IPR CASE LAW: RITIKA PVT VS BIBA APPARELS

Introduction

Intellectual Property (referred to herein as “IP”) is intangible property that results from human thought and labour. Common examples of IP include software patents, artistic works, and industrial designs.

When a person creates an original invention, they naturally want sole control over it. By securing exclusive ownership rights, the creator can capture economic and personal benefits by restricting and monetizing its use.

Countries protect IP for the same reason: exclusive ownership rights are a driving force behind new inventions. A nation’s economic and technological development stalls without adequate IP protection — the contribution of IP is a sine qua non for a nation’s industrial and economic growth.

In India, the primary statutes governing IPR are the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Patents Act, 1970, the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Designs Act, 2000.

The fashion industry intersects with nearly every branch of law, and IPR plays a particularly significant role within it. From clothing designs and fabric colour-coding to brand logos and fashionwear in the metaverse, intellectual property touches almost every part of the business.

When designers create a design, they invest significant effort in it and are entitled to retain ownership. Given the sheer size and complexity of the textile industry, however, it can be difficult to determine whether — and to what extent — a design or pattern has been copied.

One way to address this is to register one’s IP under the appropriate statute. Registration does not guarantee that third parties will never copy a design, but it does secure proper legal recourse in the event of theft or infringement. Because the scope of protection differs across IPR legislations, it is important to understand the level of protection available for each kind of IP before filing a registration.

Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines “artistic work” to include painting, sculpture, drawing (including a diagram, map, chart, or plan), engraving, photograph, work of architecture, and any other work of artistic craftsmanship.

Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 defines “design” as the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colours applied to an article — whether two-dimensional, three-dimensional, or both — by an industrial, mechanical, or chemical process, that can be judged solely by the eye.

As the fashion industry has grown, so has the number of apparel brands entering the Indian market, with new designs launched constantly. Disputes arise when a new design is alleged to closely resemble an existing one, and the matter comes before the courts for adjudication. Such disputes over design, copyright, trademark, or goodwill are treated as intellectual property rights violations.

For instance, after the wedding of Anushka Sharma and Virat Kohli, several local-market designers copied the design of her wedding lehenga — originally a Sabyasachi creation. The design was openly sold by traders in Chandni Chowk Market, Delhi, and across local markets nationwide. Such instances cause real concern for original designers who invest significant time and effort into a design, only to have it copied without permission.

The question of copyright infringement in fashion becomes especially pressing when the dispute is between two established fashion houses. Ritika Private Limited v. Biba Apparels Private Limited, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1979, is one such case, and it offers a useful illustration of how the applicable rules were interpreted.

Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels

This case before the Delhi High Court is a landmark decision distinguishing between designs eligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957, and those suited to protection under the Designs Act, 2000.

Facts of the Case

Ritika Private Limited, the plaintiff, claimed to be the first owner of the copyright in various sketches and drawings printed on garments sold under the brand “Ritu Kumar.” The plaintiff pleaded that the drawings and sketches were distinctive, original, and closely identified with the brand, which enjoyed considerable goodwill and reputation. To establish the genuineness of its products, the plaintiff maintained digital records of every design, each tagged with an identification code shown on its invoices, and it gave a detailed account of how the designs were produced under its brand.

The plaintiff also pleaded that each garment was designed so that individual components — sleeves, front and back panels, and so on — were distinctly delineated and coordinated with unique features.

Ritika filed suit against Biba Apparels Private Limited for copyright infringement, seeking an injunction restraining Biba from reproducing, printing, publishing, or selling garments bearing the plaintiff’s prints and designs. The plaintiff further alleged that Biba had violated its trade secrets by hiring former Ritika employees who disclosed confidential design information — an allegation Biba denied for want of supporting evidence.

The defendant, in turn, argued that Ritika had never registered the disputed designs under the Designs Act, and that the suit was barred by Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, since the designs had been industrially reproduced more than fifty times — taking the matter outside the scope of copyright protection altogether.

Arguments Advanced by the Plaintiff

Ritika contended that the subject matter of a copyright remains within the exclusive ownership of the copyright holder even after the copyrighted work has been used to manufacture an article more than fifty times. This argument rested on the position that “artistic work” under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act is expressly excluded from the definition of “design,” meaning Section 15(2) of the Designs Act, 2000 could not apply to it.

The plaintiff further argued that failing to register the drawings and sketches under the Designs Act, 2000 did not extinguish its copyright in those works, and that Biba should accordingly be injuncted from infringing them. In summary, Ritika’s position was that:

1. It was the exclusive owner of the designs and sketches sold under the “Ritu Kumar” brand.
2. Those designs and sketches were distinctive, identifiable, and exclusively associated with the brand.
3. It maintained digital records and identification codes to establish the genuineness of its products.
4. Biba had violated the plaintiff’s trade secrets by hiring former employees who disclosed confidential design information.
5. Significant time, effort, and creativity went into producing each design.
6. The exclusive right to the copyright in the designs and sketches therefore rested with the plaintiff.
7. The court should restrain Biba from reproducing, printing, publishing, distributing, selling, or offering the garments in question, and should direct Biba to render accounts.

Arguments Advanced by the Defendant

1. Biba sought dismissal of the suit under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
2. Biba’s central contention was that the plaintiff’s own pleadings showed the design had been produced more than fifty times, and that the plaintiff — despite being able to register the design under the Designs Act — had never done so.
3. On the trade secrets claim, Biba argued that the plaintiff had produced no evidence to substantiate the allegation, so it could not be established.
4. Because the design had been reproduced more than fifty times, Biba argued, no copyright infringement could have occurred — relying again on Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.

Decision

The Delhi High Court relied on Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. & Anr., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1647, which held that once a sketch or design used to create dresses has been reproduced more than fifty times, copyright in that work ceases to exist under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court treated the Division Bench’s ruling in Microfibres as binding.

Accordingly, the Court held that Ritika’s copyright had not been infringed: because the plaintiff had used the same design to produce more than fifty items through an industrial process for commercial gain, copyright protection in that design had ceased, and the plaintiff was not entitled to design protection.

The Court’s analysis addressed two questions:

1. Whether Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 protects a design’s owner where the design is registered under the Copyright Act and is capable of registration under the Designs Act, 2000, but has not been so registered, and where the owner has reproduced the design more than fifty times.
2. What trade secrets were at issue, and whether the defendant had violated them.

On the first question, the Court followed the Division Bench’s reasoning in Microfibres, which addressed the identical issue. The Division Bench held that once a design used to manufacture dresses — whether by industrial process or otherwise — exceeds fifty reproductions, and the design is registered under the Copyright Act, copyright protection no longer vests with the design’s original owner. The Bench reasoned that the legislature intended a shorter period of protection for copyrighted works that give rise to designs used for commercial purposes; accepting the plaintiff’s interpretation would render the Designs Act meaningless, since every design could be traced back to an intermediate artistic work such as a drawing or engraving. Registration under the Designs Act is therefore necessary for continued protection once a design has been industrially reproduced more than fifty times.

On this basis, the Court found no copyright violation by Biba, since the garments were produced through an industrial process applying the design, rather than by directly reproducing the plaintiff’s artistic work. On the trade secrets question, the Court declined to go further, since the plaintiff had not substantiated the allegation in its pleadings.

The central holding is that once a design has been reproduced more than fifty times, it ceases to enjoy copyright protection — a rule that also guards against a single producer monopolizing the market. The Court drew a clear line between “original artistic work” and “design,” and on that basis rejected the plaintiff’s claim. The defendant’s application for dismissal was allowed under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Observations Made by the Court

The following provisions were central to the decision:

• Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 defines “design” as the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colours applied to an article — two-dimensional, three-dimensional, or both — by an industrial, mechanical, or chemical process, and judged solely by the eye. It excludes trademarks, property marks, and artistic works as defined under the Copyright Act.
• Section 4 of the Designs Act, 2000 prohibits registration of designs that are not new or original, that are already known to the public before the filing date, that are not distinguishable from known designs or combinations of known designs, or that consist of scandalous or obscene matter.
• Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines “artistic work” to include painting, sculpture, drawing (including a diagram, map, chart, or plan), engraving, photograph, work of architecture, and any other work of artistic craftsmanship.
• Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957 governs copyright in designs that are registered, or capable of being registered, under the Designs Act, 2000. In substance, once a design is registered under the Designs Act, the Copyright Act ceases to apply to it. Where a design is protected under copyright and is capable of being registered under the Designs Act but has not been so registered, copyright ceases as soon as the owner — or any other person with the owner’s licence — has applied the design industrially to an article more than fifty times.

These four provisions were central to the Court’s reasoning and outcome in this case.

Conclusion

This case underscores the importance of registration under the Designs Act. Notably, the Court did not decide the question of infringement on the basis of similarity between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s products, but on the basis that the defendant had created the garments through an industrial process rather than by directly reproducing the plaintiff’s print. On that basis, the Court found no infringement of copyright. Copyright in a design, in other words, persists only until the design is put to industrial use — and once Section 15(2) applies, no copyright can subsist in a drawing or sketch reproduced more than fifty times under the Copyright Act.

This interpretation may appear to limit a design owner’s rights, but it also encourages healthy competition in the fashion market, guards against monopolisation by a single producer, and helps meet consumer demand at reasonable prices. The legislature evidently intended shorter protection for copyrighted works once they are applied commercially through an industrial process — a balance that, on the whole, serves both designers and the broader market.

Bibliography

• Intellectual Property Laws, Bare Act
• Intellectual Property Laws, Dr. Supreet Gill
• Fashion Law Journal — Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd.: Case Analysis
• SCC OnLine — 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1979 (230 DLT 109)
• iPleaders — Answering the Designer’s Dilemma: Ritika Private Limited v. Biba Apparels Private Limited
• Law Mantra, “Copyright in the Design — An Analytical Perspective of Ritika Private Limited v. Biba Apparels Private Limited,” Volume 4, p. 3, available here
• Law Essential — Ritika Private Limited v. Biba Apparels Private Limited
• Enhelion — Ritu Kumar v. Biba
• Indian Kanoon — Case Judgment
• Times of India — Anushka Sharma’s Wedding Lehenga Takes Over Delhi’s Bridal Market
• Firstpost — Fashion in IPR Mode: Rohit Bal, Anju Modi, Anita Dongre Copyright Designs as Plagiarism Spreads