In India's burgeoning fashion industry, piracy of designs is an evolving problem. Original designers have struggled to protect their work because of the rapid alterations in fashion, the rise of fast fashion, and the ease with which designs can be replicated. With its seasonal and cyclic demand, the fashion business requires a great deal of innovation within relatively short periods of time.
Since fashion designs are not patented, anyone can easily produce a replica that is an exact copy and sell it for a much lower price. Although these copies are low-quality, they are still looked at as knockoffs. The Designs Act of 2000 and the Copyright Act of 1957 are two of India's robust intellectual property legislations. However, due to their convergence and occasional conflicts, designers often remain in a legal limbo.
What is Design Piracy?
The aesthetic aspect of a creation, which is not exhaustive but inclusive of the shape, pattern or particular alignments and in context of fashion the design of clothing accessories, or fabric, and if these facets are replicated by another designer or authority and without the authorization of such rightful creator in order to benefit oneself economically, then this act can be termed as Design Piracy.
The Designs Act, 2000
Protection of non-utilitarian products is guarded by the Designs Act 2000. In accordance with this Act:
- As per section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, Design is defined as any aspect of an object's shape, arrangement, pattern, ornamentation, or line or colour composition that is evaluated only by the eye.
- Section 4 of the Designs Act, 2000 permits registration only for designs that are unique and innovative. Upon registration, the creator is granted exclusive rights for a period of ten years, extendable by an additional five years.
- As per section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, the Act's scope includes aesthetic designs that are applied to products through industrial procedures. Mere mechanical characteristics are not safeguarded.
- As per section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, infringers may be subject to injunctions, fines, and possibly criminal penalties from registered design owners.
Copyright Act, 1957
Original works of art, including textile designs, paintings, and drawings, are covered under the Copyright Act of 1957. Either India's industrial design laws or copyright legislation can safeguard fashion and garment design.
The Copyright Act, 1957 protects certain innovations as Section 13 explains. As copyright will be operative throughout India in respect of all original works of literature, drama, music, and art, fashion and fashion design appear to be "artistic activity." Fashion designs may thus fall under Section 13(1) of the Copyright Act of 1957 and will be included under Section 2(c).
The following are important features:
- Greater Protection for a Longer Time: Copyright is far more durable than design registration, lasting for the creator's lifetime plus an additional 60 years.
- No Registration Requirement: In contrast to the Designs Act, registration is not required in order for protection to continue.
- Scope: Preserves artistic works that convey ideas, not the ideas themselves. In fashion, this refers to drawings, prints, and patterns rather than the cut or form of clothing.
What is the Intersection Between Copyright Act and Design Act in India?
Section 15 of the Copyright Act of 1957 contains the most substantial legal overlap and is a common source of misunderstanding:
- Section 15(1): A design cannot be protected by copyright law if it has been registered under the Designs Act.
- Section 15(2): Once an industrial method reproduces a design more than fifty times, copyright protection ends if the design is capable of being registered under the Designs Act but is not.
This means that if a fashion design is not registered under the Designs Act, it loses copyright protection once it is mass-produced. This provision limits designers to the shorter, renewable period of design registration in order to prevent them from claiming eternal copyright protection for works that are put to commercial use.
Judicial Interpretation and Practical Challenges
The difference between "artistic works," which are protected by copyright, and "designs," which are protected by the Designs Act, has been made clear by Indian courts:
- Works of Pure Art: Works that are not meant for mass production, such as paintings and sculptures, are still protected by copyright.
- Industrial Designs: When applied to items intended for industrial production (such as clothing prints or needlework), artistic creations must be registered under the Designs Act if they are mass-produced otherwise, their copyright is forfeited after 50 copies.
- Functional vs. Aesthetic: The Designs Act only protects a design's aesthetic (non-functional) elements.
The two laws, design law for industrially applied aesthetics and copyright for pure artistic expression serve different but complementary functions, as the Supreme Court and High Courts have underlined.
Although the Copyright Act generally protects works of art such as paintings, drawings, and photographs, this protection becomes null if the work is applied as a design, can be registered under the Designs Act, and the mechanical production of which is copied for fifty times. In this regard, copyright also expires according to Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act.
In Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co., the dispute concerned whether the defendant had illegally copied the plaintiff's patterns, as both parties were producers of upholstery fabrics with unique artistic designs.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a design which is produced for more than fifty times and was not registered is not subject to protection and invoked Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act which caused the copyright to lapse and left the works unprotected unless registered as designs, and clarified that artistic works intended for industrial application and mass production fall outside copyright protection once that threshold is crossed.
Once a design has been registered under the Designs Act, the design is only protected by that Act and not under copyright law. If the design is not registered and over 50 copies are industrially manufactured, the copyright protection lapses and the design goes into the public domain.
The case Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court, 2016) in which it was claimed that Ritika, who owned the 'Ritu Kumar' brand, had infringed her copyright by making a replica of her original garment design on garments of Biba. Instead, the court found that because the designs had been industrially exploited and applied to more than 50 articles without being registered under the Designs Act, pursuant to Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, no further copyright was available. Ritika's suit was dismissed.
Conclusion
In an original manner to address the dilemma at hand, a dedicated "Fashion IP Basket" could be fabricated, which is inclusive of articulated provisions inspired by the Designs Act as well as the Copyright Act. This will ensure the fashion artist safeguards their creation in a hassle-free manner. This must not only be the addressing of issues that are being faced, but to include those problems which could be concerning in the near future.
Fashion is not a trend that will die in the future, it's a legacy and will be carried from the past to the present and from here to the future. Thereby, the challenges are not only what we have at present but also what the future holds, which could be the integration of AI technologies or Blockchain methodologies, which will not only complicate the processes but also bring forth new challenges.
There could be specialized Fashion IP Tribunals to address the matters of fashion piracy and the nature of matters for expedited dispute resolution. This isn't just another initiative to protect some IP rights, but the effort to safeguard and preserve both cultural heritage and contemporary innovation. If this doesn't convince you enough, think of the Kolhapuri fiasco again.
Co- Author: Adutiya Sengar, Intern
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
