Editor-In-Chief

When the Designer is a Machine, can Indian IP Law keep up?

By Aminesh Nayan Gogoi

Editor-in-Chief

Fashion Law IP Blog

At the moment, fashion is evolving beyond fabric and thread, into data and code. Creativity is no longer just the domain of people who are human, today AI is walking down the runway too. Computer programs that have been trained on everything from conventional fashion history to contemporary consumer behaviour can now spit out unique style pieces of all kinds, whether it be a material print or an entirely virtual outfit. AI driven design tools have made it possible for designers to move beyond old constraints and try new ideas. 

The latest development, however, particularly demonstrates a key prompt: Will India’s current intellectual property laws, particularly the Designs Act of 2000, offer protection to fashion products designed by artificial intelligence? 

When the Designer is a Machine

Fundamentally, fashion design has always been human labour, influenced by the hands, wisdom, and imaginative decisions of designers. This viewpoint is represented in India’s Designs Act, 2000, which acknowledges the significance of uniqueness in relation to design registration. According to Section 2(d) of the Act, a “design” is any shape, configuration, pattern, or composition applied to an article by any industrial process, as long as it is unique and hasn’t been published before. Although the Act defines a design, it does not specify what constitutes a truly “original” work or whether the person who created it must be a human.

Indian courts, including in Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. (2008), have consistently held that originality involves some degree of intellectual effort by a human. In the case of AI-generated works, especially those created with minimal human input, this standard creates an interpretative vacuum. If a machine operates autonomously, can it truly be said to exercise intellectual skill or judgment? And if not, who can claim ownership over such outputs?

Who Really Owns AI-Made Fashion?

Who owns an AI-made design? That’s the real challenge. Under current Indian IP law, only natural persons or legal entities count as authors. Due to their lack of legal personhood, AI systems cannot be acknowledged as creators or owners of intellectual property. Real-world issues are brought up by this recognition gap. A fashion design made entirely by an AI with little to no human input, for instance, might not be able to be rightfully attributed to any one person. Such works risk slipping into the public domain, leaving them without copyright protection. In other words, those who invested time and resources in their creation have no protection against misuse or infringement.

Thus, companies using AI-driven tools, fashion designers, and tech developers must navigate a legal maze, especially in cases where it comes to protecting or monetizing these outputs. Other nations, on the other hand, have started to react to this change. According to Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988, the UK grants authorship of computer-generated works to the person who organized their production. Although the question of authorship is still up for debate, China has also made progress by acknowledging the uniqueness of AI-generated works, provided that they exhibit creative merit. However, India still adopts a human-centered strategy that seems to be falling further behind the quickly changing nature of creative production in the fashion sector.

How the World is Dressing AI in Law

Towards gaining perspective, look at how the rest of the world is handling this. The U.S. Copyright Office has made its stance clear, only human-made works qualify for protection in the case of Thaler v. Perlmutter. In the meantime, countries like the European Union and Japan are presently discussing whether they require new or more adaptable legal frameworks to deal with AI-shaped outputs. In order to address the issues of machine-influenced creativity, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has launched open discussions through its AI and IP program. This indicates that India must take immediate action. If there aren’t enough legal protections in place, fashion creators using AI may start to hold back. Without clear safeguards, many might hesitate to fully explore what this technology can offer. And if that uncertainty continues, it could end up slowing down innovation, right when the industry is ready to take a big leap forward.

When the Law Lags Behind the Runway

When AI steps into the process, India’s IP law faces its toughest test yet. Clear regulations or organized procedures to handle AI-assisted design applications are conspicuously lacking. For instance, unlike the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which expressly attributes authorship of computer-generated works, India’s Designs Act, 2000 lacks any comparable provision. Moreover, While India has historically lacked settled guidance on AI-authorship, in 2024–2025 the Government and IP offices have convened committees and released draft guidance (IP India’s draft CRI guidance and DPIIT consultations). No final, India-wide statutory change has yet been enacted, so uncertainty remains for AI-created designs. Today, AI-generated work sits in an uncharted and vulnerable space. Why? Because originality and novelty are still judged by outdated standards, rules that assume a human creator.

Apart from causing confusion, this legal uncertainty offers an alarming effect on innovation. From a practical standpoint, ignoring AI in law isn’t just theoretical, it affects independent designers trying to survive. AI tools have opened doors for students, small fashion brands, and designers to compete on a level that once seemed impossible. Now, with minimal funding, one can make some great idea boards, concept-type prototypes, and dreamy images. But if these improvements aren’t legally shielded, then larger corporations can mimic them at no cost, something that ultimately reduces the bargaining power of those who can’t afford to defend themselves.

And that is why our legal system should start to recognize AI-assisted designs. The spirit of creativity and ensuring the fashion industry remains open, dynamic and fair for everyone should be upheld, not simply protecting output.

Virtual Fits, Real Questions

At the nexus of AI and digital fashion, a particularly urgent issue arises. AI-generated clothing is now being tokenized and sold as NFTs. Platforms like Decentraland and Zepeto, they’re turning into virtual fashion hubs, filled with designs born from AI systems.

Luxury brands like Gucci have entered this space with virtual sneakers co-created using AI-informed data analytics. These developments raise several unresolved questions: Do NFTs confer IP rights over the underlying design? Who owns a digital asset created through AI prompts? How does jurisdiction apply when platforms and creators span multiple countries?

In India, the Designs Act does not address digital-only garments or tokenized IP. As the digital fashion market grows, a lack of clarity around ownership and enforceability will hamper its potential.

Our own experience at the Fashion Law IP Blog

At the Fashion Law IP Blog, we have been actively participating in, rather than merely observing, the rapidly evolving intersection of law, technology, and fashion. A dedicated team behind our platform is committed to converting complicated legal developments into understandable, useful information for researchers, designers, and business professionals. We address important topics like traditional fashion and GI, trademark objections, sustainable fashion trends, fast fashion issues, digital fashion and more through well-researched articles, editorials, case studies, comprehensive guides and customizable templates and our consistent “FL Basics” series, breaking down fundamental aspects of fashion and industry related laws. We provide content that is educational but simple to comprehend.

Our workflow behind the scenes incorporates technology and creativity in an effective manner. Even though we use tools like VEED for automatic subtitling, ChatGPT to help draft preliminary scripts based on in-depth human research, and Canva for visual consistency, but every output is shaped, reviewed, and curated by real people. This hybrid approach, where legal reasoning meets automated efficiency, mirrors the very challenges we explore on our journal; authorship, originality, and the blurred boundaries between human and machine.

Can We Stitch AI Into Our Laws?

India needs to move fast if it wants its legal system to keep pace with the growing intersection of law and technology. A good starting point would be revisiting the Designs Act, 2000 to reflect how creativity is changing. This might entail extending the meaning of “authorship” to specifically acknowledge works produced with AI assistance. In addition, India may consider models similar to those in the UK, where the law grants rights to individuals who oversee or manage the AI’s operation; in other words, acknowledging those who work in the background.

Meanwhile, a novel strategy might be taken, introducing a sui generis system designed especially for AI-generated designs. Similar to the EU’s Database Directive, such a system would offer a kind of protection that honours the labour that goes into these innovations without relying on traditional ideas of human authorship.

For real change to happen, we need more than just discussion, we need practical, grounded steps. Agencies like the Indian Patent Office and DPIIT could lead the way by issuing clear, easy-to-follow guidelines. These should explain how to handle AI-influenced design filings, not just for legal experts, but for designers, startups, and everyday creators trying to protect their work in a space that’s still a bit of a legal grey zone.

We also need to talk honestly about credit and contribution. Today, a fashion design might be shaped by a designer’s eye, a coder’s algorithm, a data curator’s inputs, or even the end user’s feedback in a digital environment. To put it in perspective, our laws should start reflecting this layered reality. That doesn’t mean giving a machine a seat at the table, it means making sure that the people behind the machine aren’t erased in the process.

Can the Law Keep Up with the Next Generation of Designers?

The fashion industry is altering rapidly. With the advancement of AI, designers are pushing the envelope, fusing styles, and accelerating the creative process like never before. However, India’s legal system is still working to keep up with the quick changes in technology. Only works that originate directly from the human mind are currently recognized by copyright laws in this country. AI-generated designs are thus left in a grey area with no obvious safeguards.

Some nations are already reconsidering their authorship policies in the era of artificial intelligence. Governments and courts are divided on AI authorship. The UK attributes authorship of “computer-generated” works to the person arranging their creation (CDPA section 9(3)). In the U.S., the Copyright Office and courts stress human authorship, reaffirmed in Thaler v. Perlmutter. China shows mixed views, Feilin v. Baidu did not endorse AI authorship, while Li v. Liu upheld protection where human prompting and selection showed creativity. The global stance remains unsettled and evolving. 

If India doesn’t adapt, it risks falling behind. Fast. But embracing AI in law isn’t about abandoning human creativity, it’s about evolving with it. It’s about understanding that creation isn’t what it used to be, and the law can’t afford to stay the same either. As fashion-tech continues to grow in India, protecting new forms of creativity will matter more than ever. Giving proper recognition to AI-assisted designs isn’t just about updating the law, it’s about making sure both human and AI-supported creators have the space to grow, compete, and shine on a global stage.

So, the question is, can we keep up with the future without rethinking who (or what) counts as a creator?

References:

1. Designs Act, No. 16 of 2000, Section 2(d), India Code (2000).
2. Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd., (2008) 10 SCC 657.
3. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 9(3) (UK).
4. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988.
5. Thaler v. Perlmutter, Copyright Office Review Board, U.S. Copyright Office.
6. Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (CRI), 2025, Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (India), March 25, 2025,https://www.ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/Draft_CRI_Guidelines_Publication_March2025.pdf.
7. World Intellectual Property Organization, Revised Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence.
8. Fashion Law IP Blog, https://fashionlawipblog.com 
9. The Fabricant, https://www.thefabricant.com 
10. Kati Chitrakorn, How Designers Use Generative AI, Vogue Business.
11. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan), Intellectual Property Strategy Vision for the Age of AI (2020).
12. Beijing Internet Court, Beijing Internet Court Ruling in First Case of Copyright Infringement of AI-Generated Article.
13. Li v. Liu, (2023) Jing 0491 Min Chu No. 11279 (Beijing Internet Ct. Nov. 27, 2023)
14. Decentraland. (2017). Decentraland (Virtual world). Decentraland Foundation. https://decentraland.org
15. Naver Z Corporation. (2018). Zepeto (Mobile application). Naver Z Corporation. https://zepeto.me