Concept in India copyright and design law: Fashion

L t. Vibha Chandrakar

doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS1.7093

Authors

Lt. Vibha Chandrakar
vibha.dewangan@kalingauniversity.ac.in
Assistant Professor, Fashion Designing Dept. Kalinga University, Naya Raipur

Keywords:

Fashion Designs, Article, Applied to Article, Microfiber

Abstract

Copyright law in India protects fashion designs that are considered unique artistic works. 2 Since 'arts works' is defined so broadly, this is obvious. 3 In 2006, the Delhi High Court made a distinction between "purely artistic works" and "artistic works meant to be applied to goods" in terms of the definition of the word. 4 Although it is not stated explicitly, it is reasonable to assume that the Designs Act, 2000 would apply to fashion designs as well. The Copyright Act and the Designs Act both provide legal protection for fashion designs. However, the fundamental premise of the Designs Act must be examined in relation to the underlying logic of industrial production. Indian law protects the works of fashion designers to a certain extent, and this study aims to shed light on the matter.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works; (b) cinematograph films; and (c) sound recordings.

Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines 'artistic work' to mean (i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality; (ii) work of architecture; and (iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship.

2006 (32) PTC 157 De.

Garnet Kevin, Davies Gillian and Harbottle Gwilym (ed). (2011). Copinger and Skone James on Copyright. Thompson Reuters Ltd.

2006 (32) PTC 157 Del.

See Copyright Act, 1957, s 14(c)(i)(A) .

See Copyright Act, 1957, ss 14(c)(i)(B) and (C) .

See Copyright Act, 1957, s 51--Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed — (a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act — (i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or (ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or (b) when any person — (i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or (ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or (iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or (iv) imports into India, any infringing copies of the work.

See Copyright Act, 1957, s 57(1)(b).

See Copyright Act, 1957, s 57(1) .

See Copyright Act, 1957, s 14(c)(v) .

See Copyright Act, 1957, s 14(a)(vi) .

See Copyright Act, 1957, s 52(1)(a)(i) .

See Copyright Act, 1957, s 13(2)(i).

See Copyright Act, 1957, s 15(2).

2006 (32) PTC 157 Del

As already reproduced via the definition of designs under section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000.

2006 (32) PTC 157 Del.

2006 (32) PTC 157 Del .

Section 22 (1) of the Designs Act, 2000 provides that 'during the existence of copyright in any design it shall not be lawful for any person to-(a) for the purpose of sale to apply or cause to be applied to any article in any class of articles in which the design is registered, the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof, except with the license or written consent of the registered proprietor, or to do anything with a view to enable the design to be so applied; or (b) to import for the purposes of sale, without the consent of the registered proprietor, any article belonging to the class in which the design has been registered, and having applied to it the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof, or (c) knowing that the design or any fraudulent or obvious imitation thereof' has been applied to any article in any class of articles in which the design is registered without the consent of the registered proprietor, to publish or expose or cause to be published or exposed for sale that article.'

Section 22(2)(i) states that 'if any person acts in contravention of this section, he shall be liable for every contravention-(a) to pay to the registered proprietor of the design a sum not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees recoverable as a contract debt, or (b) if the proprietor elects to bring a suit for the recovery of damages for any such contravention, and for an injunction against the repetition thereof, to pay such damages as may be awarded and to be restrained by injunction accordingly: Provided that the total sum recoverable in respect of any one design under clause (a) shall not exceed fifty thousand rupees: Provided further that no suit or any other proceeding for relief under this sub-section shall be instituted in any court below the court of District Judge.

The Designs Act, 2000 s 2(a)

Garnet Kevin, Davies Gillian and Harbottle Gwilym (ed). (2011). Copinger and Skone James on Copyright. Thompson Reuters Ltd. para 13-289.

Garnet Kevin, Davies Gillian and Harbottle Gwilym (ed). (2011). Copinger and Skone James on Copyright. Thompson Reuters Ltd. para 13-288.

Rajesh MasranivTatunTahilianiFAO (OS) No.393/2008.

2006 (32) PTC 157 Del .

2006 (32) PTC 157 Del.

Ritika Pvt Ltd v Biba Apparels Pvt Ltd MANU/DE/0784/2016.

Garnet Kevin, Davies Gillian and HarbottleGwilym (ed). (2011). Copinger and Skone James on Copyright. Thompson Reuters Ltd. para 13-312.