Design Protection For Fashion And Jewellery In India: At The Cusp Of Reform

All That Glitters

Indian women hold about 24,000 tons of gold (11% of global total), often as jewellery, exceeding the combined reserves of the top 5 countries. This represents a massive market, but a fragmented one where knockoffs sit alongside original designs. Intellectual property (IP) protection is, therefore, critical.

Taking on imitators, luxury fashion house Bulgari has been involved in several IP disputes in India. Many of these involve its iconic Serpenti jewellery, and they offer an instructive lens through which to examine India's current design regime.

The 2022 decision of the Delhi High Court inBulgari S.P.A. v. Notandas Gems Private Limitedsaw Bulgari approach the court asserting trademark rights inSERPENTI, as well as claims of design infringement concerning its serpent-inspired jewellery bracelets. Acknowledging Bulgari's strong branding rights, interim protection was granted on the trademark claim but refused for the designs. The Bulgari bracelets in question involved two distinct designs, of which one had been registeredunder the Designs Act, 2000. The design that the defendant's products most closely resembled wasthe unregistered variant.

Contemplating Unregistered Design Rights

In India, a design infringement action presupposes a valid registration and where copying targets anunregistered design, however blatant the imitation may appear from a commercial or aesthetic perspective, the statutory design infringement remedy does not arise.

From a practical standpoint, designers frequently produce multiple iterations of a visual concept and commercial strategy or timing can result in selective registrations. However, as seen in the example above, unregistered designs can create riskfor creative and financial investment. Recognising this gap, a Concept Note outlining proposed amendments to India's design statute, released on January 23, 2026, contemplates the introduction ofunregistered design rightsunder Indian law. Such a regime - particularly if modelled on the EU's short-term unregistered design protection – has potential to alter outcomes in disputes likeBulgari v. Notandas. The inquiry would no longer hinge entirely on whether a specific iteration was registered. For industries such as jewellery and fashion, where designs are seasonal, rapidly iterated, and not always registered, such a shift would be very meaningful.

If one adds the Delhi High Court's Division Bench ruling of July 2025 in the Crocs litigation to the mix, the conversation becomes more interesting. That judgment revisited a long-standing issue: whether registering a shape as a design forecloses future reliance on trademark based remedies. The Bench rejected the earlier narrow view that design registration and passing off claims are mutually exclusive, affirming instead thatpassing off may remain available where the article has acquired reputation and goodwill.

Unregistered designs coupled with passing off remedies available in the case of registered ones together would offer a much stronger IP framework for fashion and luxury brands in India.

Section 15(2) Dulls The Shine

In another litigation before the Delhi High Court (2024) involving Bulgari, the defendant was found to be selling jewellery designs substantially similar to Bulgari's Serpenti necklace - the 'Shield-It Necklace' in particular. Relevant to the current discussion is the fact that, absent a design registration, Bulgari was able to stop Amaris from manufacturing a similar necklace based on a claim of infringement under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Dual statutory protection under the design and copyright statute is not possible in India. If one protects a fashion or jewellery creation under the designs statute, copyright protection is ruled out by virtue of Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act. Similarly, Section 2(d) of the Designs Act bars design registration for any artistic work as defined in Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. That said, if one has not obtained design protection for an article capable of design protection, Section 15(2) offers a limited respite – the design enjoys copyright protection until more than 50 copies are made of it by an industrial process.

Bulgari argued that its necklace embodied an original artistic work, emphasising the distinctive arrangement, form, and visual expression of its design. It relied on its Italian copyright registration, asserting protection in India via the Berne Convention, and traced the work's origin to a sketch subsequently realised as a three-dimensional jewellery piece. The court noted the strong visual similarity between the defendant's necklace and Bulgari's creation, particularly in design structure and ornamentation placement, and accepted Bulgari's copyright claim. Crucially, Bulgari's contention under Section 15(2) was found meritorious on the grounds that (a) the threshold of 50 reproductions had not been crossed; and (b) the necklace was handcrafted and not manufactured through an industrial process (a term undefined in the statute).

Arguments highlighting the handcrafted nature of garments have been made in subsequent cases, including those involving acclaimed fashion designers Gaurav Gupta and Rahul Mishra.

Meanwhile, the aforementioned Concept Note also proposes to amend Section 15(2) in a way that it allows copyright protection for designs that are registrable under the Designs Act, 2000 but remain unregistered.

But would that be ideal?

Drawing Parallels

The 2009 decision in Microfibres Inc. is one of the most important ones on thecopyright - design law boundary. The dispute concerned fabric designs created by Microfibres and applied to upholstery/textiles. Microfibres claimed copyright in the underlying artistic works (the drawings/patterns), while the defendants argued that once those designs were applied to fabrics and reproduced industrially, triggeringSection 15(2) of the Copyright Act, Microfibres was left without a remedy in the absence of a design registration. This point has been a subject matter of conflicting interpretations ever since.

Copyright and design law serve fundamentally different purposes. Copyright protects artistic expression and rewards authorship, while design law regulates the appearance of industrial products within a competitive marketplace. Blurring these domains by extending copyright-style protection to product designs is likely to keep the same question alive: Is it a design? Or copyright? Significantly, unlike designs, copyright cannot be comprehensively searched through a public registry, leaving competitors unable to reliably assess freedom to operate. Expanding copyright's reach into industrial design therefore multiplies hidden rights and market friction.

Comparative study offers a useful perspective. The United Kingdom once pursued a model similar to India's approach, limiting copyright protection for industrially exploited artistic works. That mechanism was ultimately abandoned in favour of what is now Section 51 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act which does not extinguish copyright; instead, it limits the scope of infringement by clarifying that making an article from a design document does not infringe copyright unless the article itself qualifies as an artistic work. Such an approach recognises that sketches and drawings possess independent economic and evidentiary value while acknowledging that the governance of product appearance belongs primarily to design law.

If design law is being relooked at, India would do well to consider a similar provision. Also, unregistered designs ought to be given a place under the Designs Act, rather than the copyright statute.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.