Intellectual Property Rights : Protection of Fashion Designs in India

Introduction

With the general popularity of private brands, Indian consumers are looking for ways to access fashion companies, thanks to increased media exposure, more awareness, goals, and a larger share of disposable cash. For these fashion companies, it is not easy to keep the business afloat with the spiralling competition. In order to consistently progress, it is critical to acquire an entrepreneurial attitude as well as the ability to create and handle fresh initiatives. Entrepreneurial success, particularly in the fashion sector, is heavily reliant on creativity and invention. The fashion business, with its seasonal and cyclical demand, necessitates a great deal of invention in a short period of time.

Fashion Design in India

[Image Sources : Gettyimages]

India’s fashion industry is booming, yet it is burdened by the issue of fashion design infringement. Industry professionals have voiced their displeasure at having their innovations copied and replicated. The fashion business has long been criticized for duplicating unique fashion designs, and with the broad availability of sophisticated digital technologies, this practice has become relatively simple. As of the lack of protection of fashion designs, anybody may easily produce an exact clone of the genuine and resell it for a much lower price. Such reproductions, notwithstanding their poor quality, are referred to as knock-offs.

Regardless of whether one works in fashion or another business, intellectual property is the foundation upon which thoughts and ideas may be protected. Intellectual property is the legislation that protects the creative process. The aesthetic presentation of a concept is protected, but not the idea itself. Intellectual property law combines trademark, copyright, and patent law. To achieve effective protection for registered designs, the legal framework for protecting these designs must be made more efficient. It is also necessary to encourage design activities so as to promote the design aspect of a product.

Origin

Before delving into the genesis and development of the designs act in India, it is necessary to first explore the history of the designs act in the United Kingdom, as it was the forerunner in safeguarding industrial designs and our laws. Primarily, Patents and Designs Act 1907 was passed. It formed the basis of the Indian Patents and Designs Act of 1911. The act was enacted later in 1970 and abolished patent-related parts of Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The portions of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, dealing with designs, were permitted to continue under the new title Designs Act, 1911, with certain subsequent adjustments. Fashion designs have sparked a plea for intellectual property rights, as they are the fruit of a designer’s tireless labour and inventiveness. The Design Act 2000 is the major essential act that governs design law in India today. The statutory nature of this Act makes it a complete code in and of itself.

Protection of Fashion Designs

Fashion design/apparel design can be protected under either copyright or industrial design regulations law in India. Section 13 of the Copyright Act of 1957 addresses the work in which the copyright exists. The Copyright shall exist throughout India in the types of work which original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works as a result, fashion/apparel design appears to fall within the category of ‘artistic activity.’ As a result, fashion designs may qualify under Section 2(c) and be protected by Section 13(1) of the Copyright Act of 1957.

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. This kind of design right valid up to ten years and can be extended for an additional ten years if necessary. It is worth noting that the Designs Act of 1911 did not provide this explicit exclusion for artistic work. The protection of fashion designs under the Designs Act looks to be a more practical means of protection since it provides protection for a duration of 15 years and is also more comprehensive than copyright protection. To be relevant under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, the article appears to have to exist independently of the design. Furthermore, the design drawings have no utility under the Industrial Designs Act 2000 until they are applied to an object. They are still present in the greatest artistic works of the Copyright Act of 1957. Under the 2000 Act, they cannot be registered as a design.

When creating clothes and designs, fashion designers are increasing including a registered emblem on the exterior of the product. In many cases, the logo becomes an integral aspect of the design, and so a trademark gives considerable protection against design piracy. Consequently, the trade names themselves become protected under the Trade Marks Act of 1999.

Conclusion

The fashion industry has become a significant part of the growing economy at global levels. The owner must decide which is most advantageous. High intelligence is required to make a design seem nice and have an indelible mark. Adherents of fashion design preservations and protection, recognize that the fashion business is one of the most significant ingenious professions in the world presently. Designs and patterns which are at the core of the said industry, are big budgeted of production, but can effortlessly be replicated, according to them. They believe that in the apparent lack of IPR protection, copyists will profit from the attempts of creators, inhibiting further investments in fresh innovations and creations. In summary, imitation stifles originality. There is a need to improve India’s present intellectual property legislation in order to make it more conducive to protecting fashion design against piracy. Piracy is difficult to eradicate, but not impossible. If IPR is effectively protected, it will be nearly hard to violate it.

Author: Shreyanshi Sharan, B.A.LL. B- 3rd Year, a student of New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed to be University, Pune, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

  • Design Protection in India: A Critique, (1994) 2 SCC J-11
  • Legal Protection for Fashion Designs, 3 IJIPL (2010) 85
  • The Role of IPR in Fashion Industry, https://www.ijraset.com/research-paper/role-of-ipr-in-fashion-industry
  • Shishir Tiwari (2016), Intellectual Property Rights Protection of Fashion Design in India: A Panoramic View
  • Fashion and Intellectual Property  https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3317-fashion-and-intellectual-property.html
  • Sameer Kumar Swarup and Sachin Rastogi (2021), Fashion Design and Intellectual Property Rights: An Indian Perspective
  • T. Vibha Chandrakar (2022), Concept in India Copyright and Design Law: Fashion
  • Sunanda Bharti (2016), Legal Protection of Fashion Design in Apparels in India: A Dilemma under the Copyright and Design Law

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010