This article is co-authored by Maurvi Vohra and Sneha Mishra, fourth year B.A. LL.B. (Hon’s) students at the Institute of Law, Nirma University.

Introduction

In the modern world, the concept of intellectual property (IP) is a cornerstone of innovation and creativity. However, even though the “natural rights” with respect to IP is automatically granted upon creation, it must be actively claimed, formalized, and diligently enforced. This fundamental principle is starkly highlighted in the Indian retail sector, where independent creators frequently face vulnerabilities due to design duplication by larger, more established players.

The Westside Controversy

When independent jewelry designer Shruti Kumar’s company, The Rover, accused retail behemoth Westside of “brazenly plagiarizing” their entire “Vishwa” collection in April 2025, it caused a major uproar in the retail industry. A basic tenet of intellectual property law that many creators ignore is highlighted by this incident, in which Westside was accused of replicating complex jewelry designs and offering them for sale at significantly lower prices; from Westside’s ₹399 version to The Rover’s ₹4,400 earrings.  The dispute goes beyond jewelry to include claims of packaging resemblances to companies such as Dot & Key skincare products, Hermes accessories, and Rhode lip balms. These claims expose systematic patterns of design appropriation that take advantage of serious weaknesses in India’s intellectual property protection system. This suggests a rather basic but neglected truth- Without enforcement, IP is little more than a paper promise.

Design Law in India

Driven by innovation and creativity, the Indian fashion and lifestyle market is at a turning point where brands and designers are finding that intellectual property protection is more and more important.  Debates concerning the sufficiency of legal protections for designers in India’s vibrant design ecosystem have been rekindled by recent incidents involving Westside, a large retail chain accused of copying The Rover’s distinctive jewelry designs. Effective protection is hampered by gaps in awareness, registration, and enforcement, even though the Designs Act of 2000 seeks to secure exclusive rights for visual designs and trademarks offer a means of distinctive branding.  The problem worsens in a setting where consumer forums mention “dupe” practices that make it difficult to distinguish between imitation and inspiration, leaving independent creators vulnerable to appropriation by influential retail companies.

The recent confrontation between The Rover and Westside has highlighted the challenges faced by independent designers in protecting their artistic works in the current Intellectual Property Protection Framework. The Rover’s statement exemplified how “independent designers who run completely bootstrapped businesses invest months in concept development, sampling, and execution,” just to see retail giants “carelessly steal” their work. The swift removal of contested designs from the store’s website within 24 hours, following public backlash and actor Dia Mirza’s intervention, shows both power of social media advocacy and the vulnerability of loosely protected designs.

The Indian Designs Act, 2000, grants exclusive rights over visual designs, i.e., “features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colors applied to any article by any industrial process.” For fashion and jewelry designers like The Rover, this encompasses visual elements including packaging aesthetics, product configuration and ornamental patterns. Essentially, the design must be applied to an article “appeal to and be judged solely by the eye,” excluding the functional features.

The Dupe Dilemma

Though the retail giant has not faced legal challenge for its product packaging, discussions abound over its uncanny packaging similarity with the Rhode lip tint and Dot & Key’s sunscreen packaging. While consumer forums bring attention to its practice of “duping”, this legally falls within Trade Dress, i.e., the total image, look, and feel of a product that distinguishes it in the marketplace. While the Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not expressly use the term “trade dress”, courts in India have recognized it under the umbrella of trademarks and passing off actions. In Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd, the Delhi High Court restrained Anchor from using packaging deceptively similar to Colgate’s red and white trade dress, reflecting judicial willingness to extend protection to non-functional packaging features.

Hermès, another renowned luxury has been reportedly “duped” by Westside, which sold handbags and footwear resembling the brand’s iconic designs. This demonstrates the second half of the thesis: creating IP and registering it is insufficient, without consistent enforcement. In the case of Bulgari S.p.A. v. Amaris Flagship Retail Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court granted interim relief to protect Bulgari’s iconic Serpenti necklace design from imitation, stating the importance of not just originality but also the brand’s active enforcement of its design rights.

Luxury brands are often counterfeited by small vendors and street markets, but these infringements are often tolerated by the brands because the cost of enforcement outweighs the potential benefit. For many fashion houses, the practical policy response is limited to seizing and destroying counterfeit goods when customers seek authentication. However, the calculus changes when a reputable retail chain such as Westside enjoys significant visibility, legitimacy, and consumer trust. The absence of enforcement in such instances not only emboldens large retailers to continue these practices but also renders the entire objective of IP protection moot.

Reforming IP in India

The incident has highlighted a few structural gaps in India’s IP protection Framework. Firstly, Unlike the United States, where Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act explicitly protects trade dress, India’s framework relies on judicial expansion under the Trade Marks Act, creating uncertainty and evidentiary burdens for the claimants.

Secondly, Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957, extinguishes copyright in artistic works capable of design registration after fifty industrial reproductions, unless registered under The Designs Act, 2000. The Rover’s designs had a clear aesthetic and commercial value; the absence of formal registration left them vulnerable to imitation. Apart from lack of awareness, this reflects broader challenges faced by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in navigating India’s IP landscape, where “lengthy registration processes” and “limited legal remedies” create opportunities for larger players to exploit unprotected creativity.

Lastly, even when IP rights are registered, enforcement in India is a cumbersome process. Litigation is slow, interim injunctions are inconsistently granted, which combined with the inadequate deterrent, explains why IP holders may overlook infringements. Without stronger enforcement mechanisms and quicker remedies, IP risk becoming symbolic rather than substantive.

Conclusion

The Westside controversy highlights structural weaknesses in India’s intellectual property protection framework that allow big-box retailers to profit from independent artists’ works with little consequence.  Even though the immediate public pressure in this case forced corrective action, the underlying legal framework is still insufficient to prevent systematic design appropriation.  When introducing new products, one strategy is to apply for trade dress and design patent protections both domestically and abroad.  These are effective IP enforcement tools that provide extra defence against lookalikes.  Seeking intellectual property protection overseas may also aid in preventing the production and distribution of counterfeit goods in other nations. It is a good idea for brands to speak with IP attorneys in foreign jurisdictions to understand if they can fight dupes under local counterfeiting and infringement laws and potentially seek injunctive relief. For example, in Brazil, a trademark owner can enforce its rights through both criminal and civil proceedings under the Brazilian Industrial Property Law.

The contention “no IP right exists unless you make one” captures the advantages and disadvantages of India’s registration-based system. Although official registration offers unmistakable protection, many creators are left open to exploitation due to practical registration obstacles. Reform initiatives must strike a balance between acknowledging that creative industries need more adaptable protection mechanisms and the certainty that registration offers.

The “dupe” phenomenon poses a difficult problem that calls for a new equilibrium between the rights of creators and consumer demands for affordability.  Dupes can democratise access to some aesthetics, but they also seriously jeopardise independent designers’ livelihoods and innovation.  The dupe industry needs to develop new narratives and provide true innovation in order to progress beyond simple imitation.  Only then will it be able to get past the reputation of being just imitations and offer the market something genuinely valuable.  To avoid any further design dispute, creators still have the responsibility to take the initiative to not only create but also to formally establish and strictly enforce their intellectual property rights.

The path forward requires comprehensive reform addressing registration accessibility, penalty structures, and enforcement mechanisms. Only through such systemic changes can India’s IP framework evolve to protect the creativity and innovation that drive its growing fashion and design sectors. The current dispute and its resultant uproar may prove a catalyst for such reforms, transforming an instance of design appropriation into an opportunity for strengthening intellectual property protection for all creators.

---

References

1. Westside ‘takes jewelry off website’ after a brand accuses it of plagiarism, HINDUSTAN TIMES, Apr. 26, 2025. https://www.hindustantimes.com/lifestyle/fashion/westside-accused-of-plagiarism-by-jewellery-brand-the-rover-statement-dia-mirza-earrings-choker-design-carelessly-stolen-101745641153655.html
2. The Designs Act, 2000, § 2(d), No. 16 of 2000, India Code. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1917/1/200016.pdf
3. Design protection in India, LAKSHMIKUMARAN & SRIDHARAN (Feb. 13, 2012). https://www.lakshmisri.com/newsroom/archives/design-protection-in-india/
4. The Trade Marks Act, No. 47 of 1999, India Code (1999). https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1993/5/a1999-47.pdf
5. Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., 2003 SCC OnLine Del 976. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1500699/
6. Bulgari S.p.A. v. Amaris Flagship Retail Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3339 https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2024-05/16a02b5d-868a-4201-9632-8f7461815305/Bulgari_SPA_v_Amaris.pdf
7. Protection of Trade Dress in India, Mondaq (Jan. 25, 2022),https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1153586/protection-of-trade-dress-in-india.
8. Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, § 15, India Code (1957). https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15356/1/the_copyright_act%2C_1957.pdf
9. Design Piracy in India: Assessing the Effectiveness of Legal Remedies for Small and Medium Enterprises, SONI’S VISION (Nov. 22, 2024). https://www.sonisvision.in/blogs/design-piracy-in-india-assessing-the-effectiveness-of-legal-remedies-for-small-and-medium-enterprises-smes