Author: Kumari Nikita, School of Legal Studies, REVA University, Bangalore
To the Point
India’s fashion industry urgently requires specialized design piracy laws to address the epidemic of counterfeiting that has reached alarming proportions. The existing legal framework, comprising multiple overlapping statutes, fails to provide adequate protection for fashion designers, particularly small and medium enterprises who form the backbone of India’s creative economy. With 25-30% of all products sold in India being counterfeit, and the apparel sector topping the list at 31%, the economic and creative damage is substantial.
The current system’s fundamental flaws include:
different legal jurisdictions between design protection and copyright,
lengthy registration processes that exceed fashion product lifecycles,
inadequate damage compensation capped at mere ₹50,000 under the Designs Act, and
lack of specialized enforcement mechanisms for fashion-specific violations.
These deficiencies have created an environment where design pirates operate with relative impunity, undermining innovation and deterring investment in original design development.
Use of Legal jargon
The Designs Act, 2000:
The Designs Act of 2000 is the primary law in India that protects industrial designs. “Features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to any article by any industrial process” is the definition of a design under Section 2(d). The Act provides protection for 10 years from registration, extendable by another 5 years.
Section 22 of the Designs Act specifically addresses “Piracy of registered design” and stipulates that during the existence of copyright in any design, it shall not be lawful for any person to:
Use the design or any blatantly false reproduction of it for commercial reasons, or cause it to be used.
Import articles with the pirated design for sale
Publish or expose pirated designs for sale knowing of the infringement
The remedies available under Section 22(2) include:
Payment of damages not exceeding ₹25,000 per contravention (maximum ₹50,000 per design)
Alternative suit for injunctive relief and damages as determined by the court
Copyright Act, 1957: Artistic Protection with Industrial Limitations
The Copyright Act, 1957 protects original artistic works, including fashion designs that qualify as artistic expressions. Original artistic works are protected by copyright under Section 13, which lasts for the lifetime of the creator plus an additional 60 years.
However, Section 15(2) creates a crucial limitation: copyright in any design capable of registration under the Designs Act ceases if the design is applied to more than 50 articles by industrial process. This provision, known as the “50-copy rule,” creates significant confusion in the fashion industry where mass production is standard practice.
Trademark Act, 1999: Brand Protection Beyond Design
The Trademark Act, 1999 provides protection for distinctive marks, logos, and brand identifiers in the fashion industry. Fashion designers can protect their brand names, distinctive patterns, and visual elements that serve as source identifiers. Notable protections include pattern marks as recognized in the landmark Levi Strauss v. Imperial Online Services case, where the Delhi High Court granted protection to Levi’s “Arcuate Stitching Design”.
The Proof
Statistical Magnitude of the Problem:
Recent studies reveal the staggering scope of counterfeiting in India’s fashion sector:
The most counterfeited sector in the Indian market is clothing, with 31% of items being fake.
The spurious goods market was valued at ₹2.6 trillion in FY 2019-20 and continues to grow
27% of consumers unknowingly purchase counterfeit products, while 31% willingly buy counterfeit goods
The counterfeit market represents 25-30% of all products sold in India
Economic Impact on the Fashion Industry
India’s fashion industry, valued at USD 14.5 billion with the fast fashion segment alone worth USD 10 billion and growing at 30-40% annually, faces substantial revenue losses due to design piracy. The economic consequences include:
Direct Revenue Loss: Original designers lose sales to cheaper counterfeit alternatives
Brand Dilution: Consumer confusion between originals and copies diminishes brand value
Investment Deterrence: Uncertainty in IP protection discourages innovation investment
Market Distortion: Artificially low prices of counterfeits distort competitive market.
Abstract
Design piracy has emerged as one of the most pernicious challenges plaguing India’s burgeoning fashion industry, threatening the very foundation of creative innovation and intellectual property rights. This comprehensive analysis examines the inadequacies in India’s current legal framework for protecting fashion designs, which relies on a fragmented combination of the Designs Act, 2000, Copyright Act, 1957, and Trademark Act, 1999. Despite India’s fashion industry being valued at approximately USD 14.5 billion with projections to reach USD 24.35 billion by 2029, the sector remains vulnerable to rampant design theft, with counterfeiting accounting for 31% of all apparel products in the Indian market.
The current intellectual property regime creates a legal lacuna wherein fashion designs fall into overlapping jurisdictions, leading to confusion and inadequate protection. The Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act precludes copyright protection for designs capable of registration under the Designs Act if applied to more than 50 articles industrially, while the cumbersome registration process under the Designs Act often exceeds the commercial lifecycle of fashion products. This analysis proposes the urgent need for sui generis legislation specifically tailored to address the unique characteristics of the fashion industry, drawing from successful international models while considering India’s diverse cultural and economic landscape.
Case Laws
RAHUL MISHRA V. DEFENDANT (2025)
In a recent landmark decision, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of renowned fashion designer Rahul Mishra against entities selling counterfeit dresses. Both Mishra’s copyright in his original artwork and clothing designs as well as his trademark rights in “RAHUL MISHRA” were acknowledged by the court.
Key Legal Principles Established:
Recognition of copyright in fashion designs as original artistic works
Protection against design piracy, trademark infringement, and passing off
Acknowledgment of dynamic injunctions to prevent online infringement
Establishment of irreparable harm standards for fashion designers
LEVI STRAUSS & CO. V. IMPERIAL ONLINE SERVICES PVT. LTD. (2022)
An important turning point in the acceptance of pattern marks as legally protected intellectual property was reached by this case. The Delhi High Court granted protection to Levi’s “Arcuate Stitching Design,” a stitching pattern used since 1873 and registered as a trademark in India since 1999.
Legal Significance:
Recognition of non-traditional trademarks in fashion
Protection for distinctive design elements beyond conventional marks
Establishment of pattern marks as source identifiers
RITIKA PRIVATE LIMITED V. BIBA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED (2016)
This case highlighted the copyright-design law overlap in fashion. Ritika claimed copyright protection for Ritu Kumar designs, while BIBA argued that since the designs were applied industrially to garments, they fell under design law protection rather than copyright.
Court’s Findings:
Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act bars copyright protection for designs applied to more than 50 articles industrially
Fashion designs intended for mass production require registration under the Designs Act
The intent of creation and commercial application determine the appropriate protection regime
H&M HENNES& MAURITZ AB V. HM MEGABRANDS PVT. LTD. (2018)
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favor of international fashion retailer H&M against the Indian company using similar mark “HM”. The court recognized H&M’s prior rights despite the defendants’ claim of honest adoption based on directors’ initials.
GAP INC. V. INDIAN DEFENDANTS (2015)
International fashion brand Gap successfully obtained interim injunctions against Indian manufacturers using deceptively similar trademarks like “Gap-In,” “Gap-2,” and “Gap-Two”. The court recognized Gap’s established reputation and granted protective relief.
GAURAV GUPTA V. ABDUS SALAM KHAN (2024)
Gaurav Gupta, a fashion designer, filed a lawsuit claiming that his distinctive “sculpted boning” technique violated copyright and design. The case involved both copyright in drawings/sketches and registered designs under the Designs Act.
Legal Innovations:
Protection for fashion techniques as copyrightable artistic works
Recognition of handcrafted garments as three-dimensional artistic works
Application of Section 15(2) exception for limited reproductions
Legislative Gaps and Enforcement Challenges
Jurisdictional Confusion
The overlap between copyright and design protection creates significant confusion. Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act and its interaction with the Designs Act generates uncertainty about which protection regime applies. This ambiguity allows infringers to exploit legal loopholes and complicates enforcement efforts.
Inadequate Damage Compensation
The ₹50,000 maximum damage provision under the Designs Act is woefully inadequate for addressing commercial-scale piracy. This nominal amount fails to deter infringement or compensate for actual losses suffered by designers.
Lengthy Registration Process
It can take many months to register a design under the Designs Act, which frequently takes longer than the fashion product’s commercial lifespan. This delay renders protection meaningless for trend-driven fashion items with short market windows.
Limited Enforcement Mechanisms
India lacks specialized fashion law enforcement mechanisms. Unlike countries such as France, where buyers of counterfeit products face criminal liability, India’s enforcement relies primarily on civil remedies.
Awareness Deficit
Lack of awareness among designers about available IP protections compounds the problem. Many designers, particularly small-scale creators, remain unaware of their rights or the procedures for protection.
INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
United States: The Fashion Originators’ Guild
The US fashion industry operates under a unique model where design copying is largely permitted, leading to the “Piracy Paradox” theory. However, specific elements like logos, distinctive patterns, and technical innovations receive protection under trademark, copyright, and patent laws respectively.
European Union: Unregistered Design Rights
The EU provides unregistered design protection for three years, offering immediate protection without registration requirements. This model could serve as inspiration for addressing India’s registration delay challenges.
France: Comprehensive Fashion Protection
France offers robust protection through design courts and criminal liability for counterfeit purchase. The French model demonstrates the effectiveness of specialized enforcement mechanisms.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Sui Generis Fashion Design Legislation
India needs specific laws pertaining to fashion design that take into account the particularities of the sector. This legislation should:
Provide automatic protection for original fashion designs without registration requirements
Establish clear duration of protection tailored to fashion product lifecycles
Create specialized remedies including enhanced damages and seizure provisions
Define fashion-specific infringement standards including “substantially similar” designs
2. Streamlined Registration Process
The design registration process must be digitized and expedited. Recommendations include:
Online filing systems with reduced processing time
Fast-track procedures for fashion designs with short commercial lifecycles
Provisional protection during the registration process
Single-window clearance for multiple IP protections
3. Enhanced Damage Provisions
The current ₹50,000 damage cap must be substantially increased. Proposed reforms include:
Removal of damage caps for willful infringement
Statutory damages based on commercial value of infringed designs
Profit disgorgement provisions for commercial-scale piracy
Punitive damages for repeat offenders
4. Specialized Enforcement Mechanisms
India should establish specialized fashion IP courts with:
Expert judges trained in fashion industry dynamics
Expedited procedures for time-sensitive fashion disputes
Technical assessors for design similarity determinations
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
5. Industry Education and Awareness
Comprehensive awareness programs should include:
Designer education about available IP protections
Industry workshops on enforcement procedures
Legal aid programs for small-scale designers
Public awareness campaigns about counterfeiting consequences.
Conclusion
The Indian fashion industry is at a turning point in its history, and its enormous development potential might be jeopardised by a lack of effective intellectual property protection. The current fragmented legal framework, characterized by overlapping jurisdictions, lengthy procedures, and inadequate remedies, fails to address the sophisticated and large-scale nature of modern design piracy.
The evidence is overwhelming: with 31% of apparel products being counterfeit and the spurious goods market valued at ₹2.6 trillion, the economic and creative damage is substantial. The testimonies of designers like Rohit Bal and Ritu Kumar demonstrate the personal and professional toll of inadequate legal protection.
The proposed solution lies in developing sui generis legislation specifically tailored to the fashion industry’s unique needs. Automatic protection, accelerated processes, improved remedies, and specialised enforcement mechanisms must all be included in this specialised framework. International models, particularly the EU’s unregistered design rights system, offer valuable insights for crafting appropriate solutions.
The stakes are high. To maintain its present growth trajectory, India’s fashion sector, which is expected to exceed fifty billion United States dollars in the fast-growing fashion category solely by the financial year 31, needs strong intellectual property protection. Without comprehensive reform, the industry risks continued exploitation, reduced innovation incentives, and diminished global competitiveness.
The time for action is now. India must recognize that protecting fashion designs is not merely about safeguarding individual creators it is about preserving the country’s cultural heritage, supporting economic growth, and fostering an environment where creativity and innovation can flourish. The proposed reforms represent not just legal necessity but economic imperative for India’s continued emergence as a global fashion powerhouse.
FAQs
WHAT IS DESIGN PIRACY IN THE FASHION INDUSTRY?
Unauthorised replication, imitation, or copying of original fashion designs without the creator’s consent is known as design piracy. This includes both exact replicas and substantially similar designs that copy the essential creative elements.
WHICH LAWS CURRENTLY PROTECT FASHION DESIGNS IN INDIA?
Three main laws protect fashion designs in India: the Designs Act of 2000 (for registered designs), the Copyright Act of 1957 (for artistic works), and the Trademark Act of 1999 (for distinguishing marks and brand aspects).
WHAT IS THE SECTION 15(2) PROVISION AND WHY IS IT PROBLEMATIC?
Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act states that copyright protection ceases for designs capable of registration under the Designs Act if applied to more than 50 articles industrially. This creates confusion as most fashion production exceeds 50 units.
HOW LONG DOES DESIGN REGISTRATION TAKE IN INDIA?
Design registration under the Designs Act can take several months to complete, often exceeding the commercial lifecycle of fashion products, making protection ineffective for trend-driven items.
WHAT ARE THE MAXIMUM DAMAGES AVAILABLE FOR DESIGN INFRINGEMENT?
The Designs Act’s maximum damages ceiling of ₹50,000 per design is insufficient to combat widespread commercial infringement.
WHAT IS SUI GENERIS PROTECTION AND WHY IS IT NEEDED FOR FASHION?
Sui generis protection refers to specialized legislation designed specifically for a particular subject matter. Fashion requires such protection because existing IP laws don’t adequately address the industry’s unique characteristics like short product lifecycles, rapid trend changes, and mass production requirements.
HOW PREVALENT IS COUNTERFEITING IN INDIA’S FASHION INDUSTRY?
According to studies, clothing is the most counterfeited category in India, accounting for 31% of all items. Twenty-five to thirty percent of all items sold in India are counterfeit.
WHAT INTERNATIONAL MODELS COULD INDIA ADOPT FOR FASHION PROTECTION?
India could consider the EU’s unregistered design rights system, which provides automatic protection without registration, or develop specialized fashion courts similar to those in France.
HOW DO TRADEMARK PROTECTIONS HELP FASHION DESIGNERS?
Trademarks protect brand names, logos, distinctive patterns, and design elements that serve as source identifiers. Recent cases have recognized pattern marks as protectable trademarks in the fashion industry.
WHAT SHOULD FASHION DESIGNERS DO TO PROTECT THEIR DESIGNS CURRENTLY?
Designers should: (1) register distinctive designs under the Designs Act, (2) trademark their brand elements, (3) document creation processes for copyright claims, (4) monitor the market for infringement, and (5) seek legal counsel for enforcement actions.
References
1https://www.dfupublications.com/news/apparel/the-shadowy-world-of-fakes-inside-india-s-counterfeit -garment-trade
2https://ssrana.in/ip-laws/design-law-india/piracy-reg istered-design-india/
3https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456 789/1917/1/200016.pdf
4https://ssrana.in/litigation/ip-litigation/designs-litiga tion/
5https://www.legalbites.in/fashion-law/trademark-pr otection-for-indian-fashion-designers-1144363 6 https://conventuslaw.com/report/india-make-way-fo r-non-traditional-trademarks/”https://knnindia.co.in/news/newsdetails/sectors/app arel-sector-tops-list-with-most-counterfeit-products-in-india-report
https://www.cnbctv18.com/economy/counterfeits-c onstitute-25-30-percent-of-the-market-report-15749 721.htm 9
https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/ev/TM-A CT-1999.html
10https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-in/news-and-tre nds/indias-fast-fashion-industry-to-be-worth-50-bill ion-by/476569
“https://www.sonisvision.in/blogs/design-piracy-in-india-assessing-the-effectiveness-of-legal-remedies-for-small-and-medium-enterprises-smes 12
https://www.marketresearch.com/Ken-Research-v3 771/India-Fashion-Outlook-40719898/13 https://apparelresources.com/business-news/trade/apparel-sector-tops-list-counterfeit-products-india-r eport/
14https://www.forbesindia.com/blog/legalese/copyri ght-vs-design-the-continuing-dilemma-in-the-fashio n-industry-307227.html
16 RAHUL MISHRA V. DEFENDANT (2025), LiveLaw (Del) 3
17https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/158589 0/innovation-vs-imitation-the-rahul-mishra-case 18 LEVI STRAUSS & CO. V. IMPERIAL ONLINE SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ORS., CS (COMM) 657/2021 & Ι.Α. 16736/2021 (Del HC, 24 Mar 2022) (Neutral Citation: 2022/DHC/001222). 19
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/01/04/d elhi-high-court-grants-injunction-indian-fashion-de signer-rahul-mishra-counterfeit-dresses-legal-news/20 Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd., CS (OS) No. 182/2011 (Del HC, 23 Mar 2016) (2016) 230 DLT 109; SCC OnLine Del 1979. 21
https://www.legalbites.in/fashion-law/10-impor tant-cases-of-fashion-law-975691 22 H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB & Anr. v. HM Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., IA No. 7259/2016 in CS(COMM) No. 707/2016 (Del HC, 31 May 2018) (2018) 251 DLT 651; (2018) 74 PTC 229. 23
https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/824 240/ip-case-compilation-2019
24GAP Inc. v. [Two Indian Apparel Manufacturers], Delhi High Court, Ex-parte interim order (Permanent injunction application), May-June 2015.
25 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/co ns-products/fashion-/-cosmetics-/-jewellery/gap-tak es-two-indian-apparel-companies-to-court-for-alleg ed-trademark-violations/articleshow/48091232.cms 26 GAURAV GUPTA V. ABDUS SALAM KHAN (2024), CS(COMM) 278/2024 (Del HC, 3 Apr 2024) (ex-parte ad-interim injunction). 27https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/149346 4/indian-fashion-industry-intersection-of-copyright-and-design-law
28https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/122327 4/overlap-between-copyrights-and-designs-in-india 29
https://blog.ipleaders.in/ipr-laws-applicable-to-fashi on-industry/30https://www.businessworld.in/article/legal-awaren ess-necessary-in-fashion-industry-says-experts-123 106 31
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =3875108 32
https://www.bennett.edu.in/wp-content/uploads /2025/06/3.-Pragya-Mishra.pdf
33 https://blog.ipleaders.in/applicability-ipr-laws-fash ion-industry-india/34https://www.firstpost.com/business/fashion-in-ipr-
mode-rohit-bal-anju-modi-anita-dongre-copyright-d esigns-as-plagiarism-spreads-3996807.html 35https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/FRO M-RUNWAYS-TO-LEGAL-AVENUES-NAVIGAT ING-INTELLECTUAL-PROPERTY-PROTECTIO N-FOR-FASHION-DESIGNS-IN-INDIA.pdf
36https://blog.kanalysis.com/piracy-of-registered-designs-in-india/
37https://fashionlawjournal.com/fashion-and-ipr-laws-in-india/38
https://blog.ipleaders.in/limitation-copyright-law-pr otect-fashion-designs/39
https://blog.ipleaders.in/piracy-of-registered-design s-and-remedies/40https://www.sonisvision.in/blogs/intellectual-prop erty-infringement-in-fashion-industry-reading-in-lig ht-of-gaurav-gupta-case
41https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/163370 6/protection-of-design-in-india-a-complete-guide 42https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/161035 0/counterfeiting-and-ip-enforcement-challenges-in-t he-indian-fashion-market
43 https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com /news/research/indian-fast-fashion-industry-poised-to-reach-over-50-billion-by-fy31-report/111429605
44https://jpassociates.co.in/design-rights-in-the-fashi on-industry-protecting-creativity-in-a-fast-paced-w orld/
45
https://www.scribd.com/document/535622529/Fash ion-design-piracy-IPR
