Authored By: Shubha Sree H
Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University.
ABSTRACT
The rapid globalization and evolving Indian fashion industry is commercially exploiting the very Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) intimidating the integrity of Indigenous craftsmanship. While the Fashion industry continues to achieve global recognition by commodifying sacred and geographical heritage, the cultural rights of the natives are degrading. Currently, India’s intellectual property laws (IP) remain inadequate and have enforcement gaps, thereby failing to protect against fast fashion appropriation. Through a hybrid doctrinal framework that combines intellectual property mechanisms with sui generis protections, this article examines the gaps and suggests some recommendations. Ultimately the paper advocates for the protection and balance of the community’s collective culture and commercial innovation in the Indian fashion industry.
Keywords: – Traditional Cultural Expressions, Commercial exploitation, Fast-Fashion appropriation, Sui Generis, Intellectual Property.
INTRODUCTION
Culture is not merely a collection of customs and traditions; it is a dynamic representation of a community’s identity, history and collective memories. In India, Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) such as indigenous textiles, folk art, traditional motifs and embroidery embody the centuries of cultural heritage and contributions of craftsmen. The Indian fashion industry built on this foundation emerged as a major evolving industry in the globalized world.
In India, contemporary iterations of traditional art such as Madhubani, kalamkari and Warli[1] have migrated from their cultural homes onto the catwalks of fashion capitals. While this migration means greater opportunities for exposure and income for the heritage behind those products, it also raises concerns about creative appropriation and permission to utilize those traditions. This protection of the cultural mores and values of a community is protected as a human right under the ‘Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity.’ [2] On the other hand, the rights guaranteed under the intellectual property laws extend protection against everyone who is not a holder of right by virtue of creation, license authorization, transfer etc.[3]
This vulnerability is mainly because India is home to a tapestry of indigenous and local communities that possess rich cultural traditions that are significantly being absorbed into commercial fashion markets. Despite the existence of various legal frameworks such as copyrights, trademarks, geographical indication, they remain inadequate in addressing the sui generis cultural expressions. The absence of a comprehensive legal framework has resulted in deep enforcement gaps and leaves limited remedies for the affected communities. A mismatch exists while intellectual property regimes protect individual and commercial monopolies, on the other hand, ‘traditional knowledge’ and ‘traditional cultural heritage’ operate as communal rights where everyone has the right to use the communal property to the extent permitted by the rules of that community.[4]
Although various studies examined the Traditional Cultural Expressions under Intellectual property law, limited attention has been given to the legal lacunae within the framework and commercial exploitation of the fashion industry. Thus, this article advocates for an equilibrium approach that safeguards collective rights of indigenous people while bolstering creative freedom in the fashion industry.
BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
‘Traditional cultural expressions (TCEs), also called “expressions of folklore”, may include music, dance, art, designs, names, signs and symbols, performances, ceremonies, architectural forms, handicrafts and narratives, or many other artistic or cultural expressions.’[5] These expressions represent a cultural identity and collective heritage of communities that continues to transmit across generations. Beyond depicting the traditions of communities, TCEs form a soul of a nation’s cultural diversity and historical legacy, serving as repositories of indigenous knowledge and artistic practices.
Contemporary Fashion incorporates the traditional patterns, embroidery styles and diverse indigenous artistic work to satisfy the consumer demand for a unique and authentic design that depicts the cultural distinctiveness. While such creativity promotes cultural significance of a country, it simultaneously raises concerns pertaining to ownership and attribution. Thus, protection and preservation of TCEs pose significant challenges to current intellectual property law. Intellectual property laws, as they exist today, are based primarily on the ideas of individual authorship, originality, novelty. In contrast, despite the existence of various forms of intellectual protection such as copyright, trademarks, patents, and geographical indications, that seek to encourage innovation while safeguarding the interests of creators remain inadequate because TCEs are collectively owned, passed down through generations, and typically develop as the result of ongoing engagement by other members in the community, rather than through individual innovation alone.
This conceptual paradox has become significantly visible within India’s Fashion Industry. Traditional artistic expressions such as Chikankari embroidery of Uttar Pradesh, Warli art of Maharashtra[6], and Rajasthani block-printing techniques i.e.; Sanganeri[7] and Dabu prints have acquired substantial commercial value, yet the communities responsible for preserving these traditions often remain excluded from meaningful control over their use. The controversy surrounding Christian Dior’s use of a traditional Rajasthani block-print design associated with the Indian collective People Tree exemplifies these concerns, highlighting questions of cultural appropriation, attribution, and benefit-sharing. The design first gained visibility when an Indian actress wore it in the Elle India magazine, after which businesses worldwide began replicating the patterns and artwork without attribution.[8] Such instances demonstrate the limitations of existing legal frameworks in addressing the unique characteristics of community-owned cultural heritage.
Figure 1: Comparison of People Tree and Dior designs. Source: Sreyoshi Guha, ‘People Tree v. Dior: IP infringement, cultural appropriation or both? (Spicy IP, 1 February 2018) accessed 5 June 2026.
Thus, the Dior controversy highlights a giant fashion industry’s commercial exploitation rather than an isolated incident. To address these issues, the following section critically analyzes the specific statutory loopholes within India’s current intellectual property regime.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
As discussed in the earlier sections, the above discussions expose the vulnerability of Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) in the contemporary Fashion industry where the gaps exist in the architecture of India’s intellectual property statutes.
Under section 2(c) of the copyright Act, 1957[9], the originality of textile patterns, motifs and embroidered works are classified as artistic works. However, when these artistic works prior their registration passed to the commercial fashion industry, they hit a major hindrance under section 15[10] of the act. Section 15(2)[11] provides that if an industrially produced copy of a registered “design has been made more than 50 times, that copyrighted design rights expire.”[12] In the cases of Microfibers Inc. v Girdhar & Co.,[13] and Ritika Private Ltd. v Biba Apparels,[14] The Delhi High Court has held that the copyrights of an unregistered design also expire when it is produced using industrial processes more than 50 times. Therefore, when a fashion company produces a product bearing the design of an indigenous community, the community cannot claim copyright infringement because the threshold of 50 industrial reproductions might have exceeded.
This forced eviction of Indigenous communities from the Copyright Act forces Indigenous communities into the unfriendly jurisdiction of the Designs Act, 2000,[15] which contains provisions inherently discriminatory to their interests. Specifically, Section 4 [16]a dogmatic position on what constitutes absolute novelty punishes the historical continuity of motifs by denying them the ability to be recognized as prior art. Ancestral motifs such as Warli or Dabu are passed down from generation to generation and therefore cannot be considered to have novelty.
However, the application of discriminatory legislation is clear while large fashion brands are granted protection from the unoriginality of Indigenous motifs based on the requirement of evidence of originality found in the Copyright and Designs Act, Indigenous communities are denied ownership of their traditional motifs and subsequent works based on a lack of novelty. The appropriation of Indigenous motifs as originally created under The Copyright and Designs Acts, by large fashion brands occurs, when large fashion brands use traditional Indigenous motifs (which have already been declared unprotected based upon a finding of lack of originality) to create a new motif that has superficial modifications, (e.g. size, color, etc.) and proceed to register this newly created motif as their own, thereby enjoying a statutory monopoly.
The monopoly created through such legally permissible means is further exacerbated due to the systematic failure of the Geographical Indications (GI) Act, 1999,[17] which works as an accomplice to such corporate encroachment instead of being the protective mechanism to combat it. The legal gap between protecting geographical indicating items as compared to protecting the work of art is one of the greatest failures of the GI Act.
Under Section 22[18] of the Act, it prohibits the illegitimate use of registered geographical indications if that misleads or deceives the consumer regarding the origin of goods and also provides remedies for the infringement. At first glance, it appears to be safeguarding traditional and geographical famous crafts such as Banarasi silk[19], Pochampally Ikat[20]. However, if we examine section 22 carefully it does have some limitations because the section primarily targets deceptive commercial strategies rather than the misappropriation of cultural expressions. This exposes a great concern of the indigenous communities as it gives a weapon for the fashion industry to claim and reproduce traditional motifs, embroidery patterns or artistic elements inspired by the GI- protected craft without infringing the act , provided there is no deceptive or false representation.
The Clear examination of the intellectual property laws i.e; copyrights act, designs act and geographical indications reveals that main concern is not merely poor legislative framework rather the conceptual mismatch between IP laws that are premised upon the individual authorship, novelty and commercial exclusivity, whereas TCEs derive values from collective ownership and shared cultural identity.
Therefore, the inadequate legal framework highlights the fundamental incompatibility between the intellectual property law created upon individual ownership and Traditional Cultural Expressions rooted in collective cultural heritage. Consequently, there is a need for a sui generis framework recognizing community ownership, consent, attribution, credit and equitable benefit sharing is crucial to address the challenges posed by the fashion industry’s commercial exploitation of cultural heritage.
CASE LAW DISCUSSIONS
The Indian Judiciary has interpreted IP statutes significantly in a manner that prioritizes collective ownership, novelty and commercial production. Some of the landmark cases pertaining to this include:
Rajesh Masrani v Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd.[21]
The issue before the court was whether or not high fashion clothing, in addition to the embroidery design, constituted “artistic works” as defined within the Copyright Act, 1957. The court ruled that because the high fashion couture clothing items were not the subject of more than 50 industrial reproductions but instead were all limited edition, they maintained copyright protection. The example illustrates the class bias in Indian intellectual property law, with the high-volume production of low-income artisans having no protection while the low volume production of elite designers has considerable protection.
Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. v. Aarya 24K[22]
The Bombay High Court in this case discussed whether copying the three-dimensional industrial application of unregistered designs deprives the copyright of underlying two-dimensional drawings as per Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 was dealt with.
The Defendants pleaded that due to the industrial reproduction of more than fifty times of gold sheet articles of religious nature created by the Plaintiffs, copyright protection had been forfeited. This blanket denial was rejected by the Bombay High Court which has drawn an important distinction in this regard. It was found that although the copyright in relation to the industrial reproduction of such objects would be lost after fifty copies, the copyright in the drawings underlying the said objects would not be lost at all. Thus, the court held that it would be copyright infringement where there would be reproduction of the three-dimensional object through a direct copy of the master drawings of the Plaintiff.
Ritika Private Limited v. Biba Apparels Private Limited[23]
This case raised the issue of the relationship between the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Designs Act, 2000 in the area of clothing. Plaintiff Ritu Kumar, who operates a luxury boutique brand, alleged that the defendant was using Ritu Kumar’s sketches and fabric colors without authorization; i.e. they copied the designs without permission from plaintiff, and wanted to obtain copyright protection even though they did not register the designs under the Designs Act. The Delhi High Court adopted a very strict approach based on Section 15(2) in relation to the use by Biba of industrial processes to produce clothes using the design layouts of Ritu Kumar’s rather than using them as is. Importantly, the Court confirmed that because Biba has reproduced Ritu Kumar’s designs more than 50 times using industrial processes, Biba cannot now claim copyright over those works.
Therefore, these judgments underscore the inadequacy of conventional intellectual property regimes in safeguarding Traditional Cultural Expressions and strengthen the jurisprudential case for a sui generis framework.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS/ FINDINGS
Traditional Cultural Expressions are not merely manifestations of community identity but an integral component of India’s Cultural heritage. However, due to the increasing trends of commercialization the fashion industry has unveiled these expressions to significant risks of misappropriation and commodification. The present study exhibit that despite the existence of legal frameworks such as the Copyright Act, 1957, the Designs Act, 2000, and the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, these remain inadequately equipped to address the collective and intergenerational nature of TCEs. Each regime is primarily designed around concepts such as individual authorship, novelty, and commercial exclusivity, which do not align with the communal ownership and cultural continuity inherent in traditional expressions.
When these artistic works are mass produced commercially, there is a stronger likelihood of unauthorized appropriation and therefore copyright protection may not be viable. Unlike this, fashion labels selling limited and unique items are able to protect themselves through intellectual property.[24] As a result, there are instances where large companies exploit cultural works economically and give very little credit to the people they originated from.
The judicial decisions examined in this article demonstrate the courts’ commitment to maintaining the distinction between copyright and design protection. Nonetheless, these judgments also expose the limitations on applying the conventional principles on TCEs. As illustrated by the above case discussions there is a lack of protection for collectively owned cultural works by using traditional intellectual property definitions. Therefore, it is clear that one of the primary problems with cultural works is that traditional intellectual property definitions do not work for TCEs. As a result, an alternative model that allows for the recognition of community ownership, attribution, prior approval, and benefit-sharing is needed for the protection of Indian cultural works in fashion.
Therefore, to address these issues there is a need for creation of a National Digital Repository of TCE Motifs such that it acts as a defensive art against corporate design filings and also requiring statutory “Access and Benefit-Sharing” (ABS) framework modeled after India’s Biological Diversity Act, 2002, requiring fashion labels to pay a percentage of profits into a community welfare fund when commercializing traditional motifs.
CONCLUSION
Traditional Cultural Expressions constitute the heart and soul of India’s rich cultural heritage, while creativity and innovation serve as the backbone of its scientific and economic development. The intersection of these two elements forms the foundation of the Indian Fashion Industry. Through a detailed examination of the legal framework and judicial precedents the study highlighted the persistent challenges such as collective ownership of traditional knowledge, cultural appropriation and credit less use of indigenous artistic works and the inequitable distribution of benefits arising from the commercial exploitation. Consequently, there is an immediate necessity of a specialized legal framework that addresses the above challenges.
Ultimately, the ethical and sustainable growth of the creative economy within the Indian Fashion industry depends upon maintaining equilibrium between innovation with the cultural heritage, thereby fostering economic development and cultural justice.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Statutes and Legislative Materials
Copyright Act, 1957
Designs Act, 2000
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity
Statutory Provisions
Copyright Act 1957, s 2(c)
Copyright Act 1957, s 15
Copyright Act 1957, s 15(2)
Designs Act 2000, s 4
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, s 22
Judicial Precedents
Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1647
Rajesh Masrani v Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd. 2008 PTC (38) 251 DEL
Ritika Private Limited v Biba Apparels Private Limited 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1979
Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. v. Aarya 24K AIR 2015 BOMBAY 157
Online news, reports and journals
Nidhi Saxena and Veer Mayank, ‘Parsing the protections accorded to “Traditional Cultural Expressions” of Sikkim in the context of community ownership of IPRs’ (2022) 6 CMR University Journal for Contemporary Legal Affairs 4
Art Creativity ‘Modern Indian Paintings: Tradition, Innovation and Artists Shaping the Market’ (30 May 2025)
World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘Traditional Cultural Expressions’ (WIPO)
Chikankari (Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia)
Suchitra Badonia and Amrita Rajput, ‘A Study on Adaptation of Warli Art Motifs into Contemporary Textile Design for Fashion Applications’ (2026) 14(2SCE) International Journal of Research- GRANTHAALAYAH
Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, ‘Sanganeri Hand Block Printing – Rajasthan’s Artistry in Fabric’
Pranjala Raj, ‘When Fashion Meets Tradition: IP Gaps in Protecting India’s Kolhapuri Craftsmanship’ (Live Law, 13 September 2025)
Zoya Mehta, ‘Limitation of Copyright Law to Protect Fashion Designs’ (iPleaders, 18 August 2021)
Musham Yadagiri, ‘What are the Signs of an Authentic Pochampally Ikat Silk Saree’ (Weave Sarees, 4 October 2025)
District Administration Varanasi, Government of Uttar Pradesh, ‘Art & Craft’- Geographical Indications
Sehr Anand and Safir Anand, ‘Snapshot: Intellectual Property for Fashion Goods in India sss(Anand and Anand, 24 March 2025)
[1] Art Creativity ‘Modern Indian Paintings: Tradition, Innovation and Artists Shaping the Market’ (30 May 2025) https://artcreativity.in/modern-indian-paintings/ accessed 4 June 2026
[2] United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, (adopted 2 November 2001,31st session of the General Conference, Paris) CLT.2002/WS/9
[3] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299 (TRIPS Agreement)
TRIPS Agreement]
[4] Nidhi Saxena and Veer Mayank, ‘Parsing the protections accorded to “Traditional Cultural Expressions” of Sikkim in the context of community ownership of IPRs’ (2022) 6 CMR University Journal for Contemporary Legal Affairs 4
[5] World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘Traditional Cultural Expressions’ (WIPO) https://www.wipo.int/en/web/traditional-knowledge/traditional-cultural-expressions/index accessed 5 June 2026
[6] Suchitra Badonia and Amrita Rajput, ‘A Study on Adaptation of Warli Art Motifs into Contemporary Textile Design for Fashion Applications’ (2026) 14(2SCE) International Journal of Research- GRANTHAALAYAH 359 https://www.granthaalayahpublication.org/journals/granthaalayah/article/view/6742?__cf_chl_rt_tk=9TcXrZQevgPi_12lYPVHyoHuleVvJGw4pctwvDAmz.k-1780661960-1.0.1.1-soL3xmIoZ1XN1xRH7nK1pQCrN5yUbLnq5K8nSPaGBxw accessed 5 June 2026
[7] Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, ‘Sanganeri Hand Block Printing – Rajasthan’s Artistry in Fabric’ (Incredible India) https://www.incredibleindia.gov.in/en/rajasthan/sanganeri-hand-block-printing accessed 5 June 2026
[8] Pranjala Raj, ‘When Fashion Meets Tradition: IP Gaps in Protecting India’s Kolhapuri Craftsmanship’ ( Live Law, 13 September 2025) https://www.livelaw.in/articles/kolhapuri-chappals-and-intellectual-property-protection-laws-303834 accessed 5 June 2026
[9] Copyright Act 1957, s 2(c)
[10] Copyright Act 1957, s 15
[11] Copyright Act 1957, s 15(2)
[12] Zoya Mehta, ‘Limitation of Copyright Law to Protect Fashion Designs’ (iPleaders, 18 August 2021) https://blog.ipleaders.in/limitation-copyright-law-protect-fashion-designs/ accessed 5 June 2026
[13] Microfibers Inc v Girdhar & Co 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1647
[14] Ritika Private Ltd v Biba Apparels Private Ltd CS(OS) No 182/2011 (Delhi High Court, 23 March 2016)
[15] Designs Act 2000
[16] Designs Act 2000, s 4
[17] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999
[18] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, s 22
[19] District Administration Varanasi, Government of Uttar Pradesh, ‘Art & Craft’- Geographical Indications https://varanasi.nic.in/art-craft-varanasi/ accessed 6 June 2026
[20] Musham Yadagiri, ‘What are the Signs of an Authentic Pochampally Ikat Silk Saree’ (Weave Sarees, 4 October 2025) accessed 6 June 2026
[21] Rajesh Masrani v Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd. 2008 PTC (38) 251 DEL.
[22] Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. v. Aarya 24K AIR 2015 BOMBAY 157
[23] Ritika Private Limited v Biba Apparels Private Limited 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1979
[24] SehrAnand and Safir Anand, ‘Snapshot: Intellectual Property for Fashion Goods in India’(Anand and Anand, 24 March 2025) https://www.anandandanand.com/news-insights/snapshot-intellectual-property-for-fashion-goods-in-india/ accessed 6 June 2026
