Authored By: Sahana A
Karnataka State Law University
Abstract
The acceleration of digital commerce and artificial intelligence-driven design tools have collectively transformed the global fashion industry into a system where runway creativity can be commercially replicated within forty-eight hours. Independent designers now face a novel form of intellectual property harm: not the traditional act of direct copying, but systemic algorithmic appropriation facilitated by data scraping, predictive trend analytics and AI-assisted design generation. This article examines whether existing intellectual property frameworks adequately protect originality in the AI-commerce era. Grounded in Indian intellectual property law and enriched by comparative analysis of Irish, EU and US developments, it critically analyses copyright, design registration, trademark law, intermediary liability and traditional knowledge protection. Through engagement with landmark cases – Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co., Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj and Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. – and contemporary controversies including the Prada-Kolhapuri Chappal affair (2025), the Dua Lipa v. Samsung lawsuit (2025) and the SKIMS ‘Fits Everybody’ trademark dispute (2026), the article argues that existing legal systems are structurally ill-equipped to address both AI-driven fashion appropriation and the deeper problem of unattributed cultural extraction from India’s traditional fashion heritage. It concludes by advocating for platform accountability, modernised design registration, robust GI and TCE frameworks and internationally coordinated legal reform.
Introduction
Fashion has always evolved through cycles of inspiration, reinterpretation and commercial diffusion. What distinguishes the contemporary fashion economy is neither borrowing nor commercial imitation – both of which predate modern intellectual property law – but rather the extraordinary speed and scale at which digital technologies now facilitate creative appropriation. SHEIN reportedly adds between 2,000 and 10,000 new product listings to its platform every single day. A designer in Dublin, Delhi or Lagos who debuts a distinctive embroidered jacket on Instagram on Monday morning may, by the end of the week, discover a near-identical mass-produced version listed on a global marketplace – with no attribution, no licence and no compensation. The commercial harm is real; the legal remedy, as this article demonstrates, is largely illusory.
This transformation has created a legal and ethical crisis with two distinct but interconnected dimensions. The first is the algorithmic replication of contemporary individual creators’ work. The second – and in some ways more historically entrenched – is the systematic extraction of India’s centuries-old traditional fashion heritage by Western luxury and fast fashion brands, who redeploy that heritage under European labels without attribution, compensation or engagement with the artisan communities who sustained these traditions across generations.
This article addresses the following central research question: Can existing intellectual property law adequately protect independent fashion designers – and India’s traditional fashion heritage – against algorithmic copying, AI-driven design replication and unattributed cultural extraction? Section III provides the conceptual and legal background. Section IV conducts legal analysis across copyright, design, trademark and GI frameworks. Section V discusses key judicial precedents and contemporary case studies. Section VI examines traditional Indian fashion appropriation. Section VII presents critical findings. Section VIII concludes with reform recommendations.
III. Background and Conceptual Framework
Fashion law is an inherently interdisciplinary field encompassing intellectual property, consumer protection, labour regulation, technology governance, competition law and digital commerce. Historically, fashion designs occupied a vulnerable position within intellectual property systems because garments were treated primarily as functional commercial products rather than artistic works – a legislative choice that scholars have argued paradoxically encouraged innovation through creative competition rather than legal exclusivity.
The modern iteration of fast fashion is increasingly powered by artificial intelligence. Contemporary fast fashion operations deploy algorithmic systems that mine Instagram engagement metrics, TikTok viral aesthetics, runway collection imagery, consumer search behaviour and social listening data to identify commercially attractive trends. The legal difficulty arises from a fundamental conceptual mismatch: traditional intellectual property frameworks address direct or substantially similar copying of an identifiable original work, while algorithmic replication operates through aesthetic approximation – extracting fragmented stylistic features from multiple sources and recombining them into commercially viable outputs. This process may not reproduce any single work with sufficient similarity to trigger conventional infringement thresholds, yet cause substantial commercial harm.
In India, fashion-related intellectual property protection is distributed across four primary legal instruments: the Copyright Act, 1957; the Designs Act, 2000; the Trade Marks Act, 1999; and the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. The last is of particular relevance to traditional Indian fashion heritage, as discussed in Section VI. None was drafted with the AI-commerce ecosystem in mind.
Legal Analysis
Copyright Protection and Its Structural Limitations
Under the Copyright Act, 1957, original artistic works – including sketches, textile prints, surface ornamentation and fashion illustrations – are eligible for copyright protection from the moment of creation without registration. However, Section 15(2) provides that copyright ceases to subsist in any design capable of registration under the Designs Act once it has been industrially applied to more than fifty articles. This threshold fundamentally limits protection for commercially successful fashion designers, whose works are by definition produced at far greater volumes.
The problem is structurally acute in the context of algorithmic replication. AI-driven systems precisely target designs that have achieved commercial visibility – those that have already crossed the fifty-article threshold. Independent designers are therefore most legally vulnerable at the moment of their greatest commercial success. Further, algorithmic systems do not reproduce garments in their entirety. They extract discrete aesthetic elements — silhouette geometry, embroidery motifs, colour relationships, neckline structures – and recombine them to generate commercially similar outputs that may fall outside the ‘substantial similarity’ standard copyright infringement requires, even where commercial harm to original creators is substantial.
Design Protection: Speed Mismatches and the Irish Contrast
The Designs Act, 2000 offers protection for novel and original features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornamentation applied to an article. In practice, design registration presents significant procedural barriers for independent designers operating within rapid fashion cycles. Fashion trends may compress lifecycles to weeks. Algorithmic copying operates at a speed that structurally outpaces registration – a design published online may be commercially replicated before any application could realistically be processed. The legal framework is, as a structural matter, reactive rather than preventive. By contrast, Ireland and EU member states benefit from unregistered community design (UCD) protection arising automatically for three years without registration – a more accessible entry point that India’s framework does not offer.
Trademark Law: The SKIMS Lesson
Trademark law offers considerably stronger protection to established luxury brands than to independent designers. For those without globally recognised brand identities, however, it offers limited practical utility, as it protects source identification rather than garment aesthetics or creative style. The SKIMS ‘Fits Everybody’ dispute (2026) illustrates this with force. Designer Denise Cesare had been operating her brand ‘Fits Everybody To A T’ since 2015, predating SKIMS’ launch in 2019. The USPTO twice refused to register SKIMS’ trademark on grounds of likelihood of confusion with Cesare’s prior registered marks – an institutional finding of priority that SKIMS allegedly continued disregarding. The lawsuit seeks between $700 million and $900 million in damages, encapsulating the structural asymmetry between a $5 billion celebrity-backed enterprise and a self-funded entrepreneur. As Cesare’s counsel observed, trademark law does not care how many followers you have — it cares about who was first. That principle, while legally sound, offers cold comfort to a small business facing a corporation with resources to outlast any legal challenge.
Intermediary Liability and Platform Accountability
Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, intermediaries benefit from safe harbour protection provided they act as passive conduits and remove infringing content upon receiving actual knowledge. Modern platforms, however, do not merely host listings passively. They actively deploy AI-powered recommendation systems and targeted advertising infrastructure that systematically amplify the commercial visibility of replicated designs. The Dua Lipa v. Samsung affair (2025) illustrates the accountability problem vividly: Lipa filed a $15 million lawsuit after her photograph appeared on Samsung television packaging without consent, alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement and violation of her right of publicity. Samsung’s defence – that a third-party content partner had assured that rights were cleared – shows precisely how algorithmic commercial content chains diffuse accountability across multiple parties to the practical detriment of rights-holders. For fashion law, the case is doubly significant: Lipa’s commercial identity – built through selective luxury partnerships with Versace, Chanel, YSL Beauty and Bvlgari – is itself a fashion asset whose exploitation without consent she characterised as depriving her of the ability to ‘control and monetise her assets.’
Geographical Indications, Traditional Knowledge and the GI Gap
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 provides a framework for protecting products originating from specific geographic regions with qualities attributable to that origin. The Kolhapuri chappal, Kota Doria fabric, Pochampally ikat and Chanderi weave are among the many traditional Indian fashion items holding GI protection. In principle, a GI tag prevents misuse of the geographical name and ensures that only goods produced within the designated region using traditional methods can be marketed under that name. In practice, however, GI protection is territorially limited: India’s GI tags do not automatically carry force in international markets unless bilateral treaty arrangements or TRIPS-consistent local registration is obtained in the relevant jurisdiction.
A foreign brand may reproduce the design, aesthetic and construction technique of a GI-tagged Indian craft without using the geographic name – and remain legally insulated. Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) – the broader category of artistic forms developed and maintained by specific communities over generations – remain even less well-protected, and the WIPO 2024 Treaty on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge does not yet extend robust protection to textile traditions, weaving patterns or garment forms.
Case Law Discussion
Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. (2016)
In Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court held that once a design capable of registration under the Designs Act had been industrially reproduced beyond fifty articles, copyright protection ceased to subsist unless formally registered. The judgment exposed a critical structural vulnerability: designers lose copyright protection precisely when their designs achieve commercial success – the very moment algorithmic fast fashion systems are most likely to target them.
Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. (2009)
In Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co., the Delhi High Court held that artistic creations transformed through industrial application lose their character as pure artistic works and become subject to the more limited protection regime of the Designs Act. This reasoning is directly relevant to algorithmic replication because it identifies precisely the category of creative expression most targeted by AI systems: industrially applied aesthetic elements such as textile prints, surface patterns and embroidery structures.
Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj (2018)
In Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj, the Delhi High Court introduced an important qualification to the safe harbour principle: platforms actively participating in product promotion, pricing optimisation and algorithmic advertising may not be entitled to claim passive intermediary status. This carries substantial implications for AI-driven fashion marketplaces where recommendation algorithms systematically amplify infringing content.
Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (2017)
The United States Supreme Court in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. recognised that design elements on utilitarian garments can attract copyright protection where they are conceptually separable from the functional aspects of the article. Although arising under US law, the separability test offers a conceptual tool that Indian courts may productively consider in assessing claims over specific creative elements that have been algorithmically extracted and commercially replicated.
Prada v. Kolhapuri Artisans: The GI Limitation in Court (2025)
At Milan Fashion Week in June 2025, Prada presented sandals unmistakably derived from the Kolhapuri chappal – priced at ₹1.2 lakh per pair, with no reference to Kolhapur, its artisan community or its GI status. An IP rights advocate, Ganesh S Hingmire, filed a PIL in the Bombay High Court on 2 July 2025 alleging cultural misappropriation and unauthorised commercialisation of a GI-tagged product, seeking an injunction, artisan compensation and a formal apology from Prada. The Bombay High Court dismissed the PIL on 16 July 2025, holding that a civil suit by the GI’s registered proprietors – LIDCOM and LIDKAR – was the appropriate vehicle for relief. The outcome was telling: Kolhapuri artisans received acknowledgment and a ‘Made in India’ collaboration promise only through social media pressure and diplomatic engagement, not through legal proceedings. As commentators at LiveLaw observed, Prada’s design was ‘ethically questionable’ but arguably ‘legally permissible’ because the brand had not used the term ‘Kolhapuri’ and the GI tag does not extend automatically to foreign jurisdictions.
When the Dupatta Became a ‘Scandinavian Scarf’: The Appropriation of India’s Traditional Fashion Heritage
If algorithmic copying represents the most technologically novel dimension of the fashion appropriation crisis, the systematic commercial extraction of India’s traditional fashion heritage represents perhaps its most historically entrenched. The two phenomena share a common structural logic: creative and cultural value generated by others is identified, commercially exploited and stripped of its attribution – leaving the original creators economically and culturally dispossessed.
The Dupatta, the Lehenga and the Erasure of South Asian Authorship
In the summer of 2024, fashion rental platform Bipty posted a video describing a translucent draped scarf as ‘Scandinavian’ or ‘European’ – a garment that South Asian viewers identified immediately as a dupatta, the translucent fabric drape that has been a staple of Indian women’s dress since at least the Mughal courts of the sixteenth century. Fashion commentator Kallol Datta captured the cultural logic precisely: the episode was ‘reminiscent of every discovery or invention being attributed to a person from the Global North.’
In March 2025, Reformation’s collaboration with influencer Devon Lee Carlson launched a co-ord set strikingly resembling a lehenga-choli – the three-piece Indian garment consisting of a fitted blouse, long skirt and dupatta worn in India since at least the medieval period. When pressed, Reformation attributed the design’s inspiration not to Indian fashion heritage but to a 1990s John Galliano gown. This response – routing cultural lineage through a European designer rather than acknowledging the South Asian source – attracted widespread criticism as a form of attribution laundering that erases Indian authorship by interpolating a Western intermediary.
The legal dimension is instructive in what it reveals about the limits of existing frameworks. The dupatta is not the intellectual property of any single identifiable creator; it is a Traditional Cultural Expression sustained by communities across South Asia across many centuries. There is no individual rights-holder who can sue for infringement. The Copyright Act, the Designs Act and the Trade Marks Act are all designed to protect individual or corporate rights – not collective cultural heritage. This is precisely the gap that WIPO instruments addressing TCEs have sought, with limited success, to fill.
Gucci, Cannes and the ‘Custom Gown’ That Was a Lehenga (2025)
The Cannes Film Festival 2025 provided a particularly visible illustration of cultural erasure at the luxury level. Bollywood actress Alia Bhatt attended the closing ceremony in an ensemble – a silver mesh blouse, an embellished skirt and a long mesh dupatta in Swarovski crystals – which Gucci described on the red carpet as a ‘custom Gucci gown with embroidered crystals.’ The garment was, structurally and aesthetically, a lehenga-choli with a dupatta: an Indian dress form dating to the medieval period. Observers additionally noted the ensemble’s resemblance to the ‘Naira mermaid lehenga’ by Indian brand Talking Threads. Alia Bhatt’s own description – ‘Gucci’s version of a sari’ – while well-intentioned, conflated two distinct garment forms and did little to resolve the attribution problem. When a luxury house produces a lehenga-choli and markets it under a European brand name without attribution, the economic benefit of that cultural heritage accrues entirely to the European brand. India’s designers, weavers and artisan communities receive nothing.
The Broader Pattern: Kota Doria, Chanderi and the Limits of GI Law
The dupatta, the Kolhapuri chappal and the lehenga-choli are instances of a broader pattern. The Kota Doria fabric – a distinctive lightweight cotton-silk weave from Kota, Rajasthan, characterised by its square check patterns woven since at least the seventeenth century – holds a GI tag. International designers and fast fashion platforms have repeatedly incorporated its visual language into collections without engagement with Rajasthani weavers. The Chanderi silk of Madhya Pradesh, the Pochampally ikat of Telangana, the Pashmina of Kashmir – each holds or is eligible for GI protection; each has been commercially replicated by international brands engaging with the aesthetic product while bypassing the producing community. The legal challenge is compounded by the fact that the aesthetic languages of these traditions – visual patterns, weave structures, draping conventions – are not protectable as intellectual property by any individual or community under existing frameworks. A brand can produce a fabric that looks like Kota Doria without using the name Kota Doria and remain legally insulated from any GI-based claim. The visual language of a centuries-old weaving tradition is, in the current legal architecture, commercially free to appropriate.
VII. Critical Analysis and Findings
The foregoing analysis reveals several structural deficiencies in existing intellectual property frameworks as applied to both algorithmic fashion copying and the appropriation of traditional Indian fashion heritage.
First, the legal architecture is premised on conceptual distinctions that the contemporary fashion industry systematically exploits. Algorithmic systems target designs after they have exceeded Section 15(2) thresholds. Luxury brands copy GI-tagged traditional designs without using the protected geographic name. In each case, the legal framework is outpaced by commercial reality.
Second, the Prada–Kolhapuri episode illustrates with particular force the limits of GI protection. A GI tag protects a geographic name; it does not protect the visual language or aesthetic identity of the craft it designates – especially not in foreign jurisdictions. Kolhapur’s artisans received acknowledgment only through social media pressure and diplomatic engagement, not legal enforcement. This is not a sustainable model for cultural protection.
Third, there is a profound and worsening resource imbalance between global luxury corporations and the creators – individual designers and artisan communities alike – whose creative heritage they appropriate. The SKIMS dispute crystallises this at the individual trademark level. The Prada–Kolhapuri affair crystallises it at the community heritage level. In both cases, the appropriating entity has the resources to outlast a legal challenge.
Fourth, the Dua Lipa v. Samsung affair demonstrates that intermediary liability safe harbour protections designed for passive conduits are being applied to active algorithmic amplifiers whose commercial architecture is directly implicated in the success of infringing content. The diffusion of accountability across algorithmic content chains is a structural problem, not an incidental one.
Fifth, the dupatta and Gucci–lehenga controversies reveal the specific harm of cultural misattribution. When a dupatta is rebranded as a ‘Scandinavian scarf’ and a lehenga is marketed as a ‘custom gown’, the harm extends beyond individual economic interests to a cultural ecosystem: the communities whose aesthetic intelligence and historical knowledge created these garments are invisibilised, and the economic premium attaching to their traditions accrues to foreign commercial actors. Ireland’s Protection of Voice and Image Bill 2025 – which creates a criminal offence for the commercial exploitation of an individual’s image without consent, including through AI – offers a model of purposive, technology-aware legislative response that India and other fashion-producing nations would benefit from adapting to their domestic contexts.
VIII. Conclusion
The central argument of this article is that existing intellectual property frameworks are structurally inadequate to address both the technologically novel harms of algorithmic fashion copying and the older, deeper harm of unattributed commercial extraction from India’s traditional fashion heritage. Both phenomena share a common structural logic: creative value generated by others – individual designers and artisan communities alike – is identified, commercially exploited and stripped of its attribution.
The cases discussed tell a coherent story. Ritika strips copyright protection from designers at the peak of their commercial success. Prada presents Kolhapuri artisans’ centuries-old craft as an anonymous luxury product at ₹1.2 lakh, facing only social media pressure rather than legal sanction. Gucci labels a lehenga-choli-dupatta a ‘custom gown’, invisibilising an Indian garment tradition of medieval origins. Reformation routes the lineage of the dupatta through John Galliano. The USPTO twice tells SKIMS it cannot register a conflicting trademark – and SKIMS continues regardless. These are not isolated incidents. They are the operating logic of a global fashion economy in which cultural capital is systematically extracted from its communities of origin.
Addressing this requires reform across multiple registers: a simplified, expedited fashion-specific design registration mechanism; legislative reconsideration of the Section 15(2) copyright threshold in the digital commerce context; strengthened platform accountability standards imposing due diligence obligations on AI-powered marketplaces; AI training data transparency obligations ensuring attribution and compensation; and – critically – extension of GI protection frameworks to cover not only geographic names but the aesthetic languages and visual identities of traditional craft forms. Active Indian engagement within WIPO to advance robust TCE protections at the international level is equally urgent.
The dupatta does not need to be rebranded as a Scandinavian scarf. The Kolhapuri chappal does not need to be rediscovered in Milan. And the lehenga-choli does not need a European luxury label to confer upon it the status its wearers have always known it to possess. What it needs, and what this article advocates, is a legal framework that recognises and enforces the rights of the communities that created and sustained these traditions – before the commercial logic of the AI-commerce era renders those rights functionally obsolete.
Footnote(S):
Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. (2016) SCC OnLine Del 111.
Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. (2009) SCC OnLine Del 1647.
Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj (2018) SCC OnLine Del 12215.
Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 US 405 (2017).
Prada SpA, Men’s Spring/Summer 2026 Collection, Milan Fashion Week, June 2025; PIL proceedings before Bombay High Court, July 2025.
Dua Lipa v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Complaint filed 8 May 2025, US District Court, Central District of California.
Denise Cesare v. SKIMS Body Inc., Complaint filed March 2026, US District Court, Southern District of New York.
WIPO, ‘Fashion and Intellectual Property’ <www.wipo.int> accessed 1 June 2026.
Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman, The Knockoff Economy (Oxford University Press 2012) 15–22.
Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 13.
Copyright Act 1957 (India), s 15(2).
Designs Act 2000 (India), s 2(d).
Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community Designs, Art 11.
Cesare v. SKIMS (n 7), Complaint; The Mirror US, ‘Brand Sues Kim Kardashian’s SKIMS Over Name Dispute’ (3 May 2026).
Information Technology Act 2000 (India), s 79.
Dua Lipa v. Samsung (n 6), Complaint, para 8; Billboard, ‘Dua Lipa Sues Samsung for $15 Million’ (9 May 2025).
Billboard, ‘Samsung Responds to Dua Lipa Lawsuit, Claims Approval’ (11 May 2025).
Dua Lipa v. Samsung (n 6), Complaint, para 22.
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999 (India), s 2(e).
The IP Press, ‘From Kolhapur to Milan: The Prada–Kolhapuri Controversy Through GI Lens’ (1 July 2025).
LiveLaw, ‘Crafted in Kolhapur, Copied in Milan: The TCE Blind Spot in IP Law’ (5 December 2025).
Ritika (n 1).
Microfibres (n 2).
Christian Louboutin (n 3).
Star Athletica (n 4).
Business Standard, ‘Kolhapuri Chappal Row: PIL Filed Against Prada’ (4 July 2025).
Business Standard, ‘HC Dismisses PIL Against Prada for Unauthorised Use of Kolhapuri Chappal’ (16 July 2025).
LiveLaw (n 21).
Dazed Digital, ‘It’s Time South Asian Fashion Finally Got Its Credit’ (10 June 2025).
ibid; CNN, ‘India Beckons Western Fashion Brands — But Their Cultural Missteps Can Be Costly’ (23 July 2025).
Live India, ‘Gucci Calls Alia Bhatt’s Cannes Saree a Gown: Sparks Major Outrage’ (27 May 2025).
Protection of Voice and Image Bill 2025 (Ireland), Bill 11 of 2025, introduced 1 April 2025; Pinsent Masons, ‘Image Rights in Ireland’ (March 2026).
References and Bibliography
Statutes
Copyright Act 1957 (India).
Designs Act 2000 (India).
Trade Marks Act 1999 (India).
Information Technology Act 2000 (India).
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999 (India).
Copyright and Related Rights Acts 2000 (Ireland) (as amended).
Protection of Voice and Image Bill 2025 (Ireland), Bill 11 of 2025.
Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community Designs.
Cases
Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. (2016) SCC OnLine Del 111.
Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. (2009) SCC OnLine Del 1647.
Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj (2018) SCC OnLine Del 12215.
Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 US 405 (2017).
Dua Lipa v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Complaint filed 8 May 2025, US District Court, Central District of California.
Denise Cesare v. SKIMS Body Inc., Complaint filed March 2026, US District Court, Southern District of New York.
PIL filed by Ganesh S Hingmire before Bombay High Court, 2 July 2025 (dismissed 16 July 2025).
Books
Susan Scafidi, Fashion Law: A Guide for Designers, Fashion Executives and Attorneys (Fairchild Books 2011).
Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman, The Knockoff Economy (Oxford University Press 2012).
Dev Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (Cambridge University Press 2012).
Journal Articles
Scott Hemphill and Jeannie Suk, ‘The Law, Culture and Economics of Fashion’ (2009) 61 Stanford Law Review 1147.
Jane C. Ginsburg, ‘The Concept of Authorship in Comparative Copyright Law’ (2003) 52 DePaul Law Review 1063.
Reports and Online Sources
World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘Fashion and Intellectual Property’ <www.wipo.int> accessed 1 June 2026.
LiveLaw, ‘Crafted in Kolhapur, Copied in Milan: The TCE Blind Spot in IP Law’ (5 December 2025).
The IP Press, ‘From Kolhapur to Milan: The Prada–Kolhapuri Controversy Through GI Lens’ (1 July 2025).
Business Standard, ‘Kolhapuri Chappal Row: PIL Filed Against Prada’ (4 July 2025).
Business Standard, ‘HC Dismisses PIL Against Prada’ (16 July 2025).
BBC News, ‘Why Prada — and Other Luxury Brands — Keep Getting India Wrong’ (July 2025).
CNN, ‘India Beckons Western Fashion Brands — But Their Cultural Missteps Can Be Costly’ (23 July 2025).
Dazed Digital, ‘It’s Time South Asian Fashion Finally Got Its Credit’ (10 June 2025).
Live India, ‘Gucci Calls Alia Bhatt’s Cannes Saree a Gown: Sparks Major Outrage’ (27 May 2025).
Billboard, ‘Dua Lipa Sues Samsung for $15 Million Over Unauthorized Use of Image’ (9 May 2025).
The Mirror US, ‘Brand Sues Kim Kardashian’s SKIMS Over Name Dispute’ (3 May 2026).
Pinsent Masons, ‘Image Rights in Ireland’ (March 2026) <www.pinsentmasons.com> accessed 1 June 2026.
