Fake vs. Fashion: Strengthening Legal Shields Against Counterfeits

The fashion industry is not merely about clothes; it represents creativity, brand legacy, and trust that consumers place in an authentic product. However, in today’s digital era, the rapid spread of fast copies and counterfeit goods has begun to threaten this trust. Counterfeiting not only undermines the exclusivity of luxury brands but also causes significant economic losses.

This research article closely examines the existing intellectual property laws in India, particularly the Trademark Act, 1999[1], and the Design Act, 2000[2]. It also discusses how landmark cases such as Hermès v. Crimzon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd.[3], and Christian Louboutin v. Nakul Bajaj[4], have played an important role in strengthening legal protection for luxury fashion brands.

The purpose of this article is to highlight that merely having laws in place is not enough. There is an urgent need to establish greater accountability for the e-commerce platform and to strengthen the digital enforcement mechanism. Ultimately, the article suggested fashion brands and the legal system must work together to create a stronger legal shield that protects original creators and preserves creativity for the future.

Keywords: Fashion Law, Counterfeiting, Trademarks Act, 1999, Design Act, 2000, Brand Identity.

Introduction:

In today’s world, fashion has taken a new turn. Whenever we look, we can see fashion expressed in different forms and styles. However, it would be wrong to say that fashion belongs only to this modern era. The word may sound new, but the art behind it is ancient. Many people may not even fully understand its deeper meaning. Fashion can be seen in the way people dress, the way they sit, and even in the way they choose their food. In many ways, fashion has become an inseparable part of our daily lives.

However, this article is not about that everyday expression of fashion. Instead, it focuses on a form of fashion that has existed across both old and modern times. It is an art that begins with the simple thread passing through a needle in clothing and extends to the polished shine of a pair of shoes. Designing such a creation requires immense effort, creativity, and thoughtful imagination, qualities that only a true artist can fully understand.

It is easy for us to say that our designer must have thought a lot while creating a piece, but the process behind it is far more complex than it appears. Often, when we simply look at a finished design, it seems effortless. Yet, as the saying goes, one truly understands the effort only by stepping into the creator’s shoes. Once the final product is ready. The work may look simple, but the journey behind it is rarely easy. Creating such art requires careful thought, patience, and attention to the smallest details.

Have you ever asked the artist how they imagined such a design? How do they notice every tiny detail that the world often ignores? Every thread, every fabric, every piece of leather, and every stitch plays an essential role in transforming lifeless material into something meaningful and beautiful. Yet we rarely stop to appreciate the effort behind the process, perhaps because we have never truly witnessed the depth of this labor.

 When we visit markets, we often notice that products sold in branded showrooms or on official websites are extremely expensive. However, similar-looking items are often available in small shops at much lower prices. This sometimes leads people to believe that big brands are simply overcharging customers. While it is true that brands must cover their operational cost, there is a deeper reason behind the price differences.

High-quality and authentic products often last much longer, while cheaper copies tend to wear out quickly. These products may resemble the original design, but fail to provide the same quality or durability. In the digital age, this practice is commonly known as counterfeiting.[5].

To understand this issue better, we must first explore what counterfeiting actually means.

Definition of Counterfeiting:

In simple terms, counterfeiting means copying the logo or design of a brand so closely that the buyer believes they are purchasing an original product. Legally, this concept is explained under section 102[6] of the Trademark Act 1999, which states that if a person uses a brand trademark without permission, it is considered falsification of a trademark[7]. Elements of this idea are also reflected in Section 2(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.[8], which provides the broader legal understanding of such offenses.

When we hear the name of major brands, their reputation alone represents luxury and exclusivity. However, reaching such a level is not easy. It takes years of effort, creativity, and dedication for a brand to establish itself in a global industry valued at nearly $1.8 trillion.[9]. Brands such as Louis Vuitton, Hermès, Versace, Gucci, Chanel, Van Heusen. Not merely names, they symbolize the prestige, identity, and goodwill that these companies have built over decades.

Unfortunately, today this goodwill is often misused. In many local markets, similar-looking products[10] are sold at extremely low prices while falsely carrying the identity of these famous brands. The reputation and respect of brands worth millions or even billions are sometimes reduced to products sold for a few hundred rupees. In legal terminology, this phenomenon is referred to as “brand dilution.”[11].

Counterfeiting, however, is not limited to physical markets. In earlier times, when mobile phones and the Internet were not widely available, such activities were usually restricted to local markets or narrow lanes of old commercial areas. But in today’s modern digital era, a new form of exploitation has emerged. Fake websites, altered logos, and misleading brand names are increasingly being used to sell counterfeit products online. In many cases seller change brands name slightly or misuse its identity to make consumers believe that they are purchasing genuine goods.

As a result, the internet. Has become filled with countless websites offering products that appear attractive and authentic but are actually fake; what looks like gold to the eye often turns out to be nothing more than stone. This type of deception, conducted through online platforms, is legally referred to as “online counterfeiting.”[12].

It is important to understand that counterfeiting is not merely a cheaper alternative to genuine products. In reality, it is the theft of a designer’s creativity and hard work. Earlier, such activities were mostly limited to physical shops and local markets, but today they have become a significant part of the e-commerce ecosystem. Consumers are often misled by appearance, and when they unknowingly purchase counterfeit goods, they are not just buying a fake bag or a pair of shoes. We are undermining years of efforts and creativity invested by the original designer.

For this reason, fashion should not be viewed merely as clothing or accessories. It must also be recognized as a form of intellectual property (IP)[13]. This raises an important question. How does the law protect fashion and safeguard artistic efforts behind it? At this point, fashion and law interact when their legal system stands as a shield to protect creativity and preserve the dignity of original design.

Legal Analysis: Three Shields of Fashion Protection

When we talk about fashion, Indian law provides designers with a three-layered legal shield to protect their creations and brand identity. This protection operates through different legal frameworks, each addressing a specific aspect of intellectual property.

The Trademark Act, 1999: Protecting the Identity

• The first layer of protection is provided by the Trademarks Act, 1999, which primarily safeguards the identity of a brand. A trademark functions as a unique identifier that distinguishes one brand from another. It may include a logo, name, symbol, word, or sign[14]. That allows consumers to recognize the source of a product. In simple terms, a trademark represents a brand’s identity, reputation, and legacy.
• For example, if a handbag did not carry its logo, brand name, or any distinctive symbol, it would be nearly impossible to determine whether it belongs to Gucci or Dior[15], or any other fashion house. Thus, trademarks are not merely visual symbols. They also act as a guarantee for consumers that the product they are purchasing is genuine and originates from the brand it claims to represent. In this sense, a trademark builds trust between the brand and its customers.
• The law also recognizes that deception may occur when counterfeits use names or marks that closely resemble those of established brands. For instance, altering a well-known brand name slightly, such as using “Puna” instead of “Puma.”[16], may confuse consumers and mislead them into believing that they are buying authentic goods. The Trademark Acts, 1999 take such practices seriously and provide strict legal remedies against them.
• Therefore, the Act protects not only the brand name or logo but also its distinctive identity, goodwill, and even its trade dress[17], the overall visual appearance that distinguishes a product in the marketplace. After all, a brand identity is the very proof of its existence and reputation, and protecting that identity is essential for preserving the originality and integrity of fashion creation.

The Designs Act, 2000: Protecting the Shape and Look

• The second layer of protection for fashion creation comes from the Design Act 2000, which safeguards the shape, appearance, and overall visual design of a product[18]. If the Trademark Act,1999 protects a brand identity, the Design Act protects how that product looks and feels physically.
• A design can sometimes become so distinctive that it gives an entire brand its recognition. Many brands that once struggled to establish their identity eventually became famous because of a unique design element. As the saying goes, only things that have a strong identity are copied. That identity often comes from a design’s originality.
• In the fashion industry, a design can include several elements such as a logo, symbol, sign, brand name, unique pattern, ornament work, shape, structure, color, combination, texture, or even the sole of a shoe or the surface of a handbag. All these features together form a distinctive design. Protecting these elements is extremely important because they represent the creativity and imagination of the designer.
• A well-crafted design attracts the human mind instantly. Sometimes, at first glance, a person develops the desire to own a product simply because of its unique appearance. It may be a distinctive cut of address, the usual structure of a shoe, or the innovative way a product is styled and presented. Over time, such visual elements become the brand’s signature identity.
• If someone copies that design, the original designer’s efforts and creativity lose their value. In fact, brands often charge higher prices precisely because their designs are unique and original. If those designs are not legally protected, cheaper copies will quickly flood the market, weakening the brand’s value and reputation.
• To prevent this, the law emphasizes two essential principles under the Design Act 2000.

Novelty (Originality)[19]The design must be new and original. If a design closely resembles an already existing design, it may not qualify for protection under the law.

Registration[20]Registration is the most crucial requirement for design protection. While a trademark may sometimes receive limited protection under common law[21]Even without registration, a design must generally be registered under the Design Act 2000 to receive legal protection.

• Therefore, registering a design ensures that the visual creativity and artistic effort of designers remain legally protected[22], preventing others from unfairly copying and exploiting their work.

The Copyright Act, 1957: Protecting the Artistic Work

• The third layer of protection on fashion laws comes from the Copyright Act 1957[23], which safeguards the artistic work created by designers. This law protects the creative element that appears on clothing in printed or artistic form, such as fabric prints, textures, color combinations, embroidery, and other decorative patterns.[24].
• If a trademark represents the name of a brand and a design represents a shape or appearance, then copyright acts as a guardian of the artistic creativity and displays on the products themselves. Fashion is not defined only by the stitching or structure of a garment. It is also expressed through the artistic detail printed or embodied on it. These details, whether embroidery, ornament designs, unique prints, or distinctive waving patterns, make a piece of clothing stand out from others.
• Creating such artistic work requires imagination skills and thoughtful efforts. Every unique design with an idea in the designer’s mind, which is often first expressed on paper in the form of a sketch or illustration[25]. This is where copyright protections become important. It ensures that the artistic expression of the designer is protected from misuse by others who may try to copy or exploit it unfairly.
• For example, the prints associated with the fashion house Sabyasachi[26], such as its distinctive ‘tiger’ emblem or specific floral embroidery patterns, can be protected under copyright law. When a similar design appears in local markets like Chandni Chowk or other street markets at a very low price, it may constitute copyright infringement as the artist’s work of the original designer is being reproduced without permission.
• One of the most significant provisions is in this context in section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957. This section draws an important boundary between copyright protection and design protection. According to this rule, if a design capable of being registered under the Design Act, 2000, is reproduced more than fifty times through an industrial process[27]The copyright protection automatically ceases. At that point, the design must be registered under the Design Act to receive further legal protection.
• This rule exists to maintain fairness in the market. The copyright protection journey lasts for 60 years[28], whereas design protection under the Design Act lasts for 15 years[29]. Without these limitations, large corporations could potentially dominate the market by relying on long-term copyright protection for industrial design. By shifting such work into the design protection system, the law ensures a more balanced and competitive environment.

Taken together, these laws demonstrate that the Indian legal system has attempted to protect fashion from multiple angles. The Trademarks Act 1999 protects the identity of the brand, the Design Act 2000 safeguards the visual appearance of the product, and the Copyright Act 1957 protects the artistic expression behind it.

However, these protections exist not only in legal books but also in the decisions of the court. The law truly proves its strength when it is tested in courtrooms and interpreted through judicial decisions. When major fashion brands have approached Indian courts to defend their rights The outcome of those disputes has shaped the development of fashion law in India. These landmark cases reveal how justice operates in practice, showing how the law protects fashion creativity and sometimes where it still falls short.

Judicial Representation: Fashion on the Witness Stand:

• One of the most important cases that brought a new direction to the digital fashion marketplace and strengthened the legal approach against online counterfeiting is Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj and Ors[30].

Background of the Case:

• The luxury brand Christian Louboutin is globally famous for its distinctive red-soled shoes[31], which have become a symbol of exclusivity and luxury. On the other hand, com is an online platform that sells luxury fashion products. The dispute in this case arose between these two parties.
• Christian Louboutin alleged that the website com was misusing its brand name and trademark to sell products online. According to the brand, the platform was offering goods under the name of Christian Louboutin without proper authorization and was misleading customers by creating the impression that the products were genuine.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner, Christian Louboutin, argued that its brand is highly exclusive and that the company grants permission to sell its products only to a limited number of authorized sellers. The brand further claimed that in India, only a very small number of entities were authorized to sell their products.
• However, Darveys.com was allegedly using the brand’s trademark and meta-tags[32] on its website to attract customers and promote the sale of products under the Christian Louboutin name. According to the petitioner, the practice amounted to trademark infringement and counterfeiting as it misled consumers into believing that the goods were authentic and originally associated with the brand.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• In response, Darveys.com described itself merely as an intermediary or broker. The company argued that it did not directly sell the goods, but only provided an online platform where customers could place orders. According to the respondent, the actual sellers were third parties.
• The platform relied on section 79 of the Information Technology Act 2000[33], which provides “safe harbor protection” to intermediaries. This provision states that an online platform cannot be held liable for illegal acts committed by third parties if the platform merely acts as a neutral intermediary.

Court’s Decision:

• The Delhi High Court carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and clarified an important principle regarding safe harbor protection[34] for online platforms.
• The court held that an intermediary can claim protection under Section 79 only if it remained neutral and merely provides access to a platform. However, if the platform takes an active role in promoting or facilitating the sale of counterfeit goods, such as using a brand’s name in meta-tags, keywords, advertisements, or product descriptions, then it cannot claim safe harbor protection.
• The court also clearly stated that using another brand’s trademark in meta-tags without authorization is illegal, even if consumers do not directly see those tags.

Significance of the Judgment:

• This decision made it clear that e-commerce platforms cannot escape responsibility simply by claiming that they are only a platform. If a website knowingly allows trademark infringement or counterfeit products to be sold, it may be held legally liable.
• The code further emphasized that once a brand owner informs a platform about possible infringement, the platform must take immediate action to investigate and remove such listings. Online marketplaces are therefore expected to exercise due diligence[35] to ensure that their platforms are not used for illegal or counterfeit trade.
• This is marked as an important development in Indian fashion and Intellectual Property Law as it established stronger accountability for online marketplaces involved in the sale of luxury goods.
• Another important case that highlights the importance of design registration in the fashion industry is Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba, Apparels, Pvt. Ltd.[36] This case demonstrates how failing to register a design can significantly weaken a designer’s legal protection.

Background of the case:

• In this case, Ritu Kumar (through Ritika Private Limited) filed a lawsuit against Biba Apparels alleging that Biba had copied one of its clothing patterns. The petitioner claimed that Biba had reproduced the original designs without permission and was selling them commercially.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The legal team representing Ritika Private Limited presented evidence before the court to prove that the designs were original artistic work created by their brand. They argued that these designs deserve protection under the Copyright Act 1957.
• To support their claim, the petitioners produced digital records, designed documents, and intellectual property records, demonstrating that the designs were created by their designers and were part of their creative work. According to them, Biba had unlawfully copied these patterns and commercially exploited them.

Key legal issue?

• The main legal issue in this case revolved around Section 15(2)[37] of the Copyright Act 1957. This provision states that if a design is capable of being registered under the Design Act 2000, but the designer does not register it, the copyright protection will exist only until the design has been reproduced fewer than 50 times by an industrial process.
• Once the design is reproduced more than 50 times,[38] The copyright protection automatically ceases, and the design must be registered under the Design Act to claim further protection.

Court’s Decision:

• The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the respondent. The court held that the designs used by Ritika Private Limited were not registered under the Design Act 2000, and they had already been mass-produced in more than 50 copies.
• As a result, the court concluded that the petitioners’ copyright protection had already expired and therefore the claim for copyright infringement could not be sustained. The Court clearly emphasized that when designs are intended for commercial mass production, it becomes essential to obtain design registrations under the Design Act.
• The judgment further clarified that a designer cannot claim protection indefinitely. Simply labeling the work as an “artistic work.”[39] Under copyright law, once it enters a stage of industrial production.

Significance of the Case:

• This case serves as a crucial lesson for fashion designers and fashion businesses. It demonstrates that if designers plan to sell their creation in the mass market, obtaining design registration is extremely important. Without registration, designers risk losing their legal protection once the design is widely reproduced.
• Similar legal. Principals have also appeared in disputes involving designers such as Tarun Tahiliani[40] and Sabyasachi, where the protection of fashion design has become a significant legal issue.
• Therefore, the case highlights a clear message. If designer failed to register their design, they must be prepared to face the risk of imitations in the market, as others may copy and commercially exploit their creation without strong legal consequences.
• The third case highlights how the law protects a brand, hard-earned identity, and reputation. A significant example is Hermès International v. Crimzon. Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd.[41], which focuses on trademark protection and brand identity in the fashion industry.

Background of the Case:

• Hermès, a globally renowned luxury brand known for its high-end bags, accessories, and footwear, filed a lawsuit against Crimzon Fashion Accessories, Pvt. Ltd. The dispute revolved around the alleged copy of Hermès distinctive “H” logo[42] and the design of its famous Hermès Oran sandals.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• Hermès argued that the design in question was not merely a simple, sad deal, but a key element of the brand identity. The company stated that the “H”-shaped design used in the Oran sandals was a registered trademark and had become strongly associated with the Hermès
• According to the petitioner, Crimzon had deliberately copied this distinctive “H” design to create confusion among consumers by selling similar-looking products at significantly lower prices. The respondent was allegedly attempting to benefit from the goodwill and reputation built by Hermès over many years.
• Hermès further contended that the “H” design was not just a logo, but part of its trade dress, meaning the overall visual appearance of the product that distinguishes it from others in the market.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Crimzon Fashion Accessories defended itself by claiming that a design was merely inspired by a general concept and did not amount to copying. The company argued that the letter “H” is a common alphabet and, therefore, no single brand should be able to claim exclusive rights over it.
• The respondent also pointed out the huge price difference between the two products. While Hermès products are sold for extremely high prices, Crimzon products were available at much lower prices. According to the respondent, this difference meant that the consumer would not realistically confuse the two brands.

Court’s Decision:

• The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Hermès. The court observed that the designs were substantially similar and the resemblance could easily lead to consumer confusion.
• The court also emphasized that Hermès is a well-known brand[43], and when consumers see the distinctive “H” design, they are likely to associate it with Hermès; therefore, using a similar design in a manner that exploits this association amounts to trademark infringement[44].
• Importantly, the court clarified that a company cannot justify copying another brand’s design simply because its own products are cheaper. If a particular design, such as the “H”- shape, has become closely associated with a specific brand, the law will protect it under the doctrine of trade dress protection[45].

These cases demonstrate that Indian courts are increasingly recognizing certain aspects of fashion branding and design identity, together with earlier decisions such as Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj and Ors. and Rikita, Pvt. Ltd., v. Biba Apparel, Pvt. Ltd. It reflects the evolving judicial understanding of fashion law in India.

While the Louboutin case strengthened protection against online counterfeiting, the Biba case highlights the importance of design registration for designers. Decisions like these now serve as strong legal support for genuine designers in the ongoing battle between fake and authentic fashion.

Critical Analysis: The Gap between Law and Reality.

If the law protecting fashion and intellectual property is so strong, then why do counterfeit products still appear in almost every street market and local shop? When we examine the existing legal framework, it appears well structured and balanced. The provisions written in statutes and the interpretation given by the court show that the legal system in India has gradually begun to understand the complexities of fashion law. Through laws such as the Trademark Act 1999, the Design Act 2000, and the Copyright Act 1957, designers have been protected against various threats that would harm their creativity, reputation, and commercial value.

However, the reality on the ground often looks quite different from a critical perspective. Several challenges continue to make the battle between fake products and authentic fashion extremely difficult.

The Registration Gap:

One of the most significant challenges the problem of design registration. As highlighted in Ritika, Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba, Apparel Pvt. Ltd.[46]Many designers fail to register their designs under the Design Act 2000. Sometimes this happens because designers underestimate the importance of registration, while in other cases it is due to the nature of the fashion industry itself.

The fashion industry operates at a very fast pace.[47]. Trends change rapidly, and designers continuously release new collections to remain competitive by the time our design is created, produced, and introduced into the market. Another trend may already be emerging in such an environment, going through the legal process of design registration, which often takes time, may seem impartial to many designers.[48].

As a result, many creative works enter the market without formal legal protection. This creates an opportunity for counterfeiters to copy and sell similar products before the original designer can secure legal rights. The slow pace of legal procedures, when compared to the fast-moving nature of the fashion industry, therefore unintentionally provides space for counterfeiting to grow.

This gap between the speed of fashion innovation and the slower pace of legal protection [49]remains one of the major challenges in effectively combating counterfeit fashion products.

First-Copy Culture and Consumer Psychology:

Another major challenge is the widespread “first-copy culture and the role of consumer psychology.”[50]. The counterfeit market has grown so large that the law must also consider the broader social behavior behind it. Suppose a counterfeit version of a design or product is produced cheaply and placed in a local market. Often, the surprising reality is that the original product might remain unsold in a showroom, while the cheaper imitation sells immediately in smaller markets.

This raises an important question. Why does this happen? The truth is that demand and supply both play a role. As the saying goes, a clap cannot happen with one hand. A person who buys counterfeit goods also contributes to the problem. In other words, not only the seller but also the buyer becomes indirectly responsible for supporting the counterfeit market.

However, the legal system can punish the seller of counterfeit goods, but it cannot easily control the mindset of consumers.[51] who knowingly choose cheaper imitations. Changing this purchasing behavior is far more complex than simply enforcing legal penalties.

The Digital Hydra:

Another modern challenge can be described as the “digital hydra”. Even though courts have addressed online counterfeiting, such as in Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj and Ors., the problem has not disappeared.

Today, social media platforms have become powerful tools for influencing consumers and building trust. While these platforms can benefit businesses, they are sometimes misused for wrongful gain at the cost of others’ losses. Small online seller now operates through platforms like Instagram and WhatsApp.[52]. Where they directly contact potential buyers through messages and promotional posts.

Many such sellers offer counterfeit products by presenting them as authentic or “imported” items. The difficulty for regulation is that monitoring and verifying every message, post, or online transaction becomes extremely challenging for cyber law enforcement agencies.[53]. Tracking these constantly emerging online sellers has become a significant challenge.

Lack of Legal Awareness Among Small Designers:

Another critical issue is the lack of legal awareness among small and emerging designers[54]. Large and luxury brands usually have dedicated legal teams and intellectual property experts who work to protect their designs and brand reputation. If their designs are copied or their trademark are misused. These companies already know the legal steps required to stop the infringement and claim remedies.

However, the situation is very different for small or budding designers. Many of them are not fully aware of intellectual property rights (IPR) or the legal mechanisms available to protect their creation. For these designers, building a brand itself requires significant time, effort, and financial investment.

If their designs are copied or misused in the market, they often lack both legal knowledge and financial resources.[55] to take action. This makes it difficult for them to defend their work effectively. As a result, many talented designers lose their competitive position in the industry even before they have the opportunity to establish themselves.

Therefore, financial constraints and limited legal awareness remain major barriers that prevent new designer from protecting their creativity and maintaining their place in the fashion industry.

Conclusion:

Fashion law does not simply tell us that it is a legal concept that looks good only in statutes or legal books. Instead, it teaches us how fashion itself influences our thinking and becomes visible in our everyday lives. Fashion is something we constantly see and experience around us. It is an aspect of creativity that makes us pause and think about the designer behind it, how they must have imagined the idea, how they developed it further, and what inspired them to create something so intricate and beautiful.

Designing something unique requires imagination, patience, and dedication. Yet, as we have seen in many legal cases, there are situations where people try to take that hard work and creativity and claim it as their own. When a designer creates something original, they are trying to bring a new color, perspective, or expression to the world. However, when that creation is copied, the pride and recognition that should belong to the original creator slowly fade away.

People often say that life is short and should be lived with an open heart. But a person can truly live freely only when they feel that their work, ideas, and emotions will be respected and valued by others. Unfortunately, we live in a time when trust is often difficult to maintain. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether a smile reflects genuine appreciation or hidden deception. The fashion industry in many ways reflects this same reality.

Art has the power to refine and inspire us, and the artist who brings that art into existence deserves the highest respect. Some people may argue that if a fake product looks exactly like the original, then what difference does it make? But really, do we stop and ask the artist how much effort went into creating that design, how many times they experimented, how many times failed, and how many attempts it took before the final creation came to life?

For this reason, we must appreciate both the art and the artist. Their efforts and creativity deserve recognition and protection. Whether it appears in the form of a painting, handbag, shoes, fabric, clothing, or makeup, each creation carries the color of the artist, imagination, and their view of the world.

Ultimately, these creation reminds us of a simple truth: Without art, the earth would be nothing more than a rock.

Reference(S):

[1] The Trademark Act 1999.

[2] The Designs Act 2000.

[3] Hermès International v. Crimzon Fashion Accessories Pvt Ltd CS (COMM) 919 2022 (Del).

[4] Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj (2018) 76 115 (Del).

[5] Black’s Law Dictionary (11^th edn, Thomson Reuters 2019) defines ‘Counterfeit’ as a decoration or appearance made in imitation of something else with the intent to deceive.

[6] The Trademarks Act, 1999, s 102.

[7] P Narayan, Law of Trade Marks and Passing Off (6^th edn, Eastern Law House 2017) 512-515.

[8] Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 2(3).

[9] Statista, ‘Global Apparel Market- Statistics & Facts’ (Consumer Goods & Retailing, 2024)

[10] Pianotist Co’s Application (1906) 23 RPC 774; also followed in Cadila Healthcare Ltd v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2001) 5 SCC 73.

[11] ITC Limited v. Philip Morris Products SA (2010) 42 PTC 572 (Del).

[12] OECD/EUIPO, ‘Global Trade in Fakes: A Worrying Threat’ (Illicit Trade, 2021).

[13] VK Ahuja, Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights (3^rd edn, LexisNexis 2017) 285-290.

[14] The Trademarks Act, 1999, s 2(1) (zb).

[15] Ibid, s 2(1) (zb).

[16] The Trademarks Act, 1999, s 2 (h) (defining ‘deceptively similar’ marks).

[17] Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt Ltd (2003) 27 PTC 478 (Del) (Establishing the Importance of Trade dress and overall visual impact).

[18] The Designs Act 2000, s 2(d) (defining ‘design’ as features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines, colors applied to any article).

[19] The Design Act 2000, s 4(a) (prohibiting registration of designs that are not new or original).

[20] The Design Act 2000, s 11 (providing the copyright in the registered design for 10 years, extendable by five years).

[21] VK Ahuja, Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights (3^rd edn, LexisNexis 2017) 562 (discussing how design protection is statutory and, unlike trademarks, has no common law remedy for unregistered designs).

[22] The Designs Act 2000, s 22 (Civil remedies against piracy of a registered design).

[23] The Copyright Act 1957.

[24] The Copyright Act 1957, s 2(c).

[25] The Copyright Act 1957, s 13 (providing for subsistence of copyright in original artistic work).

[26] Sabyasachi Calcutta LLP v. Asmita Design (2021) 87 PUC 546 (Del).

[27] The Copyright Act 1957, s 15(2) (stating that copyright in any design which is capable of being registered under the design act shall cease as soon as any article to which the design has applied has been reproduced more than 50 times by an industrial process).

[28] The Copyright Act 1957, s 22 (Term of Copyright in published literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works).

[29] The Design Act 2000, s 11.

[30] Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj (2018), 253 DLT 728.

[31] Christian Louboutin SAS v. Pawan Kumar, (2018) 73 PTC 398 DEL (reference for the well-known status of the Red-Sole trademark in India).

[32] Christian Louboutin in SAS v. Nakul Bajaj, (2018) 253 DLT 728 para 24 (Discussing the unauthorized use of luxury trademarks in meta tags to divert web traffic).

[33] The Information Technology Act 2000, s 79.

[34] Christian Louboutin SAS VS Nakul Bajaj, (2018) 253 DLT 728 para 61 (Holding data intermediary loss is ‘safe harbor’ protection if it actively identifies, promote or sells counterfeit goods).

[35] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (These rules were later strengthened based on the principle laid down in this judgment).

[36] Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels, Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 66 PTC 238 (Del).

[37] The copyright Tech 1957, s 15(2).

[38] Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels, Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 66 PTC 238 (Del), para 12 (Clarifying that once the artistic work is applied to a garment and reproduced more than 50 times, copyright protection ceases).

[39] Microfiber Inc v. Girdhar & Co (2009) 40 PTC 519 (Del). (This is the larger bench decision that the code followed in the Ritika case to distinguish between copyright and design).

[40] Tarun Tahiliani v. Rajesh Masrani (2008) 38 PTC 141 (Del) (Where the court initially discussed the protection of sketches as artistic work before industrial application).

[41] Hermès International v. Crimzon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd. CS (COMM) 919 2022 (Del).

[42] Hermès International v. Crimzon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd. CS (COMM) 919 2022 (Del)

[43] The Trademark Act 1999, s 20(1) (zg) (defining well-known trademark in the context of global reputation).

[44] The Trademark Act 1999, ss 103, 135.

[45] Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt Ltd (2003) 27 PTC 478 (Del) (This is a foundational case for trade dress in India, which the court relied upon in the Hermès matter).

[46] Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels, Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 66 PTC 238 (Del), para 15 (Emphasizing the statutory necessity of registration, despite industry pace).

[47] Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman, ‘The Privacy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design’ (2006) 92 Virginia Law Review 1687 (This is a world-famous paper that explains why fashion moves faster than law).

[48] Shipra Dhall, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in the Fashion Industry: A Critical Analysis’ (2021) 4(2) International Journal of Law, Management and Humanities, 1204.

[49] Office of the Controller, General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks ‘Annual Report, 2022-23’. (Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, 2023), 45-50.

[50] OECD/EUIPO, ‘Trends in Trade in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods’ (OECD Publishing 2019) 15-22 (Discussing the socio-economic drivers behind the demand for fakes).

[51] FICCI-CASCADE, ‘Invisible Enemy: Impact of Smuggling on the Indian Economy’, (2019).

[52] World Intellectual Property Organization. (WIPO), ‘Building Respect for IP, Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy in the Digital Age’ (2023), (Explaining the shift of counterfeit trade to encrypted messaging apps and social media).

[53] The Information Technology Act 2000, s 69, (Discussing the legal limitations and power of monitoring digital communications).

[54] MSME Export Promotion Council, ‘Report on Intellectual Property Awareness amongst Indian Small-Scale Designers’, (2022) 12-14.

[55] Arushi Gupta, ‘Fashion Law in India: A Need for Specialized Legal Framework’, (2020), 3(1) International Journal of Law Management and Humanities 450.