Authored By: Yatharth Soni
Gurugram University
1. Abstract
This article examines the inadequacy of copyright law in protecting fashion designs in India. Despite the fashion industry’s economic significance, designers face rampant copying due to legal loopholes created by the intersection of the Copyright Act 1957 and the Designs Act 2000. The research question addressed is: Does India’s current IP framework provide effective protection to fashion designs, or does it leave designers vulnerable? Using doctrinal legal analysis of statutes and Indian case law, this article identifies two critical gaps: first, Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act extinguishes copyright once a design is applied to more than 50 articles; second, the Designs Act provides only short-term protection ill-suited for fast fashion. Through analysis of Rajesh Masrani v Tahiliani Design and Ritika Private Limited v Biba Apparels, the article argues for urgent reform to align Indian law with the realities of the fashion industry.
2. Introduction
I do not follow fashion. I cannot name luxury brands or identify runway trends. Yet, as a law student, I find the legal paradox surrounding fashion design impossible to ignore: the industry thrives on creativity, but the law makes copying shockingly easy.
India’s fashion industry is valued at over USD 100 billion and employs 45 million people.[1]
But does Indian law protect trade dress?
However, its legal protection framework remains outdated. A designer can spend months creating an original print or silhouette, only to see identical copies flood markets within weeks. The legal system, instead of preventing this, often enables it through technical gaps between copyright and design law.
This article addresses the research question: Does India’s current intellectual property framework provide effective protection to fashion designs, or does it create legal loopholes that encourage design piracy? The relevance of this question is urgent. Fast fashion and e-commerce have accelerated copying cycles, while Indian law still operates on principles drafted decades ago.
The article is structured in nine parts. First, it outlines the background of fashion protection under Indian law. Second, it conducts a legal analysis of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Designs Act, 2000. Third, it discusses two landmark Indian cases that expose judicial interpretation of these gaps. Fourth, it provides a critical analysis of deficiencies and comparative insights. Finally,
It concludes with recommendations for reform, including extending design protection and clarifying Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
The aim is not to describe fashion, but to analyse the law. This article argues that India’s current framework fails to balance the interests of original designers against market practices, and reform is necessary to protect creativity in one of India’s largest industries.
3. Background and Conceptual Framework
Fashion designs occupy a unique space in intellectual property law because they blend art with utility. Globally, jurisdictions take different approaches. The European Union grants unregistered design protection for 3 years.[2] The United States provides limited copyright for separable artistic elements. India adopts a dual system.
Under Indian law, two statutes govern fashion design protection:
The Copyright Act, 1957: Section 2(c) defines ‘artistic work’ to include drawings, paintings, and works of artistic craftsmanship.[3] A fashion sketch or original textile print qualifies as an artistic work and receives automatic copyright protection for the lifetime of the author plus 60 years.[4]. However, Section 15 creates a major limitation. Section 15(1) states that copyright shall not subsist in any design registered under the Designs Act.[5] Section 15(2) states that copyright in any design capable of being registered under the Designs Act shall cease if the article to which the design is applied is reproduced more than 50 times by an industrial process.[6]
The Designs Act, 2000: This Act protects the visual features of shape, configuration, pattern, or ornament applied to an article.[7] Registration grants exclusive rights for 10 years, extendable by 5 years.[8] However, the registration threshold is high, and the term is short compared to copyright.
The conflict between these Acts creates the ‘copyright-design overlap’ problem. A designer must choose: seek short-term design registration, or rely on copyright that vanishes after 50 copies. For mass-produced clothing, 50 copies are a negligible number.
Prior scholarship has identified this as the ‘copyright gap’. Judicial commentary, particularly in Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co, clarified that if a design is industrially applied, copyright protection is lost unless design registration is obtained.[9] This places fashion designers in a dilemma, as registration for every seasonal design is commercially unviable.
Legal Analysis
The core legal issue is that Indian law forces fashion into an inappropriate category. Section 2(d) of the Designs Act defines ‘design’ as features of shape or pattern applied to an article.[10] Most clothing fits this definition. Therefore, fashion designs are ‘capable of being registered’ under the Designs Act.
Once this threshold is crossed, Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act is triggered. The Supreme Court in Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co (2006) held that the legislative intent was to grant higher but shorter protection under design law, and lower but longer protection under copyright law.[11] The two cannot coexist for industrially produced items. The Court reasoned that allowing dual protection would grant designers a monopoly far exceeding what Parliament intended for functional articles.
This creates four practical problems:
Problem 1: The 50-Copy Rule
Section 15(2) states copyright ceases when more than 50 copies are made through an industrial process.[12] For fashion, 50 units is a small production run. Once a designer sells 51 pieces of a garment, they lose copyright protection in the underlying artwork. The print, sketch, or pattern becomes free for anyone to copy. This rule was drafted before fast fashion, when industrial production meant thousands of units. Today, D2C brands on Instagram routinely produce 100-200 units per design. The law thus penalises basic commercial viability. A designer cannot scale beyond 50 units without surrendering IP rights, creating a perverse incentive to remain small.
Problem 2: Registration Burden
To avoid losing copyright, a designer must register each design under the Designs Act. The registration process takes 6-8 months at the Design Office. Fashion operates on 3-6 month cycles, with new collections every season. By the time a design is registered, it is already out of trend and commercial value is lost. Further, registration costs INR 1,000-4,000 per design. For a small brand releasing 50 designs per season, annual costs exceed INR 2,00,000. This excludes legal fees for drafting. Independent designers and students cannot bear this cost, effectively excluding them from legal protection. The system thus favours large fashion houses that can afford bulk registrations.
Problem 3: Term of Protection
Even if registered, design protection lasts a maximum of 15 years.[13] Copyright lasts 60+ years.[14] Literary works, films, and music receive long-term protection because they are considered pure creative expression. Fashion, despite involving original sketches, colour combinations, and motifs, is restricted to 15 years. This implies the law values an artistic drawing hung in a gallery more than the same drawing printed on fabric and worn by thousands. The distinction is artificial. Both require creative labour, yet only one receives enduring rights.
Problem 4: Ambiguity in ‘Artistic Craftsmanship’
Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act protects ‘works of artistic craftsmanship’. Courts have not clarified whether haute couture or hand-embroidered garments qualify. In Microfibres, the Court suggested that mass-produced items lack artistic craftsmanship. This creates uncertainty. A designer hand-painting 60 sarees may argue their work is artistic craftsmanship, but risks losing if a court deems it industrial. Without clear tests, designers cannot predict protection levels, discouraging investment in labour-intensive designs.
The TRIPS Agreement, to which India is a signatory, mandates protection for industrial designs under Article 25.[15] However, TRIPS allows member states to determine the extent of protection. India’s implementation through the Designs Act fails to account for the short lifecycle and high volume of fashion. The 15-year term may suit furniture, but not garments with a 3-month relevance.
Case Law Discussion
Two Indian cases demonstrate how courts interpret this legal gap. Case
1: Rajesh Masrani v Tahiliani Design Pvt Ltd (2008)[16]
Facts: Tarun Tahiliani, a couture designer, created original fabric prints. Rajesh Masrani copied these prints and sold garments at a lower price. Tahiliani sued for copyright infringement.
Judgment: The Delhi High Court held that Tahiliani’s drawings were ‘artistic works’ under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. However, because the designs were applied to garments and produced over 50 times, Section 15(2) extinguished copyright, and the court denied relief.
Legal Principle: This case confirmed that mass production kills copyright for fashion, even if the original work was artistic. It established that designers must rely on design registration, not copyright.
Relevance: The judgment shows how Section 15(2) operates as a loophole. A high-fashion designer lost protection because his work was commercially successful. The court expressed sympathy but stated it was bound by statute. Case
2: Ritika Private Limited v Biba Apparels Pvt Ltd (2016) [17]
Facts: Ritu Kumar, through Ritika Pvt Ltd, alleged that Biba copied her printed designs. Ritu Kumar held design registrations for some prints.
Judgment: The Delhi High Court granted an injunction, but only for registered designs. For unregistered prints, the court held that copyright had ceased under Section 15(2). The court observed that “the moment the design is applied to an article and produced more than 50 times, the copyright ceases.”
Legal Principle: Registration under the Designs Act is the only safe route for fashion. Unregistered designs, even if original, receive no protection after 50 copies.
Relevance: This case reinforces the burden on designers. It also shows that courts will not stretch copyright law to protect fashion, adhering strictly to statutory language. The court noted the hardship but held that legislative amendment was Parliament’s domain. Both cases reveal a judicial trend: courts sympathise with designers but are bound by Section 15(2). The law, not the judiciary, needs reform.
Critical Analysis and Findings
The existing framework contains four critical gaps:
- Outdated Threshold: The 50-copy rule predates digital fashion and e-commerce. In 1957, industrial production meant mass manufacturing in factories. Today, a small Instagram business can sell 51 units in a week using digital printing. The law penalises commercial success and treats digital micro-production as ‘industrial’. This threshold must be revised to reflect modern production scales. A 5,000-copy limit would protect small designers while preventing monopolies by large corporations.
- Policy Contradiction: India promotes ‘Make in India’ and ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ for textiles. The 2023 Budget allocated INR 4,389 crore to the textile sector. Yet, IP law discourages original design by making copying legal after 50 units. This contradiction harms the very industry the government seeks to grow. If designers cannot protect prints, they will not invest in R&D. India will remain a manufacturing hub for foreign designs rather than a design originator.
- Comparative Deficiency: The EU provides 3-year unregistered design rights automatically.[18] The UK offers supplementary unregistered design protection for 10 years. The US, while limited, allows copyright for separable artistic features after Star Athletica v Varsity Brands. India offers zero automatic protection once 50 copies are made. This places Indian designers at a global disadvantage. An Indian brand exporting to the EU must compete with EU designers who have 3 years of automatic rights, while the Indian brand loses rights after 50 units.
- No Protection for Fast Fashion: Fashion cycles now last 4-6 weeks. Design registration takes 6-8 months. By the time protection is granted, the design is obsolete. The law thus protects designs that no longer need protection and fails to protect designs at their peak commercial value. A short-term unregistered right, as in the EU, would solve this by granting automatic 3-year protection from first marketing.
Judicial trends show a strict interpretation. Courts will not create new law to fill gaps. In both Masrani and Ritika, judges noted the hardship but deferred to Parliament. Therefore, legislative reform is the only solution. Stakeholder consultations by DPIIT in 2022 acknowledged this issue, but no Bill has been tabled.
7. Conclusion
India’s fashion industry is legally vulnerable. The intersection of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act and the Designs Act creates a gap where original designs lose protection upon commercial success. Case law confirms that courts cannot ignore statutory language, leaving designers without a remedy.
This article recommends two reforms: First, amend Section 15(2) to increase the threshold from 50 to 5,000 copies, reflecting modern production scales. Second, introduce a short-term unregistered design right for 3 years, similar to the EU model. These changes would protect designers without burdening registration systems.
The law must recognise that fashion is both art and industry. Until reform occurs, designers face a choice: stay small and unprofitable, or grow and lose legal rights. That is not a choice the law should force.
References and Bibliography
Statutes:
The Copyright Act 1957.
The Designs Act 2000.
Cases
Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co 2006 (32) PTC 157 (Del).
Rajesh Masrani v Tahiliani Design Pvt Ltd 2008 (37) PTC 468 (Del).
Ritika Private Limited v Biba Apparels Pvt Ltd 2016 (65) PTC 414 (Del).
International Instruments
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1994) art 25.
Secondary Sources
World Intellectual Property Organisation, Understanding Industrial Designs (2023) <wipo.int> accessed 31 May 2026.
[1] IBEF Textiles and Apparel Industry in India(2024).
[2] Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community design art 11.
[3] The Copyright Act 1957, s 2 (3).
[4] The Copyright Act 1957, s 22.
[5] The Copyright Act 1957, s 15 (1).
[6] The Copyright Act 1957, s 15 (2).
[7] The Design Act 2000, s 2 (d).
[8] The Design Act 2000, s 11.
[9] Microfabres Inc v Girdhar & Co 2006 (32) PTC 157 (Del).
[10] The Design Act 2000, s 2 (d)
[11] Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co (n 10)
[12] The Copyright Act 1957, s 1(2)
[13] The Design Act 2000, s 11
[14] The Copyright Act 1957, s 22
[15] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1994) art 25.
[16] Rajesh Masrani v Tahiliani Design Pvt Ltd 2008 (37) PTC 468 (Del).
[17] Ritika Private Limited v Biba Apparels Pvt Ltd 2016 (65) PTC 414 (Del).
[18] Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, art 11.
