This article is authored by Vanditha Panuganti, a first-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at University College of Law, Osmania University,

The fashion industry thrives in unique design rather than in actual material used to manufacture it. Fashion today is a rapidly expanding industry. In this era of fast fashion and digital platforms, legal protection safeguards instant replications of designs and innovation within the fashion industry. In India, fashion law is governed by the framework of intellectual property rights. Unlike other foreign legal systems, it is still an evolving field within the country, among which the Design Act 2000 comes into picture. It plays a significant role in registering designs with the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, by not violating public morality, ensuring novelty and maintaining secrecy before registration. However, despite its significance, the Design Act 2000 needs reforms because of technological development in recent times and other existing gaps. Considering these concerns, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade has proposed several amendments to reform the existing framework. Therefore, the present article aims to analyse the existing gaps within the Design Act 2000 and examine the impact of proposed reforms on the development of fashion in India.

Overview of Design Law in India

Design law in India is intended to protect the industrial designs such as shape, configuration, form or pattern, ornamentation, or composition of lines or colours applied to an article. It encourages creativity in product design, protects the visual appeals of art, and prevents copying of registered designs. It is composed of 48 sections in 11 chapters, and its composition is shown in the subsequent table.

Chapter	Sections	Subject Matter
Chapter I	Sections 1–2	Preliminary
Chapter II	Sections 3–10	Registration of Designs
Chapter III	Sections 11–20	Copyright in Registered Designs
Chapter IV	Section 21	Industrial and International Exhibitions
Chapter V	Sections 22–23	Legal Proceedings
Chapter VI	Sections 24–31	General Provisions
Chapter VII	Sections 32–36	Powers and Duties of the Controller
Chapter VIII	Sections 37–42	Evidence and Related Matters
Chapter IX	Section 43	Agency
Chapter X	Sections 44–47	Powers and Functions of the Central Government
Chapter XI	Section 48	Repeal and Savings

Collectively, these provisions establish the legal framework governing the registration, protection, enforcement, and administration of industrial designs in India. The Act protects original and novel designs from unauthorized copying, grants exclusive rights to registered proprietors over registered designs for a limited period of time, and provides legal remedies against piracy and infringement. It supports intellectual property protection in India and aligns with international standards of design protection.

The significance of the Act lies in the fact that, in modern markets, the appearance of a product can provide a business with a substantial competitive advantage. By safeguarding the visual appeal and commercial value of industrial designs, the law encourages creativity in product design, promotes fair competition, and enables creators and businesses to benefit from their innovative efforts while maintaining appropriate limitations on the scope and duration of protection.

Proposed Reforms to India’s Designs Law Framework

1. Protection of Virtual Designs

One of the most significant reforms is the recognition and protection of virtual designs. The proposal expands the scope of design protection to include graphical user interfaces (GUIs), icons, animations, augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) interfaces, typefaces, and other non-physical visual creations. This marks a departure from the traditional requirement that a design be embodied in a tangible article, thereby aligning Indian design law with the realities of the digital economy and emerging technologies.

2. Addressing the Design–Copyright Overlap

The reforms propose amendments to section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to provide limited copyright protection for designs that remain unregistered. Under the proposal, such protection would be available for a period of up to fifteen years. The objective is to bridge the gap between copyright and design law while preventing excessively long monopolies that could hinder competition and innovation.

3. A Market-Friendly Grace Period

The existing six-month exhibition-based exception is proposed to be replaced by a broader twelve-month grace period. This would allow designers to publicly disclose, market, exhibit, or test their creations without immediately losing eligibility for design protection. The reform is particularly beneficial for fashion designers, start-ups, and small businesses that increasingly rely on digital platforms, investor presentations, and trade events before seeking formal registration.

4. Deferred Publication System

A deferred publication mechanism has been proposed to enable applicants to keep registered designs confidential for up to thirty months after filing. Such protection would allow businesses to synchronize design disclosure with commercial launch strategies and prevent premature market exposure. The proposal also incorporates an “innocent infringer” defence to ensure that third parties who unknowingly infringe undisclosed designs are treated fairly.

5. Introduction of Statutory Damages

To strengthen enforcement against design piracy and counterfeiting, courts would be empowered to award statutory damages of up to ₹50 lakh in cases of wilful infringement. This reform seeks to improve deterrence, reduce evidentiary burdens associated with proving actual loss, and provide greater certainty in the enforcement of design rights.

6. Restructuring the Duration of Protection

The current protection structure of ten years, extendable by a further five years, is proposed to be replaced by a 5+5+5 model. Under this framework, protection would continue to be available for a maximum of fifteen years but would be renewed in three separate five-year blocks. This approach offers greater flexibility while ensuring that outdated designs eventually enter the public domain.

7. Multiple Designs in a Single Application

The reforms propose permitting applicants to include multiple related designs within a single application. This would significantly reduce filing costs, administrative burdens, and examination delays, particularly for industries such as fashion and consumer products where several design variants are often developed simultaneously. The proposal reflects practices already adopted in jurisdictions such as the European Union, the United Kingdom, and under the Hague System.

8. Division of Applications

A divisional application mechanism is also proposed. Under this system, if objections arise in relation to one design contained in a multiple-design filing, applicants may divide the application so that the remaining designs can continue independently. This prevents procedural obstacles affecting an entire portfolio and brings Indian practice closer to international standards.

9. International Registrations through the Hague System

The reforms recommend introducing a dedicated chapter governing international design registrations and facilitating India’s accession to the Hague System. Membership would enable designers to seek protection in multiple jurisdictions through a single application filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), reducing costs and procedural complexity for both Indian and foreign applicants.

10. Accession to the Riyadh Design Law Treaty

India’s proposed accession to the Riyadh Design Law Treaty would further modernize the country’s design protection framework. The treaty seeks to harmonize procedural requirements, simplify filing processes, and provide applicants with greater flexibility regarding deadlines and formalities. Adoption of the treaty would enhance legal certainty and promote a more user-friendly and internationally compatible design registration system.

Effects on Indian Fashion Law Framework

Apart from the existing Indian law framework, the proposed reforms have significant impact on fashion law. They can change how fashion works in India. One of the major developments is the introduction of virtual design protection, which is a new step for designers. Now they can create articles that exist in a digital environment for gaming, social media avatars, or virtual reality spaces. Protecting such designs under law ensures that creators receive recognition and economic benefits for their work in the digital economy.

Recent judgment by Calcutta High Court in the case of NEC Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs clarified that graphical user interfaces (GUIs) may be treated as a registrable design under the Act. It expands the scope of protection beyond traditional industrial articles into the digital sphere, subject to the requirements under Section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Act. Furthermore, mechanisms like the deferred publication system protect designs from being pirated and copied, which boosts the confidence of small creators who are more prone to exploitation. It can most likely be opted for at the time of filing itself, making it an important strategic consideration for fashion businesses and designers. These reforms also aim to make it easier for fashion brands, international fashion brands to work in India by making the registration rules more flexible and aligning design laws with international standards, which can increase exports, foreign investment, and make fashion law more competitive globally.

As observed in the Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd., for a design to receive international protection, it must be globally novel as applied to a specific article. However, many small artisans and creators have no awareness about the rights that protect them. They can easily be exploited due to lack of awareness. Therefore, along with legal reforms, there is also a need for awareness programs and legal education to ensure that designers and creators can effectively safeguard their rights. At the same time, the proposed reforms may create certain challenges. They can lead to overprotection, which leads to restriction of creativity. For instance, if basic patterns are strongly protected, new designers might not be able to use them. This can limit freedom and discourage their enthusiasm. Another concern is the overlap between copyright protection and design rights in India. In Microfibers Inc. v. Girdhar & Company, the court said that if the artistic work is applied industrially and reproduced beyond the statutory limit then the creator may need design registration for that as copyright protection ceases and the proposed reforms seek to reduce such ambiguity.

Moreover, these reforms are still in a proposal stage, and it might take time to implement them, from the history of Indian legislation which demonstrates that there is often a gap between lawmaking and enforcement. For example, reforms under the Consumer Protection Act took several years because of prolonged deliberation, which led to more requirement of sustained government efforts and public awareness. If these reforms are not implemented quickly, big fast fashion brands might continue to dominate and reduce opportunities for creators and small artisans. Recently, big luxury brands like Prada, Louis Vuitton have used Indian designs without proper recognition, which highlights the imbalance of power that exists within global fashion industry. Therefore, while the proposed reforms have the potential to modernize Indian fashion law, but their success will ultimately depend on balanced implementation, awareness among stakeholders, and effective enforcement mechanisms. 

Conclusion

 The new reforms upgrade the legal framework in relation to fashion law in India. As the fashion industry constantly evolves, the design law needs to change with it. The new proposed designs extend protection for designers and small creators, artisans, and digital creations. They can encourage innovation, attract investment, improve global competitiveness, create global opportunities for Indian artisans and make the process of registration easier. But it has challenges like overprotection of designs, lack of awareness among the artisans and enforcement delays remain. Changes should also be made to other laws that affect fashion law, like Design Act, 2000. This includes the Copyright Act 1957, the Trademark Act 1999, and the Patent Act 1970. These reforms are both necessary and progressive in nature as fashion today extends beyond physical products into digital spaces. In conclusion, it is a positive step towards modernizing the law. If these reforms are implemented correctly, fashion law in India will become an important area of law in India and the Indian fashion industry.

---

References:

1. Copyright Act 1957 (India).
2. Designs Act 2000 (India).
3. Bharat Glass Tube Ltd v Gopal Glass Works Ltd (2008) 10 SCC 657.
4. Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3454; (2009) 40 PTC 519 (Del).
5. NEC Corporation v Controller of Patents and Designs 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 1652.
6. Copyright Office, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Draft Designs (Amendment) Rules and Proposed Reforms (2024–2025).
7. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs.
8. Riyadh Design Law Treaty 2024.
9. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), materials on design protection and multiple-design applications.
10. Grant EEE and Alexander PVGN, A Research Agenda for the Advancement of Digital Fashion (Taylor & Francis 2026).