Fast Fashion and Intellectual Property Where Does Originality End and Infringement Begin?

"Fast fashion refers to the unoriginal rapid production of clothing at a similar or lower cost to what launched these street names in the first place, and it has transformed the apparel industry. But the speed and unreliable and/or trend-driven copying has created conversations and debates around IP rights. When a designer's originals are duplicated in a matter of days by a department store or local retailer, where does inspiration stop and infringement begin? This question is even more pertinent in India, with a growing fashion market, and a site of a wealth of design. Indian designers are faced with copies from fast fashion outlets of their works, and it raised the question of the willingness to push for more IP." Balancing the celebration of creativity with fair competition has become a tightrope walk in the fashion industry.

IP Law and Fashion: The Indian Context

Fashion designs can attract multiple forms of IP protection. In India, the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Designs Act, 2000 are central to safeguarding clothing designs and patterns, while the Trade Marks Act, 1999 protects brand names, logos, and distinctive trade dress. Each regime offers different scopes and durations of protection. Under copyright law, original artistic works (a category broad enough to include fashion sketches or textile prints) enjoy protection for the creator’s life plus 60 years. By contrast, a registered design under the Designs Act grants a monopoly for a shorter term (10 years, extendable by 5). Trademark law, on the other hand, can protect identifiers like logos or even signature style elements indefinitely, provided they distinguish the source.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

Indian law draws a crucial line between art and industrial design. Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act provides that if a design is capable of registration under the Designs Act but is not registered, the creator’s copyright in that design ceases as soon as it has been applied to more than 50 articles by an industrial process. In simpler terms, a fashion sketch can initially be protected by copyright, but once the design is mass-produced (beyond 50 copies), the law expects the designer to have sought a design registration. This prevents designers from claiming perpetual copyright over commercially exploited designs and encourages them to use the design registration system for mass-manufactured items. The rationale is to give stronger, longer protection to pure artistic works, while treating commercially reproduced designs as industrial property deserving of limited-term protection.

This legal framework creates a delicate interplay between originality and replication. Fast fashion thrives on quick turnaround, often replicating popular designs within days of their debut. As designer Masaba Gupta noted, a runway print or style can be photographed and imitated “in the next 10 days” by copycats. Yet, not every imitation is legally actionable. Generic styles or trends (like a peplum top or balloon sleeves) usually fall outside IP protection, they are considered ideas in the public domain. It is the distinctive expressive elements (a specific print, an original embroidery pattern, a signature color or logo placement) that, if copied, may cross into infringement. Determining that boundary often requires case-by-case analysis under Indian law.

In practice, the distinction between acceptable inspiration and illegal infringement in fashion is often determined through litigation. Indian courts have dealt with scenarios where one brand’s design looks uncannily similar to another’s. A key question is whether the alleged copy captured the “essence” of the original’s creativity or simply rode the wave of a trend. Here, the outcome can depend not only on similarity but also on what IP rights the original designer secured in the first place.

If a designer did not register a design but claims it as an original artistic work, they risk losing protection once the design is mass-produced beyond the 50-copy threshold. The infamous case of Ritika Private Ltd. v. Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. (2016) illustrates this. The company behind designer Ritu Kumar sued Biba, a popular Indian ethnic wear brand, for allegedly copying its garment prints and patterns. Ritu Kumar’s team even kept digital records and ID numbers for each original sketch to establish authenticity. Yet when the dispute reached court, Biba argued that because those designs had been reproduced on more than fifty outfits, Ritu Kumar’s copyright in them had ceased. The Court agreed – because the designs were unregistered and mass-produced beyond the 50-copy limit, Ritu Kumar could not claim infringement. In other words, the claim to originality failed legally because the proper intellectual property protection through design registration was not sought for a design that was mass-produced.

Conversely, when a design is produced in limited quantities, Indian courts have been willing to uphold copyright protection. In Rajesh Masrani v. Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd. (2008), an accused copyist was restrained by an injunction because the designer Tarun Tahiliani’s fashion prints had not exceeded the 50-copy threshold. The court treated the designs as artistic works still under copyright, since they weren’t yet “industrial designs” in the eyes of the law. More recently, designer Gaurav Gupta, known for his sculptural gowns succeeded in a 2024 copyright infringement claim when another label mimicked his signature ‘sculpted boning’ technique. The Delhi High Court noted that Gupta’s pieces were handcrafted and sold in very limited numbers, so the Section 15(2) cutoff did not apply; his creative work remained protected by copyright. These cases underscore that a designer can enforce rights against copycats if they keep their productions exclusive or below the mass-market threshold.

Registering a design can decisively tip the scales in favor of the original creator. A standout example is Sabyasachi Mukherjee’s fight against copycat bridal wear. Sabyasachi, a celebrated Indian couturier, had registered the ornate floral patterns of certain lehengas under the Designs Act. When a rival boutique started selling look-alike lehengas with nearly identical embellishments, Sabyasachi sued for design piracy. The Delhi High Court in 2021 granted an injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling any outfit that was a fraudulent or obvious imitation of Sabyasachi’s registered designs. The court ordered the copies off shelves and even offline marketplaces. This victory reinforces that originality backed by a design certificate can draw a bright legal line that fast fashion imitators cannot cross without repercussions.

Not all fashion IP battles are about prints and patterns; some are about signature style elements that brands claim as their identity. A prominent case is Christian Louboutin's attempt to protect his well-known red-soled shoes in India. Louboutin's lacquered red outsole is a registered trademark in many countries (including India) and signifies luxury, and source of brand origin. When Indian retailers started to sell shoes with similar red bottoms, Louboutin took legal action and claimed trademark infringement. In 2018, the Delhi High Court ruled that Louboutin's red sole is a protectible trademark and, consequently, issued a permanent injunction, and even punitive damages, against a retailer selling red-soled lookalikes. The upshot is that copying a trademarked or signature feature, be it a logo, a distinctive pattern like Burberry’s checks, or Louboutin’s red sole is squarely on the infringement side of the line.

The digital age has enabled not just fast fashion giants but also anonymous manufacturers to clone designs rapidly. Indian designers are responding with legal innovation. In late 2024, designer Rahul Mishra discovered an e-commerce website blatantly selling cheap replicas of his runway designs, even using his name and images from his fashion shows. Mishra, who consciously produces fewer than 50 pieces of each design to maintain exclusivity, leveraged both copyright (for his design artworks) and trademark (for misuse of his name) in a lawsuit. The Delhi High Court granted a dynamic John Doe injunction, an order not only shutting down the identified website but also applicable to any subsequently discovered sellers of the infringing products. The court’s proactive approach in Rahul Mishra v. John Doe (2024) signaled strong support for designers striving to safeguard their originality against rampant online piracy.

These cases collectively draw the boundaries of originality and infringement in India’s fashion arena. If a design is truly original and the designer took steps to protect it (through registration or limited release), the law leans toward treating close copies as infringement.

On the other hand, if a design is widely disseminated without formal protection, fast fashion players have more leeway to emulate it, calling it “inspiration” or adaptation of trends. The law essentially asks: Did the creator treat this as a proprietary creation deserving legal exclusivity, or did it enter the stream of commerce unregistered and in volume? The answer often determines on which side of the originality vs. infringement line a dispute falls.

In this digital world, Instagram, Pinterest and others can generate fashion trends and ease of copying immediately. Fast fashion brands use social media to see trends in items, which they produce quickly. This accelerated copying often goes unnoticed or unchallenged.

Indian consumers themselves are often unaware of or indifferent to the originality of a product, focusing instead on affordability. There is minimal stigma associated with wearing a knockoff. Consumer education about how buying copies affects original creators could shift attitudes over time. Campaigns led by influencers and designers could build a culture that values authenticity over imitation.

From an industry perspective, there is growing awareness in India about the importance of IP in fashion. Top designers advocate for a culture that celebrates innovation and calls out plagiarism. As Masaba Gupta observed, the Indian fashion community and media should not give a “stamp of approval” to copycat designers, but instead openly discourage the practice. This social accountability complements legal measures. Meanwhile, fast fashion brands are advised to tread carefully, drawing inspiration from trends is acceptable, but replicating protectable elements of a designer’s work can land them in legal trouble.

Indian jurisprudence is also evolving. In a 2025 Supreme Court ruling, the judges proposed a clearer test to distinguish a purely artistic work from an industrial design. They held that commercial exploitation alone does not automatically strip a creative work of its copyright  unless the work’s dominant purpose becomes its functional utility as a mass-produced item. The Court affirmed that a design doesn’t lose copyright protection simply for being sold, unless it has truly crossed into the realm of industrial production. Such clarity will help courts navigate future cases of fast fashion imitation.

Ultimately, drawing the line between inspiration and infringement is about respecting the creative labor behind a design. As the cases show, when that line is crossed in India, the law is increasingly prepared to step in, sending a clear message that blatant copying of protected creations will not go unpunished.

Author:  Amrapali Chaturvedi, 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

1. Forbes India – Copyright vs Design: The continuing dilemma in the fashion industry.

2. The Copyright Act, 1957 (Sections 2(c), 15(2))

3. The Designs Act, 2000 (Sections 2(d), 4, 11)

4. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Sections 2(zb), 29)

5. Ritika Private Limited v. Biba Apparels Private Limited, CS(OS) 182/2015, Delhi High Court

6. Rajesh Masrani v. Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd., 2008 (38) PTC 198 (Del)

7. Sabyasachi Mukherjee v. Saree Sansar, CS(COMM) 745/2021, Delhi High Court

8. Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj and Ors., CS(COMM) 714/2018, Delhi High Court

9. Rahul Mishra v. John Doe and Ors., CS(COMM) 68/2024, Delhi High Court

10. Mashelkar, R.A. (2017). "Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights: Indian Perspective." WIPO

11. Shreeja Sen, “Fashion Law in India: Infringement or Inspiration?” NLIU Law Review, 2023

12. The Hans India – Don’t give stamp of approval to copycats: Designer Masaba Gupta (Interview).