other.
2.1 The Copyright Act, 1957: What it Covers and What it Does Not
In India when someone creates something it automatically gets copyright protection without needing to register it or do any formalities. The Copyright Act, 1957 gives this protection to works like paintings, drawings and sculptures. It also covers things like photographs and works of craftsmanship which is important for fashion because it includes things like clothes and accessories.[1]
The problem is with Section 15 of this law. This section takes away copyright protection from any work that can be registered under the Designs Act if it has been made more than fifty times. I think this is an important part of Indian copyright law that not many people talk about. The idea behind this section was to keep copyright and design law separate.. What happens is that a designer who is successful and makes a lot of things loses the protection of copyright, which is more flexible and lasts longer.[2]
2.2 The Designs Act, 2000: Protection That Needs Registration
The Designs Act, 2000 protects how things look and their ornamental features when they are made using a process. This protection does not happen automatically like copyright does. Designers need to apply for it. A registered design is protected for ten years. Can be renewed for five more years.[3]
To get a design registered two conditions must be met: the design must be new and not just functional. Both of these conditions are difficult for fashion designers.[4]
2.3 What Scholars Think
There is not a lot of writing on Indian fashion law but what is there mostly criticizes the current system. Some scholars have said that Indian intellectual property law was made with manufacturing and writing in mind not creative industries like fashion. Others have noted that India does not have special protection for fashion design like some countries do. I think these criticisms are valid and this article tries to add to them by looking at court cases.[5]
The law is complicated for fashion designers because The Copyright Act, 1957 and The Designs Act, 2000 have ways of protecting creative works. Fashion designers need to understand both [6]The Copyright Act, 1957 and The Designs Act, 2000 to protect their work. The relationship, between The Copyright Act, 1957 and The Designs Act, 2000 is important for fashion designers to know.
- Legal Analysis
3.1 The Art-Function Divide and Why Fashion Falls Through It
One issue with copyright law is that it separates creative works into two groups: those made mainly for artistic expression, which are protected and those made mainly for practical use, which are not. This separation has a history and seems reasonable. However when it comes to fashion it does not work well.
A garment is, by definition, functional. It. Protects the body.. It is also in the hands of a skilled designer, a way to express aesthetics comment on culture and show individual identity. The details on a chikankari kurta, the way a Nivi-style sari blouse drapes or the construction of an achkan all involve deliberate and expressive creative decisions. To say that such work is not protected by copyright because the object it is on serves a practical purpose is a mistake.
Indian courts usually apply a test that asks if the artistic part of a work can be separated from its part. The English decision in Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth influences academic commentary and it is likely to affect future court decisions. The practical result is that copyright protection for fashion designers is only available for surface decorations like prints, embroideries and graphic motifs. The garment itself as a designed object is not protected.[7]
* The current system does not support fashion designers well.
* Fashion designers face challenges in getting copyright protection.
3.2 Section 15 and the Paradox of Commercial Success
I want to discuss Section 15 of the Copyright Act. Its logic seems simple: if a work has been reproduced more than fifty times it is no longer protected by copyright and the designer must use the Designs Act instead.[8]
The problem is that using the Designs Act is not always possible. Design registration requires novelty, which is destroyed by disclosure. Public disclosure is what designers do when they showcase collections publish lookbooks send samples to buyers or post photographs on media. The moment of commercial activity. The launch of a collection. Is the moment when the designers ability to register designs is most compromised.[9]
* This creates a paradox for fashion designers.
* Designers face challenges in registering designs.
3.3 Where the Law Offers a Clearer Path: Surface Design and Textile Prints
The law is clearer for two- artistic works like original textile prints, graphic patterns and hand-drawn motifs applied to fabric. These works are protected by copyright if they have not been industrially reproduced. A original print is protected from the moment of creation and that protection can be enforced against someone who copies it without permission.
* Designers can treat surface designs as separate assets.
* Licensing surface designs can help preserve copyright.
3.4 Enforcement: The Practical Dimension of a Right
Even when a legal right exists, enforcing it is a big challenge. Civil remedies under the Copyright Act include stopping the infringement, damages and accounts of profits. The Designs Act provides remedies for infringement of a registered design. In theory a designer who can prove infringement should be able to get relief from the courts.[10]
* However the path to relief is long and expensive.
* Interim injunctions require a designer to prove a case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm.
* Defendants often contest these requirements.
* The case goes through a court system that’s under a lot of pressure and the infringing goods continue to be sold while the litigation continues.
* A legal framework that grants rights but makes them hard to enforce does not provide protection.
* The right to sue is not the same as the right, to a remedy.
- Case Law Discussion
4.1 Microfibres Inc v. Co. 2006 (32) PTC 157 (Del)
This case is very important for understanding how copyright and design law work together in the context of designs.. It’s not good news for fashion designers. A company called Microfibres had a range of works that showed detailed plant and flower designs. They put these designs on fabric. Sold them. When another company called Girdhar & Co copied these designs Microfibres took them to court for copyright infringement.
The Delhi High Court ruled against Microfibres. The court said that because the designs were made and sold on a scale they no longer had copyright protection. The court applied the law strictly: once the designs were made and sold times the copyright protection stopped. It didn’t matter how good the designs were.
What bothers me about this decision is the result. A company spends a lot of money and effort to create designs sells them and then can’t stop others from copying them. This seems like a failure of the law.
4.2 Rajesh Masrani v Tahiliani Design Pvt Ltd. 2008 (38) PTC 251 (Del)
This case gives designers hope. A designer named Tarun Tahiliani had a textile print. The defendant was accused of copying this design without permission.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tahiliani. The court said that the design was mainly artistic not functional. So it qualified as a work under the Copyright Act. The court also said that the design wasn’t made and sold on an enough scale to lose its copyright protection.
This case is often cited as proof that Indian law can protect fashion designs.. It also shows the limits of this protection. The outcome depended on factors that won’t be present in most fashion cases.
4.3 Dart Industries Inc v Techno Plast. 2007 (35) PTC 139 (Del)
This case didn’t involve fashion. It has implications for fashion designers. The dispute was about containers. The question was whether a design can still be considered new if its already been shown to the public before its registered.[11]
The Delhi High Court said that it can’t. The court applied the novelty requirement strictly. If a designer shows their work to the public before registering it they can’t register it. This has implications for fashion designers. If they show their designs, at fashion weeks post about them on media or send samples to journalists before registering they might lose their chance to register those designs. This makes it very hard for designers to protect their work.
- Critical Analysis and Findings
Having worked through the laws and court decisions I want to share some thoughts on what the analysis shows. Not just about the specific rules but about the basic ideas behind the legal system.
The biggest problem in my opinion is that the Copyright Act and the Designs Act were not created with the fashion industry in mind. The Copyright Act was mainly designed to protect works like books, paintings and music. The Designs Act was meant to protect designs for mass-produced goods. Fashion doesn’t fit neatly into either category using elements of both. As a result the legal system protects some parts of a designers work sometimes. Its hard for the designer to know when or how.
Comparing this to the European Unions approach is helpful. It shows how better the EU system is. Under the eus Community Design Regulation designers get protection for three years when they first show their work in the EU. There’s no need to register no requirement for the design to be new and no limit on the number of copies. A designer who shows their collection at Paris Fashion Week gets protection away. India doesn’t offer anything like that. I think this is a gap in Indian intellectual property law. And its one that could be fixed with legislation without changing the whole system.[12]
Another issue is the enforcement gap. It’s one thing to have a right. Its another thing to be able to use it. The combination of long court cases, high costs and the fact that fashion disputes are time-sensitive. A collections commercial life may be over before a court even hears the case. Means that the rights available are often useless in practice. This isn’t unique to fashion law. Its especially bad here. Any serious plan to reform the law must address this.
Lastly I want to point out something that gets lost in the analysis: the designers most affected by these gaps are not fashion houses with legal teams and budgets. They’re designers. Often young often working with traditional craft communities often bringing new and original ideas to the market. Who don’t have the knowledge or resources to navigate a complex and unforgiving legal system. A legal system that works for designers like Sabyasachi Mukherjee but not for the smaller ones is, in my opinion not doing its job.
- Conclusion
This article is trying to answer a question: does Indian law really help independent fashion designers? The answer is no. And it is not a little bit of a problem it is a big problem. The way the Copyright Act and the Designs Act work together creates a system where being successful in business can actually hurt your copyright you often cannot get the protection you need when you need it. It is very hard to enforce your rights if you do not have a lot of money.
There are three things that need to change away. First India should give fashion designers some automatic protection for their designs as soon as they show them to the public. I think this protection should last for at least three years. This would be similar to what the European Union does. It would help India follow international rules that it needs to follow to trade with other countries. Second the Copyright Act should be changed to specifically say that fashion design is a form of art and it should be easier for fashion designers to get copyright protection. Third India should create a court that can quickly resolve disputes, about fashion designs so that designers can get help when they need it.
These changes are not extreme. India does not need to create laws or get rid of old ones. It just needs to recognize that the fashion industry is important and growing and it needs to make some small changes to help it. Indian fashion designers are working hard to create things. The law should help protect them. The fashion designers need protection. The law should give it to them. The Indian law should help the fashion designers.
Footnote(S)
1 Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 13(1)(a).
2 Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 15.
3 Designs Act 2000 (India), s 2(d).
4 Designs Act 2000 (India), s 4(b).
5 Designs Act 2000 (India), s 2(d).
6 Shamnad Basheer and Mrinalini Kochupillai, “Promoting Creativity and Innovation in India: The First Mover Advantage and Indian IP Law” (2012) 15 Journal of World Intellectual Property 252, 258-260.
7 SK Verma, “Intellectual Property Protection for Textile and Fashion Designs in India” (2009) 14 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 123, 128-131.
8 Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39, [2012] 1 AC 208.
9 Designs Act 2000 (India), s 4(b); Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 15.
10 Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 55.
11 Designs Act 2000 (India), s 22.
12 Council Regulation (EC) 6/2002 on Community Designs [2002] OJ L3/1, art 11(1).
References and Bibliography
Primary Legislation
Copyright Act 1957 (India).
Designs Act 2000 (India).
Trade Marks Act 1999 (India).
Council Regulation (EC) 6/2002 on Community Designs [2002] OJ L3/1.
Cases
Dart Industries Inc v Techno Plast 2007 (35) PTC 139 (Del).
Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39, [2012] 1 AC 208.
Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co 2006 (32) PTC 157 (Del).
R.G. Anand v Delux Films AIR 1978 SC 1613.
Rajesh Masrani v Tahiliani Design Pvt Ltd 2008 (38) PTC 251 (Del).
Journal Articles
Basheer S and Kochupillai M, “Promoting Creativity and Innovation in India: The First Mover Advantage and Indian IP Law” (2012) 15 Journal of World Intellectual Property 252.
Raustiala K and Sprigman C, “The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design” (2006) 92 Virginia Law Review 1687.
Scafidi S, “Intellectual Property and Fashion Design” in Peter Yu (ed), Intellectual Property and Information Wealth (Praeger 2007).
Verma SK, “Intellectual Property Protection for Textile and Fashion Designs in India” (2009) 14 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 123.
Books
Bhattacharjee B, Intellectual Property Law (2nd edn, Eastern Law House 2016).
Wadhwa P, Fashion Law in India: Trademarks, Copyright and Design (lexisnexis 2019).
International Instruments
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) 1994, Annex 1C.
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886 (Paris Act 1971).
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 1883 (Stockholm Act 1967).
Online Sources
World Intellectual Property Organization, “Fashion and Intellectual Property” (WIPO, 2023) <https://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/2014/fashion_and_ip.html> accessed 1 March 2026.
Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, “Design Registration Guidelines” (CGPDTM, 2024) <https://ipindia.gov.in/designs.htm> accessed 1 March 2026.
[1] Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 13(1)(a).
[2] Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 15.
[3] Designs Act 2000 (India), s 2(d).
[4] Designs Act 2000 (India), s 2(d).
[5] Shamnad Basheer and Mrinalini Kochupillai, ‘Promoting Creativity and Innovation in India: The First Mover Advantage and Indian IP Law’ (2012) 15 Journal of World Intellectual Property 252, 258–260.
[6] SK Verma, ‘Intellectual Property Protection for Textile and Fashion Designs in India’ (2009) 14 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 123, 128–131.
[7] Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39, [2012] 1 AC 208.
[8] Designs Act 2000 (India), s 4(b); Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 15.
[9] Designs Act 2000 (India), s 4(b).
[10] Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 55.
[11] Designs Act 2000 (India), s 22.
[12] Council Regulation (EC) 6/2002 on Community Designs [2002] OJ L3/1, art 11(1).
