Fashion law in India is an emerging field that addresses the unique legal challenges faced by the fashion industry. It encompasses a variety of legal disciplines, including intellectual property, contract law, labor and employment law, and international trade. Given the industry’s dynamic nature and its significant contribution to the Indian economy, fashion law plays a crucial role in protecting the rights and interests of designers, manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. Key issues in this domain include copyright and trademark protection, design patents, anti-counterfeiting measures, and compliance with labor laws. With the rise of digital platforms and global trade, fashion law in India also deals with the complexities of e-commerce, sustainability, and ethical practices. As the industry continues to evolve, so does the legal framework governing it, necessitating specialized knowledge and expertise in fashion law.
Digital media and content creation have revolutionized the fashion industry, offering unprecedented opportunities for brand promotion, customer engagement, and global reach. However, this digital shift also brings a host of legal implications that fashion brands and creators must navigate
IPR AND FASHION
Intellectual Property Rights are crucial for fostering creativity and innovation in the Indian fashion industry. They provide designers and brands with the legal tools to protect their creations and investments, thereby promoting fair competition and encouraging further artistic expression. As the industry continues to grow and evolve, raising awareness about IPR and strengthening enforcement mechanisms will be essential to fully realizing the potential of fashion in India. Despite the legal protections available, enforcing IPR in the fashion industry can be challenging in India. Issues such as counterfeit products, design piracy, and lack of awareness about IPR among small designers pose significant hurdles. The legal process can also be time-consuming and costly, deterring some from pursuing litigation. For example renowned Indian designer Ritu Kumar faced challenges with counterfeit products being sold under her brand name. Legal actions were taken to combat these counterfeits, highlighting the importance and difficulty of IPR enforcement.
Copyright: Copyright law in India, governed by the Copyright Act, 1957, provides protection to original artistic works, including fashion designs. For example, Indian fashion designer Manish Malhotra secured copyright protection for his unique embroidery patterns and motifs, ensuring that other brands could not legally replicate them without permission.
Trademark: In the fashion industry, trademarks are essential for protecting brand identity and preventing consumer confusion. The Trademarks Act, 1999, governs trademark protection in India. For example, The luxury brand Sabyasachi has trademarked its name and logo, which are synonymous with high-end bridal wear in India. This prevents unauthorized use by other businesses trying to capitalize on Sabyasachi’s brand reputation.
Design: Design patents, governed by the Designs Act, 2000, provide protection for the aesthetic aspects of an article, such as its shape, configuration, pattern, or ornamentation. For example, The Indian fashion house BIBA has registered several design patents for its unique kurta designs, protecting them from being copied by competitors.
SAFEGUARDING CONSUMER RIGHTS IN FASHION INDUSTRY
Consumer protection is a vital aspect of fashion law, ensuring that consumers’ rights are safeguarded in the purchase and use of fashion products. This includes accurate representation of products, fair pricing, clear return and refund policies, and the assurance of product quality and safety. In India, laws such as the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020, play a significant role in regulating these aspects. These regulations mandate transparency from fashion retailers and e-commerce platforms, requiring them to provide clear information about products, adhere to warranty and guarantee commitments, and address consumer grievances promptly. The legal framework aims to prevent unfair trade practices, such as misleading advertisements and counterfeit goods, thereby fostering trust and confidence among consumers in the fashion market.
NAVIGATING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN FASHION INDUSTRY
Foreign trade plays a crucial role in the global fashion industry, intertwining with fashion law to regulate and facilitate international transactions, imports, and exports of fashion goods. Fashion law addresses various aspects of foreign trade, including compliance with international trade agreements, customs regulations, and intellectual property protections across borders. For instance, designers and brands must navigate tariffs, trade restrictions, and labeling requirements to ensure their products meet the legal standards of different countries. In India, laws such as the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and the Customs Act, 1962, govern these international trade practices, ensuring that fashion products imported and exported adhere to quality standards and legal frameworks. This legal oversight helps prevent the proliferation of counterfeit goods, promotes fair competition, and supports the growth of the fashion industry on a global scale.
ENSURING ETHICAL AND FAIR WORKING SYSTEMS
Fashion and labor law intersect to ensure ethical and fair working conditions within the fashion industry. Labor laws regulate various aspects such as wages, working hours, health and safety, and employment contracts, aiming to protect the rights of workers involved in garment manufacturing, retail, and related sectors. In India, the implementation of the Code on Wages, 2019, and the Occupational Safety, Health, and Working Conditions Code, 2020, among others, highlights the country’s commitment to improving labor standards in the fashion industry. These laws mandate minimum wage requirements, safe working environments, and equitable treatment, addressing issues like exploitation, child labor, and unsafe factory conditions. Ensuring compliance with labor laws is crucial for fashion brands to maintain ethical practices, enhance their reputation, and contribute to sustainable and socially responsible industry growth.
SOME LANDMARK AND RECENT CASE LAWS
1. LEVI STRAUSS & CO. V. BRUNELLO CUCINELLI USA INC.
Case Citation: Levi Strauss & Co v Brunello Cucinelli USA Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 24-00399.
Levi accused Brunello Cucinelli of selling clothing that contained “nearly identical” copies of its tab, which the retailer of denim and other clothing trademarked in 1938, and provided 14 photos illustrating the alleged infringement. The Levi’s Tab trademark has been registered for over 80 years, with use alleged as early as 1936, and the distinction of being registered since 1938. Levi’s has used the Tab trademark in a variety of colors, and often displays the Tab in red. In its Complaint, Levi’s alleged Brunello Cucinelli manufactured, promoted, and sold clothing bearing tabs that are “nearly identical” to Levi’s Tab trademark. Levi’s has brought and settled several trademark infringement lawsuits in recent years seeking to protect the Tab trademark. A lesson for all brand owners on both the sword and defense benefits of formal registration and regular enforcement of rights.
2. UNIQLO V. SHEIN
Case Citation: Uniqlo v. Shein, Dec 28,2023
Japanese retailer Uniqlo is taking a stand against fast fashion giant Shein, accusing them of producing a copycat version of its highly popular shoulder bag. This bag, known for its deceptive capacity and trending status on social media platforms like TikTok, has become Uniqlo’s best-selling item to date. Amidst this acclaim, Uniqlo has alleged that Shein has created and is selling a substandard and unlawful copy on their website.The legal battle has commenced in Tokyo, Uniqlo’s base, targeting Shein, headquartered in Singapore. The core of Uniqlo’s claim lies in copyright infringement, asserting that Shein’s version of the bag not only replicates their design but also falls short in quality. Uniqlo‘s demands are clear: an immediate halt on the sales of the disputed bag by Shein and compensation for damages, estimated at around $1.1 million.
3. CHRISTIN LOUBOUTIN SAS V. NAKUL BAJAJ & ORS.
Case Citation: Christian Louboutin Sas v. Nakul Bajaj, AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 1962
The plaintiff in the case, one Christian Louboutin is a luxury brand which is specialized in shoes and other related goods, Christian Louboutin has many products which enjoy exclusivity through Intellectual Property Rights. The defendant is Darveys.com, Darveys is a members-only luxury online shopping portal. It was noted in the investigation that the company required members to pay ₹2000 to use the website. It was stated that the product sold by the Darveys.com especially the product line of the plaintiff were stated to be unauthorized sales. The plaintiff further claimed that the products of their brand were sold only under authorized sellers in India. The defendant claimed protection through section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as an intermediary.The court gave out the decision that the darveys.com in support of transporting the infringed goods to the customer would definitely be held liable even as an intermediary. The court also referred to the IT (intermediaries guidelines) rules 2011. The court also insisted that the aforesaid of the intermediary guidelines is advisable but not a sole criterion for providing the protection that the intermediaries needs.
4. PEOPLE TREE V. DIOR
A classic example of creative piracy by huge fashion brands from small boutiques. A brief background about this case: In January 2018, actor Sonam Kapoor appeared on the cover of Elle India featuring a dress with traditional Indian print. The dress was from Dior’s 2018 cruise collection. Orijit Sen, a designer, called out Dior on Facebook and other social media platforms alleging that the featured dress was a blatant rip off of his creation. He claimed that he began selling the print 10 years prior to Dior designing the dress and printed a similar traditional Indian design that he is still producing as of 2018. As proof he attached bills of sales and the original wood carving of textile print that he personally crated. He claims that it is one of his “well-loved creations” and is widely circulated.At the outset of this case, it was alleged to be copyright infringement. As the pressure on social media built and various people began alleging Dior for copyright infringement, it brought Dior to the negotiating table with People tree.
5. ADITYA BIRLA FASHION & RETAIL LTD. V. MANISH JOHAR
Case Citation: Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd Vs Manish Johar, TM No.7/2017
In this case the plaintiff is asserted to be in the business of manufacturing and sales of a wide range of fashion products globally ranging from apparel to footwear to perfumes etc under the trademark of "ALLEN SOLLY" which has retained copyright under the Copyright Act 1957. It had been the accusation against the defendant that he used the label and marks of the plaintiffs, counterfeit, and copy and use of aesthetic attributes of the plaintiffs and trade in their fashion products in a mala fide manner, infringing plaintiffs' copyright and trademark rights. Comparing the marks of the plaintiffs and defendants, it is found that the label used by defendants was made with a purpose to deceive and confuse the customers ordering the defendant for handing over the counterfeited products to the plaintiff for destruction.
6. RITIKA PAL V. BIBA APPARELS
Case Citation: Ritika Private Ltd. V. BIBA Apparels Private Ltd., CS(OS) No.182/2011
The present case revolves around copyright infringement and registered design. The case begins by filing of a suit by the Ritika Private Limited (who is a plaintiff in this case), stating that the Biba Apparel Private Limited (who is the defendant in this case) had copied the design and work of the plaintiff which the plaintiff was selling under the brand name of “Ritu Kumar”. The plaintiff claimed to be its first owner and therefore contended that the defendant had earned profit from the design of the plaintiff and without any prior permission of the plaintiff the defendant had sold the design under its name. The defendant on the other hand disagreed with the statement and contentions of the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff had never registered the design in dispute. They stated that the suit would be barred by Section 15(2) of the copyright act as it had been produced more than 50 times and hence this would not be a case of copyright infringement.
7. ADIDAS V. SKECHERS
Case Citation: adidas America, Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc., No. 16-35204 (9th Cir. 2018)
Adidas America, Inc. (plaintiff) was an athletic-shoe and apparel manufacturer. Skechers USA, Inc. (defendant) was an athletic-shoe competitor. Adidas sued Skechers for infringement regarding two styles of Skechers shoes, alleging that one Skechers style, the “Onix,” infringed on the trade dress of Adidas’ “Stan Smith” shoe, and another Skechers shoe, the “Cross Court,” infringed on Adidas’ “Three-Stripe” trademark. The district court granted Adidas a preliminary injunction against Skechers as to both claims. Skechers appealed.