Introduction
India has seen exponential growth in the fashion sector in the recent years, so much so that it can be said that it’s in boom. Statistically, it is predicted for the year of 2026 that the numbers might surge as high as $77 billion, expected to reach $125-150 by the end of the decade, which is quite the testament to the country’s emergence as a global fashion hub. Yet, behind all the glamour of runways and designer labels, a constant concern keeps popping up. The legal conundrum, which sees a clash between the protection of original designs, patterns and brand identity with the rise of fast – fashion and the E – commerce platforms, such as Amazon.com, Myntra Inter alia.
The term Fast Fashion is used in the glamour industry as a means to describe a wide range of low-cost, low-quality clothes that imitate popular fashion trends of large brands, independent designers, and/or top-end retailers. Fast fashion companies, like Zara, have created an environment where customers regularly buy clothes at low prices, and then throw them away after only a few uses. This type of company was established in the late 1970s when stores in Europe and North America began shifting their manufacturing to countries with much lower labour costs throughout Asia, but gained momentum in the mid-1990s as many companies began ramping up their production in order to keep up with emerging fashion trends. Previously, clothing manufacturers would release only two or three new clothing collections each year, but with the explosive growth of fast fashion companies, they now produce dozens of new clothing collections every year, with a large portion of those collections being new and fashionable. Additionally, this has enormous environmental ramifications and has raised numerous ethical concerns about the exploitation of the workers that produce these low-cost, low-quality clothing items.
The conspicuous presence of the phenomenon is highlighted by designers such as Masaba Gupta who observed that runway prints or signature styles can be copied in as little as 10 days.” This raises a question of importance – when does inspiration cross the line into infringement?
Legal Frameworks protecting Fashion in India
Various IP laws in India protect Fashion; these include Copyright Law 1957, the Designs Act 2000 and the Trademark Act 1999 while all are supplemented by Labour, Environmental and Foreign Trade Laws. Designers must therefore develop a long-term strategy in how they use these frameworks.
- Copyright Act, 1957
The Copyright Act, 1957 protects creative works such as drawings, painting designs and embroideries for 60 years post-mortem without the need for registering them as a registered work. However, most of the protections afforded to creators under this Act are limited to protecting how they express an idea and not the functional nature of that idea or general design concept created through their artistic work. Under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act 1957, a special rule has been introduced that states if a Work is capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000 but is not registered before being made more than fifty times, then the copyright in that work will cease to protect it as of when it was made that many times. This ensures that if a work is manufactured or produced commercially in mass quantities the creator would be compelled to register that Work under the Designs Act 2000 to maintain copyright protection for more than fifty units whereas, all works which were created artistically and are not made into mass-produced products such as graphic designed clothing would still be afforded beneficial long-term protection under the Copyright Act 1957 for the lifetime of the author plus 60 years.
- Designs Act, 2000
The Designs Act 2000 provides exclusive rights and protection of the aesthetic qualities of the design that are produced using industrial processes. The designs must be registered before you receive this protection which is for 10 years and can be extended for an additional 5 years. Designs can include patterns, shapes, forms, configurations, or ornamentation but are judged purely visually and must meet the requirements of novelty and originality. The Designs Act supplements copyright law, specifically in relation to commercially produced designs on a large scale, therefore, giving a monopoly for a limited amount of time to create an industrial aesthetic, but not providing a monopoly indefinitely.
- Trade Marks Act, 1999
Trademark law protects fashion brands and business owners from unauthorized use of their logos, symbols, names, and unique styling elements. Trademark protection can be renewed and continued forever as long as the trademark remains in use. Some of the most well-known examples of trademarks include Burberry’s check pattern and Christian Louboutin’s red soles. Both are clearly defined and well-recognized forms of brand representation. In conjunction with copyright and design law, trademarks allow designers and fashion companies to create and protect individual pieces as well as overall brand imaging, allowing them access to both the aesthetic beauty and marketing benefits derived from their designs.
- E – Commerce, Piracy and Intermediary Liability
The availability of affordable fashion for consumers has increased dramatically as a result of e-commerce platforms such as Meesho, Flipkart and Amazon. however, at the same time, these platforms have also become breeding grounds for mass-scale design piracy. This occurs when sellers take advantage of these e-commerce platforms to create low-cost replicas of designer clothes and surface patterns, thus eroding the economic and artistic integrity of original works. In accordance with section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, all e-commerce platforms that offer an open marketplace are classified as intermediaries and are afforded a “safe harbour” from liability for intellectual property infringement, provided they do not initiate, control or alter infringing material. On the other hand, a digital marketplace will lose its safe harbour protection if it is informed of a violation of IP rights and does not remove or disable access to the infringing content. The statutory framework in this manner has provided for the establishment of companies’ notice and takedown systems, and consequently, this has resulted in e-commerce platforms being placed in the position of a quasi-regulatory body that firstly, promotes commercial activity and secondly, enforces the intellectual property rights of designers within the digital fashion economy.
- Judicial Precedents
Indian courts increasingly define platform and designer responsibilities in fashion IP disputes. Abhi Traders v. Meesho, 2024mandated seller disclosure and takedowns, while Louboutin, 2018protected non-conventional trademarks. Cases like Ritika v. Biba, Sabyasachi, and Rahul Mishra, 2024 highlight the decisive role of design registration and injunctions in combating fast-fashion piracy.
Distinguishing Inspiration from Infringement
Rapid manufacturing cycles and quick responses to changing fashion tastes contribute to the popularity of “fast fashion,” but also create confusion about whether certain fast fashion items are protected under copyright or infringe upon another entity’s copyright. In India, the distinction between ideas and expressions of those ideas under intellectual property [“IP”] law is very clearly defined. Fashion trends (e.g., variety of shapes, lengths/patterns) are considered to be unprotected ideas and therefore in the public domain. On the other hand, once a fashion trend is turned into a tangible form then the creator/pattern-maker may have copyright protection for their artistic/design work under the Indian Copyright Act, as well as possible design rights under the Designs Act, 2000.
One of the most important aspects of this analysis involves the size of the production runs associated with a given designer’s designs. According to Indian law, a design cannot be registered under the copyright law if it has been produced or copied more than 50 times prior to being registered. Therefore, designers who are confident that they will experience commercial success should file timely design registrations under the Designs Act, 2000 in order to receive enforceable protection and to deter other fast fashion businesses from unlawfully copying their designs with relative impunity.
The presence of digital commerce and online shopping has made enforcement of IP rights much more challenging. With the rapid growth of social media and e-commerce, such as Instagram, Pinterest, and Amazon, the speed at which new fashions are seen and copied has increased exponentially. This means that designers must plan their IP strategies early and prepare to monitor e-commerce sites closely in real time and react swiftly with legal action when designs are copied.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in 2025 has provided much-needed clarity around the law and established that commercial exploitation alone will not result in a loss of copyright. Copyright protection is only lost when a design is produced for industrial scale production without registering for copyright. This interpretation of the law provides a clearer method for resolving legal disputes relating to fast fashion, balancing creative rights and commercial realities.
Fast fashion brands need to be cautious when they adapt trends, although adapting a trend is fair use of a work, copying a protected expression, such as a design, could result in an injunction, damages, or negative publicity. For designers, combining registration, production controls, contracts, and active enforcement has become an essential tool for preserving their originality in a fast fashion market where replication occurs rapidly.
Author Name- Satviki Agnihotri, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) | Semester V Candidate 2028 | National Law University, Jodhpur
