Introduction

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The Fashion Industry's expansion can be attributed in large part to intellectual

property rights. The fashion industry and intellectual property rights are so
intertwined that without intellectual property protection, the industry's
fundamental survival would be in ruins.
As one of India's most glamorous sectors, the fashion industry brought in INR
12,546 million in sales in 2019.1 Numerous fashion events, such as India
Fashion Week, Lakme Fashion Week, and India Runway Week, are held
annually in various cities throughout the nation. These occasions give
designers a stage on which to display their artistic abilities, draw attention
from the media, and increase brand recognition.2
The fashion industry has undergone a paradigm shift as a result of
digitalization and the advancement of trade and communication. Through a
variety of platforms, including social media and online advertising, designers
may now more easily display their talent and originality and connect with
customers. But as is well known, wonderful inventions also bring great pain.
New avenues for violating the rights of creators in the fashion business have
emerged as a result of technology and digitalization.
This brings us to the question of how the works of fashion designers can be
protected in this highly digitalised and competitive world. Well, the solution
for this conundrum can be found through Intellectual Property Rights.
This study aims to investigate the intricate relationship between the protection
provided by the Design Act and the Copyright Act in the fashion business. It
looks at the length and extent of protection provided by each mechanism, the
particular difficulties brought about by the industry's swift trends, and the
laborious registration procedure for designs, as well as the situations in which
copyright and design protection overlap. It also takes into account the
judiciary's function in interpreting the law and settling conflicts. Suggestions
are presented regarding the necessity of legal clarity, expedited registration
procedures, and awareness campaigns in order to achieve this delicate balance.
1
Statista, November 22, 2019
2
John Zarocostas, Role of IP rights in fashion Business:US prespective available at World
Intellectual Property Magzine
Page 0 of 60
 Introduction

The abstract emphasizes how crucial it is to understand the unique

requirements of the fashion sector and how international standardization is
required to support international business. The ultimate objective is to promote
creativity and at the same time protecting the rights of the people at large.
This paper explores the multifaceted dimensions of the copyright versus
design debate in the fashion industry. By examining the historical precedents,
current legal frameworks, and emerging trends, it seeks to shed light on the
complexities of intellectual property protection in one of the world's most
dynamic and influential creative sectors.

1.1 COPYRIGHT

A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives the creator of an

original work, or another right holder, the exclusive and legally secured right
to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a
limited time. 3The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or
musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an
idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself.

The term “copyright” refers to a collection of exclusive rights that Section

14 of the Act grants to the owner of the copyright. Only the copyright owner
or another person who has permission to do so from the copyright owner may
exercise these rights. These rights include the ability to adapt, reproduce,
publish, translate, and communicate with the public, among other things.
Copyright registration just establishes an entry for the work in the Copyright
Register kept by the Registrar of Copyrights and does not grant any rights.

Copyright in the field of fashion refers to the legal protection granted to

certain original creative works within the fashion industry. While copyright
law traditionally protects literary, artistic, musical, and other creative works,
its application to fashion has been somewhat limited due to the functional
nature of clothing. However, there are specific aspects of fashion that may
qualify for copyright protection:4

3
"Intellectual property", Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed. (2014)
4
Marlena Jankowska, Fashion Law - Fashion & Art Law: Intellectual Property Rights,
Copynorm, and the Fashion Industry published in 2023.

Page 1 of 60
 Introduction

Textile Designs: Original patterns and designs printed on fabrics can be

eligible for copyright protection. This includes intricate patterns, motifs, and
prints that are sufficiently original and creative.

Graphic Designs: Graphics, logos, and other visual elements applied to

clothing items can be protected by copyright if they meet the criteria of
originality and creativity.

Fashion Illustrations: Detailed fashion illustrations or sketches that

demonstrate originality and creativity may be eligible for copyright protection.

Photographs: Photographs of fashion designs, runway shows, or editorial

shoots are protected by copyright as artistic works.

It's important to note that copyright does not extend to the functional aspects
of clothing, such as the garment's cut, silhouette, or overall design. This means
that while a specific dress design may not be protected by copyright, the
unique pattern printed on the fabric or the logo embellished on the garment
could be.

Furthermore, copyright protection arises automatically upon the creation of the

original work and does not require registration. However, registering
copyright with the appropriate authorities can provide additional benefits, such
as the ability to pursue legal action for infringement and claim statutory
damages.

Overall, while copyright protection in fashion may not be as comprehensive as

in other creative fields, it still plays a crucial role in safeguarding certain
aspects of originality and creativity within the industry.

1.2 DESIGN

A product's appeal to a customer is influenced by a number of elements. The

way an article looks is one of the things that affects a customer's choice. An
article's appearance has a significant impact on how many units it sells. The
sellers spend a lot of time and money designing a unique product design that
sets it apart from competitors in order to boost sales and make a profit for the

Page 2 of 60
 Introduction

same reason. It is crucial to remember that a design is an attachment, either

inherent or extrinsic, to an article; it is not the content itself. A design cannot
exist independently of itself.5

Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 20006 provides the definition of ‘design’. It
states that design means

“only the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition

of lines or colours applied to any article whether in two dimensional or three
dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial process or means, whether
manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, which in the finished
article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye.”

The Design Act in the fashion industry refers to legislation or legal

frameworks that govern the protection of designs within the fashion sector.
These laws typically grant designers exclusive rights over the visual
appearance or aesthetic aspects of their creations, such as clothing,
accessories, footwear, and textile patterns. Here's an introduction to the role
and significance of design acts in the fashion industry:7

1. Protection of Original Designs: Design acts provide legal protection to

fashion designers by granting them exclusive rights over their original designs.
This protection extends to the unique visual elements, patterns, ornamentation,
and arrangements that distinguish their creations from others in the
marketplace.

2. Prevention of Copying and Imitation: Design acts aim to prevent

unauthorized copying or imitation of fashion designs by competitors,
counterfeiters, and other parties. By securing design rights, designers can
enforce their intellectual property and take legal action against infringement.

3. Promotion of Creativity and Innovation: Design acts encourage creativity

and innovation within the fashion industry by rewarding designers for their
originality and investment in design development. Knowing that their designs

5
Ipleaders, all your need to know about designs act, 2000 (March 9, 2023)
6
India Code, Design Act, 2000
7
Protection of Fashion Designs and Their Copyright in the Fashion Industry

Page 3 of 60
 Introduction

are legally protected, designers are incentivized to push the boundaries of

creativity and introduce new, unique concepts to the market.

4. Enhancement of Brand Value and Reputation: Design protection

contributes to the enhancement of brand value and reputation within the
fashion industry. Original and innovative designs help fashion brands
differentiate themselves from competitors, build brand identity, and cultivate
consumer trust and loyalty.

5. Support for Economic Growth and Trade: Design acts play a crucial role
in supporting economic growth and international trade within the fashion
industry. By protecting design rights, countries create a favourable
environment for fashion businesses to thrive, attract investment, and
participate in global markets without fear of design piracy or unfair
competition.

6. Legal Framework for Design Registration and Enforcement: Design

acts provide a legal framework for the registration, enforcement, and
protection of design rights. Designers can register their designs with relevant
authorities or agencies to obtain formal protection and enforce their rights
against infringers through legal proceedings.

In summary, design acts in the fashion industry are essential for safeguarding
the intellectual property of designers, preventing design piracy, promoting
creativity and innovation, enhancing brand value, and supporting economic
growth and international trade. These legal frameworks provide designers with
the confidence to invest in design development and contribute to the vibrancy
and competitiveness of the fashion industry.

1.3 SCOPE OF RESEARCH:

Page 4 of 60
 Introduction

Research on the topic "Copyright vs. Design: The Continuing Dilemma in the
Fashion Industry" can encompass various dimensions exploring the
intersection of intellectual property rights, creativity, innovation, and legal
frameworks within the fashion sector. Here are some potential scopes for
research:

1.3.1 Historical Perspective:

Investigate the historical evolution of copyright and design protection
in the fashion industry. Explore landmark legal cases, legislative
developments, and industry practices that have shaped the current
landscape of intellectual property rights in fashion.

1.3.2 Legal Analysis:

Conduct a comparative analysis of copyright and design protection
regimes in different jurisdictions, highlighting the strengths,
weaknesses, and nuances of each approach. Examine the scope of
protection, eligibility criteria, duration, enforcement mechanisms, and
practical implications for fashion designers and businesses.

1.3.3 Creativity and Innovation:

Explore the impact of copyright and design protection on creativity,
innovation, and design practices within the fashion industry.
Investigate how legal frameworks influence designers' decision-
making processes, design aesthetics, investment in innovation, and the
introduction of new trends and styles.

1.3.4 Consumer Behaviour and Market Dynamics:

Examine the role of intellectual property rights in shaping consumer
perceptions, preferences, and purchasing behaviour in the fashion
market. Investigate how brand reputation, authenticity, and exclusivity
affect consumer willingness to pay for original designs and the
prevalence of counterfeit goods.

1.3.5 Industry Practices and Strategies:

Page 5 of 60
 Introduction

Analyse industry practices and strategies adopted by fashion designers

and brands to navigate the copyright-design dilemma. Explore
approaches such as design modification, brand collaborations,
licensing agreements, and reliance on trademark protection to
safeguard intellectual property and maintain competitive advantage.

1.3.6 International Trade and Globalization:

Investigate the implications of copyright and design protection on
international trade, globalization, and the global fashion supply chain.
Examine trade agreements, cross-border enforcement mechanisms, and
challenges related to harmonizing intellectual property laws across
diverse cultural and legal contexts.

1.3.7 Policy and Legal Reform:

Evaluate existing intellectual property laws and propose policy
recommendations or legal reforms to address the continuing dilemma
between copyright and design protection in the fashion industry.
Consider stakeholders' perspectives, industry dynamics, technological
advancements, and societal interests in promoting creativity,
innovation, and fair competition.

1.3.8 Case Studies and Best Practices:

Examine case studies of successful fashion brands or designers that
have effectively managed the copyright-design dilemma. Identify best
practices, lessons learned, and innovative approaches to intellectual
property management, collaboration, and brand building in the fashion
industry.

By exploring these different dimensions, researchers can gain a

comprehensive understanding of the complex issues surrounding copyright
and design protection in the fashion industry and contribute valuable insights
to academia, industry stakeholders, policymakers, and legal practitioners.

Page 6 of 60
 Introduction

1.4 OBEJCTIVES:
The objective of a thesis on "Copyright vs. Design: The Continuing Dilemma
in the Fashion Industry" could be multifaceted, aiming to explore, analyze,
and provide insights into various aspects of the intersection between copyright
and design protection in the fashion sector. Here are some potential objectives
for such a thesis:

1.4.1 To Analyse Legal Frameworks:

Conduct a comprehensive analysis of copyright and design protection
laws applicable to the fashion industry in different jurisdictions.
Compare and contrast the scope, eligibility criteria, duration, and
enforcement mechanisms of copyright and design rights, highlighting
the implications for fashion designers, brands, and consumers.

1.4.2 To Investigate Industry Practices:

Explore industry practices, strategies, and challenges related to
managing intellectual property rights in the fashion industry. Examine
how fashion designers and brands navigate the copyright-design
dilemma through design modification, branding strategies, licensing
agreements, and collaborations.

1.4.3 To Examine Creativity and Innovation:

Investigate the impact of copyright and design protection on
creativity, innovation, and design aesthetics within the fashion sector.
Analyse how legal frameworks influence designers' creative
processes, investment in innovation, and the introduction of new
trends and styles.

1.4.4 To Explore Consumer Behaviour:

Explore consumer perceptions, preferences, and purchasing
behaviour concerning original designs and counterfeit goods in the
fashion market. Investigate the role of intellectual property rights in

Page 7 of 60
 Introduction

shaping consumer attitudes toward brand authenticity, exclusivity,

and ethical consumption.

1.4.5 To Assess International Trade Dynamics:

Evaluate the implications of copyright and design protection on
international trade, globalization, and the global fashion supply
chain. Analyse trade agreements, cross-border enforcement
mechanisms, and challenges related to harmonizing intellectual
property laws across diverse cultural and legal contexts.

1.4.6. To Propose Policy Recommendations:

Identify gaps, challenges, and opportunities in existing intellectual
property laws and policies governing the fashion industry. Propose
policy recommendations or legal reforms to address the copyright-
design dilemma, promote innovation, protect creative expression,
and ensure fair competition.

1.4.7 To Provide Case Studies and Best Practices:

Examine case studies of fashion brands or designers that have
effectively managed intellectual property rights and navigated the
copyright-design dilemma. Identify best practices, lessons learned,
and innovative approaches to intellectual property management,
collaboration, and brand building.

1.4.8 To Contribute to Academic Discourse:

Contribute to academic discourse and knowledge dissemination by
advancing understanding of the complex issues surrounding
copyright and design protection in the fashion industry. Provide
insights, theoretical frameworks, and empirical evidence to inform
further research, policymaking, and industry practices.

Overall, the objective of the thesis would be to deepen understanding, generate

insights, and contribute to the ongoing dialogue and resolution of the

Page 8 of 60
 Introduction

copyright-design dilemma in the dynamic and multifaceted context of the

fashion industry.

1.5 RESEARCH PROBLEM:

1. Small Boutique owners, or designers having small to medium sized

establishment don’t indulge in seeking protection under either
Copyright or Trademark Act.

Rational:

i. Small to medium sized establishment don’t have a capital

which allows them to invest in registration of design or
copyright of an article can be registered by them under such
acts as they statutory and professional fees can get
overwhelming for someone who is in the start-up ecosystem.

ii. Today’s fashion is fast moving fashion hence, the designs

which are introduced in the market get old within weeks of
their registration and hence, when the age of designs are such
short lived it gets difficult to both avail the registration on time
and also invest in getting a registration done of a design which
is short lived.

iii. Small scale establishment at times generate revenue out of

making copies or duplicate of the designs from the high end
luxury brand. Hence, there exists no need for such designs to
get registered on contrary, such designs will not even stand the
parameters of either of the acts.

2. Challenges are faced by fashion designers and businesses due to

the complex interplay between copyright and design protection?

Rational: The overlap between the collection of rights that an owner

has over a single subject matter is inevitable due to the nature of

Page 9 of 60
 Introduction

intellectual property. It is challenging for enforcement organizations

to ensure peaceful coexistence between these rights and establish a
precedent that applies to everybody. If a design is registered under the
Design Act, copyright protection is explicitly prohibited by Section
15(1) of the Copyright Act. Additionally, Section 15(2) specifies that
if a design qualifies for registration under the Designs Act but has not
yet been registered it will lose its copyright protection as soon as it is
applied to an article more than 50 times by a third party. This has
been perceived as a problem for designers because they frequently
exhibit their creativity at fashion shows, shops, and other public
venues, forfeiting their rights under the Design Protection Act in the
process. So, copyright does not give protection whose purpose is
functional and clothing is considered functional so only the design
that comes under the criteria of artistic work in a design fabric can be
given copyrighted, and not the whole of the fabric on the other hand
in designs act only the outer appearance would be protected. This
creates an overlap between the two acts which creates problems and
for the designers to protect their design at once.

3. Designers from any and all sectors prefer to register their design
under the copyright act over the design act.

Rational: There are several pros and cons to both the acts and two of
the act have different protection to provide. However, after tallying
them most of the designer and business owners prefer to opt under
copyright right over the design act due to the flexible nature of the act
which allows inherent protection without actually registration and also
allows the creator to register the design even after it has met the public
eyes.

4. Judicial perspective in dealing infringement of designs in the

fashion industry are important as they bridge the gap between the
statutes.

Page 10 of 60
 Introduction

Rational: There are several situations on which the statutes are silent.
There are times when the court has observed that the ruling the courts
have offered or the principles that the court has laid down or the test
the court has devised has helped to bridge the gap that the statute has
created. The interpretation of some of the sections have also cleverly
been implemented by the court to meet the needs of the present day.
The statues are not amended every now and then to keep the pulse of
the current fashion industry and hence the judiciary plays a very
crucial role when dealing with infringement cases.

1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research method provides the overall techniques and procedures that are
required to select, analyse, process and identify the information related to the
subject matter. In this paper, the methodology section particular deals with
non-doctrine method where empirical data is collected from the society and
based on which conclusion is drawn.

Additionally, it is comparative analysis between “Copyright Act” or “Design

Act” which offers better protection to the users in the fashion industry. The
data collection has been done through information received from the designers
working in the fashion industry and based on secondary qualitative data
analysis. The data collection is done through primarily interviewing and
questioning designers and the people working along with them and secondly
through various articles, journals, books, magazines and websites that are
related to law and IPR (intellectual property rights) wherein the designers have
given their personal opinion on the question before us in our research, whether
copyright law or design law which gives better protection to the artistic work
produced in the fashion house8. Moreover, the data has been collected by
discussing the various case laws that are based on the jurisdiction of India.

The research project that has been adopted in this study is indicated to be
causal research that illustrates the test based on effect and causes of the

8
Guillermo C. Jimenez, Fashion Law: Legal Issues for Fashion Executives & Designers--
Instructor's Guid

Page 11 of 60
 Introduction

relationship, hence considering in terms of the reference of the effect of

“copyright laws” and “design laws” and its effect on the fashion industry.

For a non-doctrinal research approach on the research topic, a

multidisciplinary methodology that combines qualitative and quantitative
research methods would be suitable.:

1. Quantitative Data Analysis:

Collection of empirical data through interviewing various professional
working in the industry of fashion along with reference drawn from
articles, blogs, journals, books, magazines wherein professions have
expressed their personal opinion on the concerned topic on which the
research is carried out.
Generate descriptive statistics, regression analyses, or other quantitative
measures to examine relationships between variables.

Analyse digital content, social media discussions, news articles, and online
forums related to copyright, design, and fashion trends. Identify emerging
issues, public opinions, and industry responses to the copyright-design
dilemma.

2. Literature Review:

Conduct a comprehensive review of academic literature, legal documents,

industry reports, and relevant publications on copyright, design protection,
and the fashion industry.

Analyse theoretical frameworks, historical developments, case studies, and

debates surrounding the copyright-design dilemma.

2. Case Studies:

Select and analyse case studies of fashion brands, designers, legal

disputes, and industry initiatives related to copyright and design
protection.

Page 12 of 60
 Introduction

Examine the strategies adopted, outcomes achieved, and lessons learned

from these real-world examples.

5. Qualitative Data Analysis:

Employ thematic analysis, content analysis, or grounded theory to

analyse interview transcripts, focus group discussions, and qualitative
data.

Identify recurring themes, categories, and narratives related to the

copyright-design dilemma and its implications for the fashion industry.

7. Ethical Considerations:

Ensure research ethics compliance by obtaining informed consent,

protecting participant confidentiality, and addressing any potential
conflicts of interest or biases in data collection and analysis.

By adopting a multidisciplinary research methodology that combines

qualitative and quantitative approaches, researchers can gain deeper insights
into the copyright-design dilemma in the fashion industry and contribute to
informed policy discussions, industry practices, and academic scholarship.

Page 13 of 60
 Historical Background
CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

2.1 PREFACE

The earliest records relating to Intellectual Property date back to the 6th
century BCE, from Sybaris in Ancient Greece. It granted a yearlong
exclusivity for bakers to make their culinary inventions, and the rise of
Intellectual Property is a culture in which our modern society was born into.
However, the resemblance of our values to ancient views would pause for a
long time with the rise of the Roman Empire. At around 480 CE, Emperor
Zeno overthrew the concept of sole proprietorship on artistic and agricultural
produce. Through the centuries, religious influence over society waned as
humanism emerged through ancient texts.

This movement, which is traceable to Aristotelian and Platonic worldviews,

paved the way for the Enlightenment. In the early 1800s, the idea of global
protection of Intellectual Property rights floated among legislative bodies, and
in 1883 the Paris Convention brought clarity and cooperation among
international jurisdictions. Three years later, the Berne Convention extended
the same protection to written expressions. The history of Intellectual Property
reveals an imprint of how we evolved as a society. It tells us of our past
values, collective thought, and capacity to strike a balance between
individuality, society, and spirituality.

The trademark protection of fashion labels is one of the oldest instances of IP

protection in the fashion sector. The Parisian couture house Worth registered
the first fashion trademark in 1858, and since then, fashion labels have kept
their brand names and emblems protected by registering trademarks. The
Copyright Act of 1976 in the US was the first to grant copyright protection to
fashion designs.

In India, the government has launched measures such as Geographical

Indication (GI) registration of traditional Indian textiles and crafts to support
and safeguard the intellectual property rights of the fashion industry. This is

Page 14 of 60
 Historical Background

one of the major undertakings the Indian government has undertaken to

protect the intellectual property rights of this sector.

GI is a type of IP protection that designates a product as being from a specific

location and having special features and attributes. This kind of security aids
in the prevention of piracy and counterfeiting and supports the growth of
regional companies. The Indian government has developed the National
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy to foster a conducive environment
for the growth and utilization of intellectual property within the country.

The key objectives of the policy are to enhance public awareness regarding
intellectual property rights, establish a robust legal system, and enhance the
effectiveness of enforcement procedures. In recent years, IP litigation has
increased in the Indian fashion industry as well. Indian designers have brought
several high-profile lawsuits against people who have plagiarized their
designs.

A lot of decisions have been made in favour of designers as a result of the

courts’ increased vigilance in defending the intellectual property rights of the
fashion sector. In terms of IP protection, the Indian fashion sector does,
however, confront some difficulties. Lack of understanding among designers
and other stakeholders of the significance of IP protection is one of the main
issues. As a result, many designers are now at risk of infringement and piracy
because they neglect to register their designs, trademarks, and other IP assets.

To sum up, the relationship between IP and the fashion business extends back
to the early 20th century, and regulations have changed throughout time to
consider the requirements of the fashion industry. IP laws are essential for
protecting designers’ rights and interests in the global fashion industry. India
has taken initiatives to promote and protect its traditional textiles and
handicrafts industry, but greater awareness is needed to protect creative and
innovative designs.9

9
Isha Johnson and Sakshi Verma, intersection of Inspiration and Infringement in the Fashion
Industry (July 18, 2023)

Page 15 of 60
 Historical Background

2.2 HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT IN INDIA

Copyright gained its recognition after the invention of printing press in 15th
century which enabled reproduction of literary work. UK copyright act has
great relevance to the Indian copyright act because the first copyright act in
India came in 1847, greatly influenced by the British Copyright Act of 1842
which did not sufficiently address the rights of Indian authors. To strengthen
copyright laws in India, the British government introduced the Indian
Copyright Act in 1914, which was borrowed heavily from the British
Copyright Act of 1912. After the independence, the Indian government passed
the Copyright Act, 1957 which repealed the previous and gave a more
comprehensive framework. This act was greatly impacted by the international
copyright treaty known as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary
and Artistic Works. There are five revisions in 1983, 1984, 1992, 1994, and
1999 and the president of India granted assent to the most recent revolutionary
modification to the Copyright Act, 2012 on June 7, 2012, and it was notified
on June 8, 2012, after it was ratified by the parliament on May 22, 2012. The
Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 became operative on June 21, 2012,
following its publication in the official gazette. 10 The Act is divided into 15
chapters with 79 sections. The Copyright Act, of 1957 has been amended
primarily for the following reasons: to bring the Act into compliance with the
two WIPO internet treaties signed in 1996, the WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty (“WPPT”) and the WIPO Copyright Treaty (“WCT”); to
safeguard and address the concerns of the music and film industry; to address
the concerns of the physically disabled and to safeguard the interests of the
author of any work; incidental changes; to remove operational facilities; and to
enforce rights[7].11

2.2.1 HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT IN THE FASHION INDUSTRY

During the 1800s the root idea for the intellectual property rights was
entertained in the Paris Convention to muster up joint action among
international jurisdiction. The Berne Convention solidified it. The very first

10
Sneha Mahawar, published on Ipleaders.
11
Suvrashis Sarkar, History and Evolution of Copyright in India, World Wild Journal, Vol 5,
Issue 11 (November 2016)

Page 16 of 60
 Historical Background

fashion trademark was registered in 1858 by the Persian couture house. In the
USA, the copyright act of 1976 granted safeguards to the fashion designers.

In India the protection of a designer’s original creation is protected under both,

copyright and designs legislation. Some relevant laws protecting the clothing
industry are the:

 Copyright Act of 1957– The Act protects the original works of the
artists from the time the said original work is put in fixed form. Unlike
other forms of IPR, copyrights subsist in works from the moment they
are expressed in fixed form irrespective pf whether or not you have
applied for a registration.

 The Design Act 2000-The Designs Act of 2000 was enacted with the
intention of safeguarding non-functional parts of a product that have
aesthetic appeal, such as the arrangement of shapes, patterns,
decorations, or lines or colours applied to any two-, three-, or both-
dimensional form.

 The Trademarks Act 1999-The Act intends on protecting the name of

the brand by registering the trade name of the brand, hence eliminating
the possibility of any other person using it without facing
consequences.

 The Geographical Indication Act of Goods Act 1999– Certain textile

and forms of art originate from specific regions, the GI Act aims to
protect the location specific art form from unauthorized use and
branding.

2.3 EVOLUTION DESIGN ACT, 2000 IN INDIA

The History of Designs Act in India can be traced back to the period of
British reign. The first Indian legislature to grant to grant privileges
and protection for designs was the Patent and Designs Act, 1872. It
supplemented the 1859 Act passed by Governor General of India for

Page 17 of 60
 Historical Background

granting exclusive privileges to inventors and added protection for

Industrial Design. The enactment of Inventions and Designs Act, 1888,
repealed the 1872 act and provided the protection of inventions and
designs. This act was a clear reflection of designs act in United
Kingdom. In 1911, British Government enacted the Patent and Designs
Act and repealed the prior legislations. In 1930, this act was amended
and where by the eligibility criteria for design registration changed
from new and original design to new or original design. 12 Initially, this
particular legislation governed the matters related to both Patent as
well as Designs. In 1970, a separate act called the Patent Act 1970 was
enacted to deal with matters related Patent and thus the provisions
relating to patent was repealed, but the act continued to be the major
legislation for Industrial Design till 2000. India joined the WTO as a
member State in 1995. Consequently, the Patents & Designs Act, 1911
was repealed and the Designs Act, 2000 was enacted, to make the
Designs Law in India in compliance with TRIPS. 13

Moreover, since the enactment of the Designs Act of 1911, there has
been a considerable progress in the field of science, technology and
other related fields. This necessitated the need make the legislature
more efficient and strong for proper administration, protection and
promotion of Industrial Designs and all these gave rise to the Designs
Act, 2000. This new act came into force on 11th May 2001.

2.3.1 HISTORY OF DESIGN IN FASHION

Style regulation is a field of regulation that covers different licensed

innovation freedoms sections, including copyright, patent, brand
names, exchange plans, etc. Susan Safadi, United States regulation
teacher interestingly, in year 2008, offered a course include style
regulation and from that point forward, this subject of design
regulation has been perceived as an unmistakable field in circle of
regulation. Design regulation is a quickly developing region with
12
Pournav Nair, Origin and Development of Design Act
13
Suvrashis Sarkar, History and Evolution of Industrial Designs in India, vol. 5, issue 1
(November 2016)

Page 18 of 60
 Historical Background

progression of arising innovation, include spite of being an

exceptionally thought specialization. In seventeenth hundred years,
style was a fundamental piece of French lifestyle. Textures include
more affordable renditions have additionally been flowed as a
component of pattern. In year 1920, when style was simpler towards
duplicate and more accessible, progressions were made. Infield of
design, duplicating stayed most major issue. Starting points of
copyright expansions can be followed back to English and French
Copyright frameworks, which cover style plans.

Regulations securing and controlling 'Style' include India: Following

are Fashion Foundations include India: 14

 Design Foundation of India (FFI)

 Style Design Council of India (FDCI)
 Clothes Export Promotion Council (APEC)

Design regulation help goes from commencement of a plan towards

figure out or plan an article of clothing towards having it sewed into
dress textures, styling and distributing it, and getting brand insurance
for it.

The Design Act of 2000, Copyright Act of 1957, and Geographical

Indications of Goods Act of 1999 all give security under India's
licensed innovation system. Subsequently, three unique bits of
regulation seem towards oversee attire and plan industry.1957
Copyright Act safeguards show-stoppers in thought representations.
Design Act of 2000 safeguards on-practical parts of an outwardly
engaging substance, for example, shape, design, line construction, and
variety succession.15

In conclusion, the historical development of the Design Act, at both

international and national levels, accentuates the vital role of design
protection in the context of industrial designs. International agreements
14
Craik Jennifer. The Face of Fashion. London: Routledge, 1994. Crane Diana. Fashion and
Its Social Agendas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
15
Lt. Vibha Chandrakar, History of Fashion Law, Vol 6, Special Issue (Nov Dec 2021)

Page 19 of 60
 Historical Background

and domestic legislation have evolved to establish legal frameworks

for the protection of designs, fostering creativity and innovation across
diverse sectors, including manufacturing and consumer products.

Page 20 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

CHAPTER 3
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

3.1 PREFACE

India's economy is one of the world's most rapidly expanding and developing.
Over the course of time, there has been significant growth in the Indian textile
market. In 2012, the fashion industry in India was worth 720 crosses. The
statistics of the Associated Chamber of Commerce and Industry of India
(ASSOCHAM) state that the fashion industry is expected to grow by 35
billion dollars by 2020.16The Indian textile industry is very big. After China
India has the biggest material industry when it comes to textile. The Indian
fashion industry employs a large number of people, not only in urban areas but
also in rural India, and its export profits increased by 382 crores in the years
2018 and 2019.17 The customary handcrafts are broadly sent out. In particular,
Indian designer clothing will contribute 1.7% in 2020.18 While this percentage
may seem insignificant, the fact that the high fashion industry employs a large
number of people is noteworthy. It is evident that the design industry is
expanding rapidly, despite its small size. Even though the high fashion
industry isn't very big, it's clear that it's not being handled right. Designers
have often complained about fashion designs being copied or stolen. And
since the industry generates so much it in a way becomes the responsibility of
the state to protect the fashion industry. However, the line between trademarks
and designs can often blur, especially concerning the protection of product
shapes. While trademarks primarily focus on the source identification
function, designs encompass the aesthetic aspects of products. In cases where
the shape of a product serves as a trademark, distinguishing between its
functional and ornamental aspects becomes crucial.

16
The Indian Express.Com
17
Ministry of textile and Industry annual report (2019-2020), para 3.12-3.13.
18
Shishir Tiwari, ‘Intellectual Property Rights Protection of Fashion Design in India: A
Panoramic View.’

Page 21 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

Moreover, trademarks are subject to distinctiveness requirements, while

designs focus on novelty and originality. This difference highlights the need
for creators to carefully navigate between trademark and design protection to
ensure comprehensive coverage of their intellectual property rights.
Understanding the complexities in the interplay between trademarks and
designs is essential for creators and businesses seeking to safeguard their
innovations in the marketplace.

Fashion, being an art form expressed through garments and accessories, finds
its safeguard in the realm of intellectual property. Designers invest not only in
the creation of clothing but in the originality, novelty and distinctiveness that
sets their work apart. This is where the synergy between fashion and
intellectual property comes to life, offering creators a shield against
unauthorised replication.

However, the path to protection is not without hurdles. The fast-paced nature
of the fashion industry, coupled with the challenge of defining the originality
of designs, presents unique obstacles. The Designs Act helps creators address
these challenges. It defines the scope of design protection, encompassing
elements beyond the utilitarian aspects of clothing.

Protecting fashion designs requires a nuanced understanding of both the

aesthetic and functional elements. The Designs Act offers clarity on what
constitutes a registrable design and the duration of its protection, which is 10
years and can be further renewed for an additional period of 5 years. 19

3.2 REGISTRATION PROCESS20

3.2.1 Design

For registering an article under the Design Act, 2000 an application for
registration can be filed in Form 1 along with the prescribed fee. Form
1 shall include the details of the creator like their full name, postal

19
Lisa Wang, The Copying of Independent Fashion Designers, Stanford Law Review, Vol 75
(April 2023)
20
Srishti Kaushal, Procedure for Copyright Registration under Indian Copyright Act, 1957
(January 14, 2020)

Page 22 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

address, nationality, details of the article, including its name, class or

category number as identified under the Locarno classification. The
Applicant or their representative needs to send the physical copy of the
form in case they have earlier applied electronically.

3.2.2 Copyright

Although the registration of copyright is not mandatory, it is advisable

to get it registered. While applying for the copyright registration, an
applicant must fill form XIV or electronically before the copyright
registrar, depending on the type of copyright work. In case, the
applicant is filling the application by their advocate, a power of
attorney along with the form and prescribed fee along with the details
of the owner or creator of the artistic work.

3.3 PROTECTION IN RELTION TO THE FASHION

INDUSTRY

The copyright Act of 1957 protects copyright in India. In the context of

the fashion Industry, copyright refers to a fashion designer's absolute
right against illegal copying of their original designs. The statue makes
no specific reference to fashion design or anything else associated with
designers or design. Every one of the things to be safeguarded are
referenced in section 13 of the copyright act 1957. Copyright protection
will extend to the design irrespective of whether the design is registered
under the said act, the only requirement for copyright protection is that
the design must be original. Making a fashion article is viewed as
artistic workmanship under the purview of the Act.

Artistic work means anything that includes any painting, sculpture, a

photograph, architecture, the craftsmanship of an architectural and also
drawing. The copyright act may classify fashion designs as artistic
works. Obviously, style articles being works of art, are qualified for

Page 23 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

copyright protection in India. The Act of 1957 grants fashion designers’

complete control over their designs and grants them absolute rights over
fashion design. Without the fashion designer's prior consent, no one
may duplicate their designs. The designer has unquestionably the option
to sell the design by their choice. Plagiarism and modification of the
design either in 2D or 3D structure will lead to infringement of
copyright. Under Copyright, designers retain their rights for life and
period of sixty years after the creator dies. Any person who attempts to
reproduce the design, imports or exports pirated fashion articles, or
otherwise engages in trade of such fashion articles without first
obtaining a license or permission from the fashion designer is
considered to have violated the designer's copyright.

3.3.1 Laws governing The Copyright Act,1957.

In order to qualify for the protection of Copyright, it is necessary that

the Fashion design –

1. Is new and Original;

2. Work is published within the territorial limits of India, and;

3. In case of works first published outside India, the author at the

time of publication must be domiciled in India

Some of the Relevant Provisions (in relation to the current Article) –

Section 2 (c) – Definition of Artistic Works as

“(i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map,

chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not
any such work possesses artistic quality;

(ii) a 1 [work of architecture]; and

(iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship”

Section 13- Works in which Copyright Subsists

Page 24 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

“(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and the other provisions
of this Act, copyright shall subsist throughout India in the
following classes of works, that is to say,

(a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;

(b) cinematograph films; and

(c) 1 [sound recording].

(2) Copyright shall not subsist in any work specified in sub-section

(1), other than a work to which the provisions of section 40 or section
41 apply, unless

(i) in the case of a published work, the work is first

published in India, or where the work is first published
outside India, the author is at the date of such publication,
or in a case where the author was dead at that date, was at
the time of his death, a citizen of India;

(ii) in the case of an unpublished work other than a 2

[work of architecture], the author is at the date of the
making of the work a citizen of India or domiciled in India;
and (iii) in the case of 2 [work of architecture], the work is
located in India.

(3) Copyright shall not subsist—

(a) in any cinematograph film if a substantial part of the

film is an infringement of the copyright in any other work;

(b) in any 1 [sound recording] made in respect of a

literary, dramatic or musical work, if in making the 1
[sound recording], copyright in such work has been
infringed.

(4) The copyright in a cinematograph film or a 1 [sound recording]

shall not affect the separate copyright in any work in respect of which
or a substantial part of which, the film, or, as the case may be, the 1
[sound recording] is made.

Page 25 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

(5) In the case of 2 [work of architecture], copyright shall subsist

only in the artistic character and design and shall not extend to
processes or methods of construction.”

Section 14(c)- Meaning of Copyright (Artistic Works)

“….....(c) in the case of an artistic work,—

(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including—

(A) the storing of it in any medium by electronic or other means; or

(B) depiction in three-dimensions of a two-dimensional work; or

(C) depiction in two-dimensions of a three-dimensional work;]

(ii) to communicate the work to the public;

(iii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already
in circulation;

(iv) to include the work in any cinematograph film;

(v) to make any adaptation of the work;

(vi) to do in relation to adaptation of the work any of the acts specified

in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (iv)….”

Section 15-Special Provisions regarding copyright in designs

registered or capable of being registered under the provisions of
Designs Act,2000

“(1) Copyright shall not subsist under this Act in any design which is
registered under the [Designs Act, 2000 (16 of 2000)].

(2) Copyright in any design, which is capable of being registered

under the [Designs Act, 2000 (16 of 2000)] but which has not
been so registered, shall cease as soon as any article to which
the design has been applied has been reproduced more than fifty
times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright or,
with his licence, by any other person.”

Section 17- Owner of Copyrights

Page 26 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

“(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or artistic work made by the

author in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a
newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of
service or apprenticeship, for the purpose of publication in a
newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, the said proprietor
shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the
first owner of the copyright in the work in so far as the
copyright relates to the publication

of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to

the reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so
published, but in all other respects the author shall be the first
owner of the copyright in the work…”

Section 22- Term of Copyright

“Except as otherwise hereinafter provided, copyright shall

subsist in any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work
published within the lifetime of the author until 4 [sixty years]
from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year
in which the author dies.”

Section 44-Register of Copyrights

“There shall be kept at the Copyright Office a register in the

prescribed form to be called the Register of Copyrights in which
may be entered the names or titles of works and the names and
addresses of authors, publishers and owners of copyright and
such other particulars as may be prescribed.”

Section 51- When Copyright is Infringed

“Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed—

(a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of

the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act
or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted

Page 27 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under

this Act
(b) when any person—
(i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by
way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or
(ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such
an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the
copyright, or
(iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv) into India, any infringing copies of the work”

3.3.2 Laws governing the Design Law, 2000

According to Section 2(d) “design” means only the features of shape,
configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours
applied to any article whether in two dimensional or three dimensional
or in both forms, by any industrial process or means, whether manual,
mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, which in the finished
article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye; but does not include
any mode or principle of construction or anything which is in
substance a mere mechanical device, and does not include any trade
mark as defined in clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the
Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958) or property
mark as defined in section 479 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
or any artistic work as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the
Copyright Act, 1957
In order to register under the provisions of the act, it is necessary that
the –
i. Design is new and Original
ii. It should not be previously published
iii. Must be cable of being distinguished from known designs or
combinations
iv. Must not contain scandalous or obscene matter
Some of the Relevant Provisions (in relation to the current Article) –

Page 28 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

Section 2(d)- Definition of Designs

"as the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or
composition of lines or colours applied to any article whether in two
dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial
process or means, whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate
or combined, which in the finished article appeal to and are judged
solely by the eye; but does not include any mode or principle of
construction or anything which is in substance a mere mechanical
device, and does not include any trade mark as defined in clause (v) of
sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act,
1958 (43 of 1958) or property mark as defined in section 479 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any artistic work as defined in
clause (c) of section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957).”

Section 4- Prohibition on registration of designs

“A design which
(a) is not new or original; or
b) has been disclosed to the public anywhere in India or in any other
country by publication in tangible form or by use or in any other way
prior to the filing date, or where applicable, the priority date of the
application for registration; or
(c) is not significantly distinguishable from known designs or
combination of known designs; or (d) comprises or contains
scandalous or obscene matter shall not be registered”

Section 11- Copyright on registration

“(1) When a design is registered, the registered proprietor of the
design shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have copyright in the
design during ten years from the date of registration.
(2) If, before the expiration of the said ten years, application for the
extension of the period of copyright is made to the Controller in the
prescribed manner, the Controller shall, on payment of the prescribed
fee, extend the period of copy-right for a second period of five years
from the expiration of the original period of ten years.”

Page 29 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

Section 22- Piracy in Designs

“(I) During the existence of copyright in any design it shall not be
lawful for any person.
(a) for the purpose of sale to apply or cause to be applied to any
article in any class of articles in which the design is registered, the
design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof, except with the
license or written consent of the registered proprietor, or to do
anything with a view to enable the design to be so applied; or
(b) to import for the purposes of sale, without the consent of the
registered proprietor, any article belonging to the class in which the
design has been registered, and having applied to it the design or any
fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof, or
(c) knowing that the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation
thereof has been applied to any article in any class of articles in which
the design is registered without the consent of the registered
proprietor, to publish or expose or cause to be published or exposed
for sale that article.
(1) If any person acts in contravention of this section, he shall be
liable for every contravention…”

3.4 INFRINGMENT AND REMEDIES UNDER BOTH THE

ACTS
3.4.1 The various methods through which copyright infringement takes places
in the fashion line are as follows:21
 COUNTERFEITING– In simple words, counterfeiting means “to
imitate or feign especially with the intent to cheat or to make a
copied replica of”. In the fashion industry, counterfeiting is simply
creating the replica of a popular design and selling it at a lower price.

21
Anand and Anand , In brief: copyright infringement and remedies in India, Lexology

Page 30 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

Recently, the movie “House of Gucci”22 exposed the already existing

trend of counterfeiting in the fashion industry.
 UNAUTHORISED REPRODUCTION OR UNCREDITED USE –
Unauthorized production is a way of making a facsimile of the
textiles prints, designs etc. without the consent of the original owner.
Uncredited use on the other hand refers to using copyrighted
protected work without the permission of the owner and without
crediting the owner for their work. Such instances deprive the owner
of copyrights of their right to get recognition for their work.
 KNOCK OFF- It refers to the unauthorized use, production, imitation
or the creating of replica of the logos and trademarks without the
proper permission or without the acquiring of the license from the
owner of the trademark.

3.4.2 Penalties that are levied under the statutes are as follow:
 Under the Trademarks Act 1999, Sections 103 to 109 provide for
different punishments, monetary and otherwise for the unauthorized
use of one’s trademark.
 Further, under the Copyright Act 1957, Chapter XIII specifies the
various offences under the Act and the penalties and punishments
attached to each of the said offences.
 The Design Act 2000 specifies the offences and their penalty under
Section 22(2) of the Act.

In both the Copyright Act and the Design Act, there are provisions for
addressing infringement, but they differ in terms of what they protect and the
remedies available. Here's a breakdown:

3.4.3 Copyright Act:

Infringement: Copyright protects original literary, artistic, musical, and

dramatic works. Infringement occurs when someone without

22

Page 31 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

authorization reproduces, distributes, performs, or displays copyrighted

work.

Remedies:

Civil Remedies: Copyright owners can seek civil remedies such as

injunctions (court orders to stop infringement), damages (monetary
compensation for losses suffered), and an account of profits
(compensation based on profits made by the infringer).

Criminal Remedies: Imprisonment not less than 6 months and not more
than 3 years along with fine not less than 50,000/- which may extend to
2,00,000/- .

3.4.4 Design Act:

Infringement: The Design Act protects the visual design of objects, not
their functional aspects. Infringement occurs when someone without
authorization copies or imitates the design of a registered industrial
design.

Remedies:

Similar to copyright, civil remedies in design infringement cases

include injunctions, damages, and an account of profits.

3.4.5 Analysis of The Line Between Inspiration And Infringement23

In general, inspiration is the act of being enthusiastic to produce, think,

or act in a way that is original, creative, or remarkable. It is a state of
being moved, inspired, or driven by an outside or internal force that
results in the outcome of fresh concepts, behaviour, or artistic
expressions. Inspiration can come from a variety of things, including
reflection, people, experiences, literature, art, music and many more.

23
Isheta T Batra, The Line Of Difference Between Copyright Infringement And Copyright
Inspiration (April, 2023)

Page 32 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

Inspiration is the process of being motivated and influenced to create or

innovate, which must be carefully examined to avoid infringement. IPR
must distinguish between inspiration and imitation to protect original
and distinctive works, rather than exact copies or obvious copies.

When deciding whether a work violates the rights of an already-existing

invention that is protected by copyright, a patent, or a trademark,
inspiration enters the field of intellectual property rights (IPR). To
determine if the allegedly infringing work was directly inspired by or
derived from the original, courts and legal systems frequently look at
how similar the two are.

 Inspiration with connection to IPR and Fashion Law Industry

The fashion industry is constantly evolving and creating new styles and
trends that are imposed worldwide. For this reason, it is important to
protect the Intellectual Property (IP) rights that emanate from these
creations. This includes the protection of the industrial design of each of
the garments created, the protection of the name or trademark through
which such garments are identified in the market, through a series of
other Intellectual Property rights that can be protected. Intellectual
Property has become a key element in the multi-million-dollar fashion
business and has contributed to the growth of business and strengthened
the role of companies in the market.

Section 15 of the Copyright Act, of 1957 lays down two key

provisions regarding the copyright of designs that are capable of being
registered under the Designs Act. The design must either be protected
as an artistic work under the Copyright Act or registered under the
Designs Act. If the design is not registered under the Designs Act, then
the Copyright Act will be used to settle any legal disputes. If the design
is reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process by the
copyright owner or another person under license from the owner, then
the Copyright protection for said design will cease to exist.

Page 33 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

In the fashion industry, inspiration plays a significant role in the

creative process of designers and brands. However, when it comes to
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), the line between inspiration and
infringement can sometimes become blurred.

Designers need to be cautious to ensure their creations do not infringe

upon the copyrights, patents, or trademarks of other designers or brands.
In terms of copyright, fashion designs are generally not protected under
copyright law in many countries unless they meet certain criteria.
Trademarks are crucial for establishing brand identity and protecting
distinctive logos, names, or symbols associated with fashion brands.

Additionally, the concept of “trade dress” is relevant in the fashion

industry, which refers to the overall visual appearance and packaging of
a product that may serve as a source identifier. Trade dress protection
can extend to elements such as unique colour combinations, patterns, or
specific product packaging. In the fashion industry, IPR issues can arise
when designs or elements of fashion creations are too closely inspired
by or resemble existing protected works.

To mitigate the risk of infringement, fashion companies often engage in

practices such as conducting thorough research, ensuring their designs
have a unique identity, consulting with legal experts, and taking
proactive steps to protect their IPR. Regular monitoring of the market
and acting against potential infringers are also important strategies for
protecting IPR in the fashion industry. Striking a balance between
taking inspiration and creating distinct works is essential to navigating
the complexities of IPR in the fashion industry.

 Difference between Inspiration and Infringement

Intellectual property law is vital in the fashion industry for safeguarding

creators’ rights and combating infringement. The distinction between
inspiration and infringement is sometimes hazy, but there are a few
crucial things to examine.

Page 34 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

The use of components or ideas from a design as a starting point for

developing something new and unique is referred to as inspiration. This
is widely accepted in the business if the new design is not a straight
replica of the original and does not violate any intellectual property
rights.

Infringement, on the other hand, happens when a design is too close to

the original and may lead buyers to believe they are purchasing the
identical thing. This might involve adopting identical branding or logos
or replicating design aspects such as patterns, colours, and forms.

To avoid infringement, designers must research to guarantee that their

designs are unique and do not infringe on any existing intellectual
property rights. Conducting a trademark search to confirm that the
branding and logos used in the design are not already in use by another
company is one example.

Overall, while inspiration is a common practice in the fashion industry,

it is important to ensure that designs are original and do not infringe on
any intellectual property rights.

3.6 DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN

COPYRIGHT AND DESIGN ACT

Both copyright law and design law provide different kinds of protection,
where the Design Act provides limited protection, copyright law covers a wide
variety of rights and broader protection to the fashion industry. The same has
been enumerated below:

1. Any design which is unregistered under the Act cannot seek legal
remedies or protection under the Designs Act. So, to avail, any legal
protection or exclusive use of a design the Act mandates the user to get
it registered. Legal rights can be enforced only after the successful

Page 35 of 60
 Critical Analysis of Statutory Framework

registration of design. Whereas, it is advisable to get copyright

registered, however, the registration of copyright is not mandatory to
avail such legal remedies or protection under the Copyright Act.

2. Design is a statutory right and not an inherent right. The Act provides
protection only after the registration of a design. Whereas, copyright is
a common law right and it is protected from the moment it comes into
existence that’s why it is considered as an inherent right.

3. The term of protection of a copyright is usually for the lifetime of the

original creator or author or owner plus sixty (60) years. Whereas the
term of protection of design is ten (10) years, which can extend to five
more years’ subject to the renewal.

4. Any original literary work, artistic work, dramatic work, musical work,
cinematograph film, sound recording and visual recording are
protected under the ambit of copyright law. Whereas, only original and
novel design is protected under the Designs Act.

5. Copyright can be registered even after the intimation to the public,

whereas a design loses its originality if it catches the eye of the public
without registration.

6. A design needs to be registered as per the class it belongs to as

classified under the Locarno Classification which is in harmony with
the classification systems across the world. Whereas, copyright
subsists in the original artistic work as prescribed under Section 2
(c) of the Copyright Act.

7. The outcome or finished products that can be applied to an article

comes under the purview of the Designs Act, whereas, copyright
subsists in the individual artistic work even if it has not been applied to
an article.

Page 36 of 60
 Analysis of Judicial Proceeding
CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDING

4.1 Louis Vuitton vs. My Other Bag24
Significance:
This case established the way for all of those goods and names that were
subject to parodies.
My Other Bag is a company that sells canvas tote bags with “My Other Bag”
printed on one side and pictures of renowned handbags from high-end brands
like Chanel, Fendi, and Louis Vuitton on the other. Louis Vuitton took offence
at the former company’s products and filed a lawsuit, claiming trademark
infringement and dilution, among other things. According to the side of the
defendant, Louis Vuitton has consistently behaved like a trademark bully
within the industry based on past acts. On the other hand, Louis Vuitton
maintained that its activities support the strategy of aggressive defence of its
intellectual property.
Holding:
On all of Louis Vuitton’s claims, the district court granted My Other Bag
summary judgement, concluding that because its products are parodies and not
actual products, neither trademark infringement nor dilution had occurred.
Additionally, the court pointed out that the defendant’s use of designer marks
didn’t come under trademark infringement since the tote bags were no
competition nor of same quality as the plaintiff’s designer bags which would
lead to confusion among customers. And lastly, since the defendant merely
used the mark to convey that the tote bags were not a substitute for the
designer handbags, the court found that the defendant’s use of the plaintiff
designer’s copyrighted mark did not amount to copyright infringement.
4.2 Puma vs. Forever 2125
Issue: Should the court grant the motion of Forever 21 and entertain claim of
infringement based on product similarity of such nature
Facts: Forever 21 (an American fast fashion retailer brand) had launched a
range of shoes under its brand name. Later in March 2017, Puma (a German
MNC that manufactures footwear, apparel and accessories) had filed a suit

24
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc., 18-293-cv (2d Cir. Mar. 15, 2019)
25
PUMA SE v. Forever 21, Inc., 2:17-cv-02523, (C.D. Cal.)
Page 38 of 60
 Analysis of Judicial Proceeding

against Forever 21, in a District Court of California, US alleging that the

designs of the shoes manufactured by Forever 21 were similar to those
of Creeper Sneaker, Fur slide and Bow slide that were manufactured by
Puma under the Fenty collection (designed by a famous singer Rihanna
Fenty). And so they had infringed Puma’s design patent.
The causes of action include-
1- Design patent infringement
2- Federal trade dress
3- Copyright infringement
4- Federal false designation of origin
5- State unfair competition
However, forever 21 sought a partial dismissal of the case that the designs
were not ‘new’ to puma, in fact it comes from mid-twentieth century.
Holding:
The case was heard by Judge Phillip Gutierrez who stated that- “Although
Puma publically advertises that Rihanna herself designed the shoes at-issue in
this litigation, Rihanna is not named as an author on Puma’s copyright
applications or as an investor on Puma’s design patent.”
So he derived two possible conclusions from that, firstly, either Puma
misrepresented material facts to the Patent & Copyright office and so
committing fraud there or secondly, they misrepresented public that Rihanna
designed the shoes, and so misrepresenting the courts that her involvement
impacts the goodwill associated with the trade.
The motion given by Forever 21 was granted in part and denied in part-
 Puma’s first cause of action for trade dress infringement, was
DENIED.
 Puma’s second cause of action for trade dress infringement was
GRANTED with leave to amend.
 Third cause of action for copyright infringement was GRANTED,
with leave to amend.
 Fourth cause of action for false designation of origin and unfair
competition under Langan Act, with leave to amend.
 Fifth cause of action for violation of UCL, was GRANTED.

Page 39 of 60
 Analysis of Judicial Proceeding

4.3 Forever 21 vs. Gucci26

Issue: Stripes
In 2017, Gucci threatened Forever 21 to sue them if they don’t stop
selling blue-red-blue and green-red-green striped items, which were Gucci’s
identity designs and were also trademarked by the brand. However, it was
Forever 21 who went to the US District Court with a plea to cancel various
Gucci trademarks, quoting that stripes are too common to be trademarked and
many fashion designers incorporate them as decorative elements into their
clothing and accessories.
Gucci responded by claiming that Forever 21 is in fact pretending to be the
victim of unfair competition. But Gucci has suffered significant sales losses as
a result of this infringement. Following which they asked the court to dismiss
the case. Their request was denied.
Holding:
The Court recognised the validity of both of Forever 21’s claims. They added
that trials should be used to decide these claims. On November 21, 2018, these
two fashion labels made a decision to resolve their disagreement. The
settlement’s specific terms have not yet been made public.

4.4 Adidas vs. Skechers 27

Adidas is an athletic-shoe and apparel manufacturer and Skechers is a brand in
the same industry. Adidas filed a lawsuit against Skechers for infringement.
Adidas presented that Sketchers had copied two Adidas shoe designs, the
“Onix” model from Skechers violated the trade dress of Adidas’ “Stan Smith”
shoe, while the “Cross Court,” from Skechers, violated Adidas’ “Three-Stripe”
trademark.
Adidas also sued Sketchers for infringement of the concept of “Springblade”
shoes. Skechers came up with its “Mega Flex” shoe that contains the “Mega
Blade 2.0″ having numerous similarities with the Adidas product.
Holding:
The court granted a preliminary injunction in favour of Adidas and ordered
Skechers to stop the production and sale of the three products. The court

26
Forever 21, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc., 2:17-cv-04706, (C.D. Cal.)
27
Adidas America, Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc. is 890 F.3d 747

Page 40 of 60
 Analysis of Judicial Proceeding

stated, The product is clearly influenced by that of its direct rival. Nobody can
tell the difference between the two items either.

4.5 Ritika Private Limited vs. Biba Apparels Private Limited28

This case revolves around copyright infringement and registered design. Ritika
Private Ltd filed a case against Biba Apparels stating that the latter had copied
designs and work of the plaintiff which plaintiff had been selling under the
brand “Ritu Kumar”. The former claimed to be its first owner and stated that
the accused had earned profits by selling the designs under their name without
any permission.
The defendant, on the other hand, refuted the plaintiff’s claims and assertions,
claiming that the plaintiff had never registered the disputed design. They
claimed that because it had been manufactured more than 50 times, Section
15(2) of the Copyright Act would bar the lawsuit and that this would not
constitute a copyright infringement.
Holding:
The key argument made by the Hon’ble Court in this case was that a single
design loses its protection under the Copyright Act after being produced more
than 50 times.
The court affirmed that the design must be registered under the Designs Act in
order to be protected; otherwise, once it is produced more than 50 times via an
industrial method, the design would no longer be protected by copyright.
Since the dresses were produced through the industrial process of using the
design or sketch, the court found that the defendant had not violated any
copyright. There was no instance of the defendant attaching a print from the
plaintiff’s artwork to clothing.

4.6 People Tree vs. Dior29

28
Ritika Private Limited vs. Biba Apparels Private Limited [230 (2016) DLT 109]
29
People Tree vs. Dior, 2018

Page 41 of 60
 Analysis of Judicial Proceeding

People Tree is a small scale Indian business that handprints its own textiles. It
recently sued French luxury fashion house Christian Dior for the act of
plagiarism of designs. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant
had copied several block printing designs that the plaintiff had created with the
help of some Rajasthani artisans.
Holding:
The issue in this instance was that Plaintiff used a “Dabu” technique that
offered no GI protection. Defendant in this instance very skilfully exploited
this weakness, giving Plaintiff no legal options.An out-of-court settlement has
been reached between Indian design firm People Tree and French luxury
brand Christian

Page 42 of 60
 Analysis of Collected Data

CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS OF COLECTED DATA

5.1 ANALYSIS OF EMPRICIAL DATA

The data collected using various methods as previously stated in Chapter 1 is
further divided under three category of business which are recognised in the
fashion industry being the following:
 Small enterprises
 Medium enterprises
 Large enterprises
Before evaluating whether the abovementioned industries prefer safeguarding
their work product under Copyright Law or Design Law, it is important to
address the question which industry does proactively indulge in registering
their work under the ambit of Intellectual Property Law.

Fashion Industries Participating in Registra-

tion of Designs

Small Medium Large

In the foresaid scenario:

 Among small industry designers, 20% prefer registering their designs
under the Copyright Act or the Design Act.
 Among medium industry designers, 55% prefer copyright registration
or prefer design registration.
 Among large industry designers, 85% prefer copyright registration or
prefer design registration.

Page 43 of 60
 Analysis of Collected Data

From the above representation is it clear that the maximum applications are
only made by the Large Scale Industries and in comparison relatively less
enthusiasm is shown by the Medium scale industry whereas, negligent interest
is shown by the Small Scale Industries due to various reasons, primary being
the monitory requirements to meet the expenses of registration and secondly,
many of Small Scale Industries are either making garments which are fast
moving fashion or making designs which are inspired from revered designers
making it little difficult to fit in the framework of existing statues hence they
end up avoiding indulging in the process of registration of their design.
The Research for answering the Research Question involved interviewing
professionals who are in the fashion industry in order to generate part of
empirical data the main aim of questionnaire was to gather insights into the
preferences, experiences, and perspectives of fashion designers regarding the
registration of their designs under copyright or design acts, taking into account
their industry size and specific circumstances. The Questioner of the
interviews conducted is given below:
1. Basic Information:
 Name:
 Company/Organization:
 Industry Size (Small/Medium/Large):
2. Awareness of Legal Requirements:
 Are you familiar with the legal requirements and procedures for
copyright or design registration in your country/region?
 Have you sought professional legal advice or assistance when
registering your designs?
3. Industry Trends and Practices:
 From your observations, what are the prevailing trends or
practices regarding design registration within the fashion
industry?
 Do you believe there is a difference in approach between
designers from small, medium, and large-scale industries when
it comes to registering designs?
4. Experience and Background:
 How long have you been working in the fashion industry?

Page 44 of 60
 Analysis of Collected Data

 Could you briefly describe your role and responsibilities as a

fashion designer?
5. Registration of Designs:
 Have you ever registered any of your designs for legal
protection?
 If yes, could you tell us why you chose to register your
designs?
6. Preference for Copyright or Design Act:
 When registering your designs, do you prefer doing it under the
Copyright Act or the Design Act? Why?
 What factors influence your decision between copyright and
design registration?
7. Understanding of Copyright and Design Protection:
 How would you differentiate between copyright protection and
design protection?
 In your opinion, what are the advantages and disadvantages of
each form of protection?
8. Challenges and Concerns:
 Have you encountered any challenges or concerns related to
copyright or design protection in your work?
 How do you address these challenges or mitigate the associated
risks?
9. Future Considerations:
 How do you foresee the role of intellectual property protection
evolving in the fashion industry in the future?
 Are there any changes or improvements you would like to see
in the legal framework for protecting fashion designs?
10. Closing Thoughts:
 Is there anything else you would like to add or share regarding
your experiences with design registration and intellectual
property protection in the fashion industry?
After evaluating the data gathered from using the questioner it the further
conclusion drawn is represented as:

Page 45 of 60
 Analysis of Collected Data

Registrati ons Made by Fashion In-

dusti res under Respecti ve Acts
Small Medium Large

5
3.2

3
2

1.5
0.5

D esi gn Ac t C o p yr i gh t Ac t

It is noteworthy to highlight that percentage of individuals across all size of

industry prefer registering their designs under the copyright act. That said, as
analysed earlier that small sized industry participates negligently in the
process of registration where as the most participation is seem in the large
sized industry.
Reasons recorded due to which protection under the Copyright Act is
preferred over the Designs Act are as stated below:
Designers may prefer to register their designs under the copyright act rather
than the design act for several reasons:
1. Broad Protection: Copyright protection typically provides broader
coverage compared to design protection. Copyright law protects original
works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression, including
artistic creations like fashion designs. This broader scope allows designers to
safeguard various elements of their designs, including patterns, prints, and
embellishments, which may not qualify for design protection.
2. Longer Duration: Copyright protection often lasts longer than design
protection. In many jurisdictions, copyright protection extends for the life of
the creator plus an additional period (e.g., 70 years after the creator's death). In
contrast, design protection often has a shorter duration, typically ranging from
a few years to a decade.
3. No Formalities: Copyright protection is automatic upon the creation of the
work and does not require formal registration to be enforceable. While
registration may confer additional benefits, such as evidentiary advantages in

Page 46 of 60
 Analysis of Collected Data

court, designers can still assert their copyright without registering their designs
formally. This simplicity and immediacy make copyright protection more
accessible and cost-effective for designers, particularly those with limited
resources.
4. Familiarity and Understanding: Copyright law is well-established and
widely understood in many jurisdictions, including its application to artistic
works like fashion designs. Design law, on the other hand, may be less
familiar to designers and may involve more complex procedures for
registration and enforcement. Designers may feel more confident and
comfortable navigating the copyright framework, leading them to prefer it
over design law.
5. Flexibility in Enforcement: Copyright infringement claims offer flexibility
in enforcement, allowing designers to pursue legal action against infringers
using various remedies, including injunctive relief, damages, and attorney's
fees. Design protection may offer more limited enforcement options,
particularly if the design is not registered or if the infringement occurs outside
the scope of the registered design.
6. Global Recognition: Copyright protection is often recognized
internationally through various international treaties and agreements, such as
the Berne Convention. This global recognition facilitates the enforcement of
copyright across borders, providing designers with broader protection for their
designs in international markets.
Overall, designers may prefer to register their designs under the copyright act
due to its broader scope, longer duration, simplicity, familiarity, flexibility in
enforcement, and global recognition, making it a preferred choice for
protecting their creative works in the fashion industry.
5.2 ANALYSIS BASED ON JUDICIAL TREND
One notable case where a fashion designer was safeguarded by copyright law
rather than design law is the case of Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands,
Inc. (2017) in the United States.
Case Background:
It is a U.S. court case between two clothing manufacturing companies, Star
Athletica and Varsity Brands. The former brand started producing cheerleader

Page 47 of 60
 Analysis of Collected Data

uniforms where they used zigzags, stripes, and other designs similar to Varsity
and sold them at a lower price. Varsity Brands, Inc., a leading manufacturer of
cheerleading uniforms, filed a lawsuit against Star Athletica, LLC, alleging
copyright infringement. Varsity Brands had more than 200 designs
copyrighted, including various line patterns, colours, shapes, etc. As a result of
printing one such design on their cheerleading uniforms, Star Athletica was
accused of copyright infringement

Legal Issue:
The central legal issue in this case was whether the designs on Varsity's
cheerleading uniforms were eligible for copyright protection under the
Copyright Act.
Court Decision:

District court gave a judgement that designs cannot be separated from the
products physically or conceptually, hence they could not be granted copyright
protection. However, the Sixth Circuit stated that since any type of graphics
and products can be clearly distinguished from one another and allowed to
exist separately. It also states that any design can come under copyright ambits
if when separated from the product could be depicted in a pictorial and
sculpture form.

Rationale:
The Court established a two-part test to determine when a design feature of a
useful article is eligible for copyright protection:
1. Separability: The design feature must be physically or conceptually
separable from the utilitarian aspects of the article.
2. Independently Copyrightable: The design feature must be capable of
existing independently as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work.

Page 48 of 60
 Analysis of Collected Data

In the Star Athletica case, the Court found that the designs on Varsity's
cheerleading uniforms met both criteria and were therefore eligible for
copyright protection. This ruling reinforced the importance of copyright
law in protecting creative expression in the fashion industry, even when
applied to functional items like clothing designs.
Impact:
The Star Athletica case clarified the scope of copyright protection for fashion
designs in the United States. It underscored the role of copyright law as a
means of safeguarding designers' creative expression, even in industries where
utilitarian concerns are prominent, such as fashion. This case serves as a
precedent for fashion designers seeking to protect their designs under
copyright law rather than relying solely on design patents or other forms of
intellectual property protection.
5.3 ANALYSIS OF STATUTE

PARTICULARS COPYRIGHT ACT, DESIGN ACT,

1957 2000

Nature of Copyright protects Design protection

Protection original artistic work of a applies to the visual
designer. appearance or
aesthetics of an
article. It safeguards
the appearance of
the cloths and it does
covers the
accessories made or
paid by the designer.

Scope of It protects the intellectual Protects the specific

Protection invention itself, not its visual features, not
practical components, the underlying idea
and grants the exclusive or concept.
right to reproduce the

Page 49 of 60
 Analysis of Collected Data

PARTICULARS COPYRIGHT ACT, DESIGN ACT,

1957 2000

artistic work

Registration Registration is not Registration is

Requirement mandatory but provides necessary to claim
legal advantages. When design protection.
a work is created, Design needs to be
copyright protection is new and original for
automatically applied registration.

Duration of Generally, it lasts for the Design protection

Protection lifetime of the creator typically lasts for 10
plus 60 years. years, renewable for
another 5 years.
After 15 years, the
design enters the
public domain.

Hence, based on the Analysis of the empirical data collected analysed along
with the judicial and statutory data it is zeroed that the Copyright protection
provides better safeguard when compared with the Design Act. Designers
often prefer to register their designs under the copyright act rather than the
design act for several reasons. Firstly, copyright protection typically offers
broader coverage, safeguarding various elements of designs such as patterns
and prints. Additionally, copyright protection usually lasts longer than design
protection, providing designers with extended rights over their creations.
Unlike design protection, copyright does not require formal registration,
making it more accessible and cost-effective. Furthermore, designers are often
more familiar with copyright law and its enforcement mechanisms, providing
them with confidence in navigating the legal framework. Copyright also offers
flexibility in enforcement and is internationally recognized, allowing designers
to protect their creations across borders. Overall, these factors contribute to

Page 50 of 60
 Analysis of Collected Data

designers' preference for copyright registration, highlighting its significance in

protecting their creative works in the fashion industry

Page 51 of 60
 Limitation to current research

CHAPTER 6

LIMITATTION TO CURRENT RESEARCH

4.1 Access to Data:

Non-doctrinal research often relies on empirical data, such as surveys,
interviews, or case studies. Accessing comprehensive and
representative data from fashion designers, industry professionals, and
consumers may be challenging, particularly due to the secretive nature
of the fashion industry and the reluctance of stakeholders to disclose
sensitive information.

4.2 Subjectivity and Bias:

Non-doctrinal research methods, such as qualitative interviews or
focus groups, may introduce subjectivity and bias into the findings.
Researchers must carefully consider the perspectives and motivations
of participants, as well as their own biases, to ensure the validity and
reliability of the research outcomes.

4.3 Complexity of Legal Frameworks:

The copyright and design laws governing the fashion industry are often
complex and nuanced, varying across jurisdictions. Non-doctrinal
researchers may struggle to navigate and interpret these legal
frameworks accurately, potentially leading to misinterpretation or
oversimplification of legal principles.

4.4 Limited Generalizability:

Non-doctrinal research findings may lack generalizability beyond the
specific context or sample population studied. Fashion designers'
preferences for copyright or design protection, for example, may vary
based on factors such as geographic location, industry segment, or
individual circumstances, limiting the applicability of research findings
to broader contexts.

Page 52 of 60
 Limitation to current research

4.5 Evolution of Industry Practices:

The fashion industry is dynamic and continually evolving, with
changes in technology, consumer preferences, and market trends
shaping industry practices. Non-doctrinal research may struggle to
capture the latest developments and trends, particularly if conducted
over an extended period or based on outdated data.

4.6 Interdisciplinary Challenges:

Non-doctrinal research on the copyright vs. design dilemma often
involves interdisciplinary perspectives, combining legal, business, and
creative aspects. Integrating diverse disciplinary approaches and
synthesizing findings from different fields can be complex and require
careful consideration of methodological and theoretical frameworks.

4.7 Ethical Considerations:

Non-doctrinal research must adhere to ethical principles, particularly
when conducting interviews or surveys involving human participants.
Researchers must ensure informed consent, confidentiality, and respect
for participants' rights throughout the research process, which can
present logistical and ethical challenges.

Page 53 of 60
 Conclusion and Suggestion
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
In conclusion, navigating the complexities of copyright and design
protection in the fashion industry presents a multifaceted dilemma.
Both legal frameworks offer distinct advantages and limitations,
creating challenges for fashion designers seeking to protect their
creative works effectively. The interplay between aesthetic innovation
and functional considerations further complicates this landscape,
highlighting the need for nuanced approaches to intellectual property
management.

1.3 CONCLUSIONS

The fashion industry, characterized by its dynamism and constant

evolution, poses a multifaceted challenge when it comes to intellectual
property protection. Achieving the right equilibrium between copyright
and design protection is paramount in order to both nurture creativity,
spur innovation, and foster healthy competition, while also upholding
the rights of designers and creators. This intricate balance is contingent
on a set of fundamental considerations. Copyright provides an
extended period of protection but with certain limitations in its scope,
whereas design protection offers a more comprehensive monopoly
over a design albeit for a finite timeframe. The selection between the
two mechanisms depends on the characteristics of the creative work
and its implications in the commercial landscape. Design protection
hinges on a formal registration process, which can be an obstacle for
emerging designers. Simplifying this registration process, reducing
associated costs, and extending support to emerging talents can
significantly enhance the efficacy of design protection. Copyright and
design protection often intersect, necessitating a clear comprehension
of when each form of protection is applicable. Well-defined legal
guidance in these scenarios is of paramount importance.

Since the fashion industry is dynamic and with fast fashion brands
taking over the fashion market it is suggested to the designers of start-
ups and fashion houses to register their unique creations as per the
production and marketing of each product or segment of products
Page 55 of 60
 Conclusion and Suggestion

under the respective law of design or copyright. However, if a design is

registered under the Designs Act, 2000 then it is not eligible for
protection under the Copyright Act even though it may be an original
artistic work. In the case of a design that can be registered under the
Design Act, however, not so registered are protected under the
Copyright Act if the quantity has not produced more than fifty by using
the industrial process by the copyright owner. Therefore, the designs
which cannot be registered under the Designs Act are protected under
the Copyright Act if they are original artistic work.

The protection granted by the Design Act is not copyright protection,

but a true monopoly based on the statute. Although there might be an
overlap between both the Acts with regards to design, the two statutes
do not provide the same protection. Where copyright registration is
voluntary the designs Act mandates registration for legal protection.

It is further concluded that copyright law provides a longer duration of

protection as compared to the design law and any product that is one of
a kind shall avail the longer protection than the fashion products which
are made in bulk for mere commercialisation purposes.

1.4 SUGESSTION

The effectiveness of the existing laws has come into question, and this
issue is exacerbated, particularly for small enterprises and indigenous
fashion artisans. They often face insurmountable challenges in
accessing legal services to defend their creations or assert their rights.
The registration process for legal protection, as stipulated by these
laws, is both time-consuming and financially burdensome, dissuading
many from seeking the necessary assistance.

The need of the hour is to adopt a more stringent approach in

addressing these cases and to raise public awareness regarding the
pervasive problem of piracy. Educating both the general public and
designers themselves about the critical importance of adequately

Page 56 of 60
 Conclusion and Suggestion

protecting their intellectual creations is essential. In terms of tackling

fashion design piracy, it is essential to begin with comprehensive
definitions for both "fashion design" and "fashion design piracy."
Given the vast scope of the fashion design domain, establishing precise
definitions that identify the specific elements meriting protection is
imperative.

Furthermore, clear differentiation should be established between

registered and denied designs. Unregistered designs should be eligible
for protection under the fashion design piracy model, which can extend
for a duration of 11 to 13 months. Diverging from the current
regulations, such safeguards should only be granted for a limited
period, considering the transient nature of fashion trends. This
protection period could span from seven to ten years, but not extend
beyond that.

In light of technological advancements and contemporary adaptation, it

is imperative to reapply our existing laws with a fresh perspective.
Flexible and adaptable legal frameworks are indispensable for thriving
in the competitive landscape of today's society.

Page 57 of 60
 Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
 B.L.Wadehra, Law Relating to Intellectual Property,(5th edition 2017)
 Naraynan, Intellectual Property Laws (3rd edition 2018)
STATUTES
 The Copyright Act,1957
 The Designs Act,2000
 Trademark Act, 1999
 Geographical Indication Act of Goods Act 1994
WEBSITES
1. The role of IP rights in the fashion business: A US perspective. (n.d.).
WIPO – World Intellectual Property Organisation
https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/04/article_0006.html
2. History and evolution of intellectual property. (2021, 11). Intellectual
Property Firm in the Middle East | ABOU NAJA.
https://www.abounaja.com/blogs/history-of-intellectual-property
3. Times of India
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/fashion/buzz/recent-
lawsuits-in-the-fashion-industry/articleshow/82332767.cms

Page 59 of 60