This article is co-authored by Sneha Singh and Kashika Mittal, second year B.A. LL.B. (Hon’s) students at the Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies (GGSIPU), New Delhi.

Introduction

In 2022, one of the fashion design students posted a graphic, hand-drawn on Instagram, a contemporary reinterpretation of Mugler-form blended with ancient patterns of weaving. It was copied far and wide by fashion bloggers. Three weeks later, a very similar design cropped up in a big fast fashion catalogue. No credit. No permission. No royalties. This is not an isolated error; it is the systemic gaps in copyright and design protection that enable market-wide replication.

Fashion faces two distinct yet converging dangers today: design copying, in which original characteristics, such as shapes, cuts, and materials are duplicated without replicating the brand name; and counterfeiting, which unlawfully produces replicas of logos, brands, or entire branded personas to deceive consumers. Both undermine novelty and marketplace confidence.

In a business where designs get viral overnight, intellectual property law is the first and mostly sole defense. But fashion’s fleeting nature, coupled with globalized production and e-commerce, puts strains on the law to protect creativity. The question is: can legal constructs innovate quickly enough to keep pace with fashion’s pace, and its con artists?

Mapping the Copycat Spectrum: Rom Design Imitation to Brand Counterfeits

Fashion knock-offs and counterfeits exist on a tricky scale, and both can hurt a designer’s original work and brand. Knock-offs copy design features, like cuts, shapes, or prints but not logos. They trick consumers by using the general style of well-known designers. Counterfeits do more than this by illegally copying brand marks like logos and labels. They trick buyers into thinking they are buying authentic works. Though Knock-offs often escaped legal trouble, both knock-offs and counterfeits reduce the economic and creative value of the original work.

Ena Kapur describes how Indian law makes it possible for these replicas to flourish, largely through loopholes in copyright and design law. The designers themselves, particularly small artisans and

emerging designers, are the most affected as their intellectual property remains unregistered, and protection thus lacks due to the absence of statutory protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which prohibits dual protection once a design is eligible for registration under the Designs Act. This lack of registration along with the challenge of establishing novelty for protection of design makes the copy thrive and renders the copy the new standard.

But such normalization overlooks the real damage: destruction of brand value, undermined consumer trust, and stifling of authentic voices. Following this copycat continuum is not a mental exercise in isolation; it is a requirement of law and culture to protect the very essence of fashion.

Legal Tools in the Fashion Arsenal

In fashion, appearance is everything and yet the law frequently finds it difficult to keep safe what’s most visually unique. India uses an assortment of legal tools to keep fashion design safe, but each of them has its limitations.

Copyright legislation safeguards original works of art like fashion drawings, prints on a surface, and embroidery designs. They lose their copyright, however, once industrially reproduced, as for mass-market clothing — unless registered independently under the law of designs.

The Designs Act, 2000 provides specialized protection for the configuration, pattern, or ornamentation used on an article, like a dress silhouette or pleating. The Act demands compliance with novelty and registration requirements, which new designers typically do not achieve, thus excluding enforceability of rights.

Trademark law, on the other hand, protects brand identity: logos, monograms, and even signature color schemes (like Christian Louboutin’s red soles). It may also protect trade dress where brand looks are distinctive and well-promoted. But it doesn’t always cover unregistered or community-developed branding.

Lastly, Geographical Indications (GI) Tags safeguard India’s rich cultural heritage of traditional crafts, such as Banarasi brocades and Kanjeevaram silks. These enable domestic artisans to stake their cultural claim, though GI enforcement continues to be patchy and weavers’ awareness is restricted.

These bundled weapons constitute the legal firepower of fashion, but executing them successfully still requires resources, strategy, and legal precision.

Case Files: IP Battles on the Fashion Frontline

Fashion has been the site of some of the most high-profile IP enforcement cases, which have set precedent for legal victory and defeat. The red sole of Christian Louboutin is perhaps the most iconic. The Court of Justice of the European Union held the iconic red sole as a position mark in respect and upheld the trademark of Christian Louboutin, setting precedent for non-traditional fashion trademarks.

On the other hand, the challenge of policing online marketplaces was highlighted by the ongoing fight by Chanel against counterfeits on platforms such as Etsy and social media platforms such as Instagram. While Chanel has had some victories in takedown wars, the war continues, indicating the scope of online fashion piracy.

Sabyasachi Mukherjee has been vocal about his fake sarees and bridal attire reaching the domestic bazaars like Chandni Chowk. While bringing the authorities’ attention, these matters haven’t been addressed quickly. This continuing plague is damaging the reputation of his heritage brand, as the unchecked copying continues to spread.

Likewise, since Masaba Gupta herself has complained that there has been blatant copying of her signature prints, not much legal recourse can be had without strong copyright registration.

These are examples of how, although intellectual property law contributes to the development of resources available, it is often not easy to enforce such rights, especially where issues of platform liability and extraterritorial jurisdiction conflate the line of responsibility.

Fast Fashion, Slow laᴡ: the Enforcement Gap

Fashion is a lightning-fast business but the law is not. It is one of the biggest conundrums in safeguarding fashion’s intellectual property that the global supply chain poses. Fashion designs are thought up in one place, produced somewhere else, and sold in various jurisdictions, leaving enforcement of IP rights as a logistical labyrinth.

E-commerce sites such as Amazon, Instagram, and resale applications have made enforcement even more difficult. These platforms are saturated with lookalikes and unregistered vendors, frequently beyond the accessibility of national courts.

In India, the issue runs deeper. Artisan and young designer legal awareness is commonly nonexistent. Several artists do not register their work, so enforcement is practically impossible. Popular Delhi street markets such as Sarojini Nagar and Karol Bagh openly sell pirated or counterfeited clothing, illustrating a weak local enforcement system.

Even when rights are established, the absence of quick-track IP remedies renders the legal path useless. Time-consuming court processes and the expense of litigation discourage many designers from doing anything.

Consequently, while the laws exist on paper, the gap between law and practice makes original fashion vulnerable to copying, and its creators exposed.

Future-Proofing Fashion: Tech, Policy & Awareness

As fashion pirating evolves, so must the results. The future of guarding design integrity lies at the crossroad of technology, policy, and awareness. One of the most promising tools is blockchain technology, particularly NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) which can timestamp designs, proving authenticity and origin indeed before they hit the runway. This guarantees a designer’s assertion can be proved instantly and worldwide.

Meanwhile, AI-powered platforms like Entrupy and Red Points are revolutionizing the means by which brands track fakes in real-time, scouring online postings and pointing out concealed infringements with unimaginable precision. But tech isn’t enough. There’s a critical need for legal literacy campaigns, especially at the grassroots position. Numerous young designers and traditional crafters are ignorant of IP protections available under the Copyright Act or the Designs Act, leaving them vulnerable to theft.

Equally important is stricter central liability e-commerce platforms must apply faster and more transparent takedown mechanisms for fake goods, rather than shifting responsibility to creators.

To truly future-proof fashion, the industry must borrow a visionary model, not just fighting scams, but outsmarting them at the source.

Conclusion

Today’s fashion is threatened by two threats meeting halfway: unauthorized inspiration, where looks are indirectly taken without acknowledgment and pure copying, where styles or brand names are pilfered whole and hawked with deceitful pretenses. Not only does this devalue creative labour, but it also undermines consumer confidence.

Intellectual property law is generally viewed as a protective armor for luxury residences, yet it must be considered a lifeline for small-scale designers, traditional artisans, and new entrants in an uncertain market. Enhancing awareness, enforcement, and flexibility in IP regimes is no longer a choice, it’s survival.

“Between the initial sketch and the ultimate stitch is a battlefield and only with wiser laws can fashion emerge victorious in the war on fakes.”

Endnotes

1. Shirwaikar, P. (2015). Fashion Copying and the Design of the Law. National Law School of India Review, 27(1), 36–60.
2. Ahuja, V. K. (2017). Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights (2nd ed.). LexisNexis India.
3. Narayanan, P. (2017). Law of Trademarks and Passing Off (6th ed.). Kolkata: Eastern Law House.
4. Lalitha, N., & Vinayan, S. (2019). Regional Products and Rural Livelihoods: A Study on Geographical Indications from India. Oxford University Press.
5. Jimenez, G., & Kolsun, B. (2020). Fashion Law: A Guide for Designers, Fashion Executives, and Attorneys (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.
6. Yu, P. K. (Ed.). (2007). Intellectual Property and Information Wealth: Issues and Practices in the Digital Age. Praeger.
7. The Trade Marks Act, 1999. Government of India. Sections 2(zb), 27, 28, 29, 30. Bare Act, Universal Law Publishing.
8. The Copyright Act, 1957. Government of India. Sections 13, 14, 15. Bare Act, Universal Law Publishing.
9. The Designs Act, 2000. Government of India. Sections 2(d), 4, 19. Bare Act, Universal Law Publishing.
10. Kapil Wadhwa & Ors. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. is 194 (2012) DLT 23