Abstract
The global fashion industry today draws inspiration from traditional ethnic motifs, indigenous craftmanship thereby blurring the boundary between cultural heritage and commercial haute couture. Though this creative exchange brings worldwide visibility to the handcrafted designs, many times it also leads to widespread cultural misappropriation, commercial plagiarism and economic exploitation of artisans. This paper examines the gap between collective community-based ownership of traditional designs and individual-centric structure of India’s current IP laws. The present frameworks and laws in India like, ‘The Designs Act,2000’, ‘The Copyright Act, 1957’, ‘GI ACT,1999’ etc do indirectly touch upon traditional designs, but none of them provide comprehensive, community-centric, cross border protection of designs. These acts also do not ensure attribution and royalty to the artisans which leads to loss of livelihood and erosion of intangible heritage. This paper also argues for the introduction of sui generis laws specifically tailored to traditional designs, including recognition of collective authorship, equitable economic benefit-sharing models.
Keywords
Traditional designs, haute couture, misappropriation, collective authorship, sui generis statutory protection, intellectual property, cultural sustainability.
Introduction
Traditional designs are beyond decorative elements and aesthetic expression; each design, textile and craft is living memory of civilizations. Each motif holds a story of people, ritual, belief, politics, etc. These designs are symbolic narratives, like the Mahbubani art which depicts the local folklore, nature worship, deities and women’s lived experiences, just like these other traditional designs and motifs have hidden stories embedded in them.
However, in recent times, global haute couture brands and various fast fashion houses have undergone a major paradigm shift and have started to adapt and replicate these traditional craftsmanship, folk patterns, and indigenous motifs, embroidery and designs without any authorisation, acknowledgement or benefit sharing with the original communities who created these. This trend raises ethical and legal issues relating to cultural misappropriation, artisan’s exploitation, loss of cultural identity, commodification of heritage and unfair exploitation of traditional knowledge.
In India traditional designs such as Banarasi brocade, Chikankari, Kanchipuram, Kalamkari and Bandhani which represent centuries old heritage embedded in the sociocultural identity of communities are inadequately protected under existing IP laws as the protection is insufficient, fragmented and ineffective for indigenous communities as they are largely rooted in western concept of individual creativity, originality, and limited term ownership which do not align with the collective and intergenerational character of traditional designs. . Very recent example is when the Italian luxury brand house of Prada launched a sandal which was reminiscent of India’s traditional kolahapuri chappal which has GI protection under the GI act. This sparked a controversy in India with artisans claiming that the designs drew upon traditional designs without any due credit to the artisan community. This case exposed the gap in the enforcement of statutory protection of these designs, especially in the context of haute couture and global luxury.
This paper explores the gaps in the Indian intellectual property regime, compares international frameworks, analyses case studies of misappropriation and argues that India urgently requires a dedicated statutory framework that recognizes collective authorship, ensures perpetual or long-term rights, grants community-based ownership, and mandates fair and equitable benefit-sharing. The paper further proposes legislative and administrative reforms that would support ethical commercial use, ensure fair economic returns to artisan communities, and safeguard the cultural integrity and continuity of traditional designs.
Research Methodology
This research adopts a doctrinal, comparative, and qualitative approach. This study is primarily based on secondary data, including scholarly articles, case studies, government reports and other published papers. This paper also relies on review of statutes, including The Designs Act,2000, Copyright Act, Trademark Act, etc and it also examines instances of misappropriation of traditional designs by haute couture and commercial fashion brands. A comparative legal analysis is applied to evaluate global practices such as The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) framework on traditional cultural expressions and intellectual property laws of other countries.
This methodology is selected as the issue of research, i.e.; protection of traditional design is a legal and policy-driven issue rather than an empirical one. The qualitative method helps in a deeper understanding of the issue and the outcome of this methodology is to develop policy recommendations that ensures cultural heritage is safeguarded.
Review Of Literature
In recent years, the intersection of heritage preservation and haute couture has emerged as a compelling subject of inquiry, particularly in the context of safeguarding the traditional cultural and indigenous designs and motifs from commercial misappropriation and plagiarism. Various scholars have examined the incorporation of indigenous designs into haute couture and high fashion brands without any authorisation. The central concern of these scholars is the vulnerability of such designs to misappropriation and exploitation without any legal recognition of the indigenous communities behind them.
Bhat and Rao, in their comparative analysis of traditional fashion motifs across South Asia, have highlighted that these indigenous and traditional designs and motifs, which have evolved over centuries as reflection of social identity and mythological and regional beliefs, are very vulnerable to frequent replication without any acknowledgement of the creator communities. Although they limit their analysis to copyright frameworks and do not explore design-specific statutory protection. [1]
Scholars such as M. Kapoor have examined the exploitation of traditional designs and motifs in the digital age. They explain how this global fast fashion brands scrape the motifs from online craft portfolios, Pinterest, etc., and then commercialise these designs in print-on-demand fashion without consent. They also highlight that the present-day Designs Act,2000, protects only the new and original designs and excludes ancient traditional motifs because of their prior publication. [2]
Naveen Thakur notes that the replication of various traditional motifs and designs have become a global trend in which the labour of the artisans is not acknowledged or appreciated. The global fashion industry does celebrate cultural fusion but the benefit of this is unidirectional, which flows from marginalised creators to the wealthy brands. Critics argue that this constitutes cultural misappropriation rather than appreciation. [3]
Works by Priyanka Borpujari and Manjari Sahasrabuddhe draw attention to the fact that such designs are protected informally through customs rather than legal ownership. Communities depend on cultural transmission to preserve authenticity, whereas market-driven couture depends on commodification for profit. This creates inherent conflict. [4]
Studies on the Indian legal frameworks and laws, including research by the Centre for Social Justice, suggest that the GI tag in Geographical Indications Act, helps protect craft clusters, but it does fail to extend protection to symbolic motifs used outside their place of origin. The Designs Act favours industrial and functional designs rather than cultural patterns. Hence the scholars advocate for sui generis legislation for traditional cultural designs.
Scholars such as Ruth L. Okediji argue that traditional and indigenous designs represent collective innovation and creation, and the IP framework presently is limited to give protection to individual authorship for a limited time. This creates a structural disadvantage for those communities whose craft and designs are being exploited across the fashion industry. [5]
Scholars, including Malik and Roy, have thrown light on how the GI law protects the regional identity and the product name, but it does not prevent or stop the haute couture designers and high fashion brands from copying designs, embroidery styles and motifs without any attribution.GI registration has economic benefit, but it does very little to prevent unauthorised replication and appropriation. [6]
WIPO’s Policy Options Reports provides a global overview of intellectual property issues relating to traditional cultural expressions. It notes that the traditional designs often exist as collective ancestral knowledge rather than the work of a single identifiable creator and the current IP and copyright frameworks fail to address this. This report does not specifically address the Indian haute couture context.
The Ministry of Textiles in India highlights the perilous economic conditions of the artisans. It further notes that the Handloom Act and the GI Act support artisan clusters, but these laws do not ensure continuing rights when their designs and work are being reproduced in the market.
Fashion scholars like Kate Fletcher argue that the future of ethical couture lies in the mutually respectful collaborations with the traditional artisans rather than extracting the traditional designs freely without any authorisation, consent and credit.[7]
Scholars collectively agree that safeguarding traditional cultural designs is not merely a legal problem but also a cultural, ethical and economic necessity. Thus, this literature supports the central theme and argument of this paper that India urgently requires a more specific legal and statutory protection for traditional and indigenous designs and motifs to preserve and safeguard heritage from any exploitation and to encourage an equitable fashion innovation.
Traditional designs as intellectual property in context of haute couture
Traditional designs and indigenous motifs differ fundamentally from contemporary artistic works, as these designs belong to a community as a whole and not to an individual person. These are protected and preserved through customs and rituals and generational passing of knowledge instead of being created for the commercial market. Although these traditional designs and motifs fulfil all the attributes of an intellectual property, i.e. creativity, originality, skill and a distinctive character, the problem arises because of the gaps in the existing IP laws in India. These gaps become more evident in the haute couture industry, where fashion houses frequently replicate and copy these traditional design elements without any consent, attribution or compensation to the artisan community.
Viewing traditional designs as distinctive and protectable intellectual property, especially in the context of haute couture, transforms the legal narrative and sets a foundation for statutory rights, a collective ownership model and legal remedies against misappropriation, and it also paves a way for sustainable livelihood for the artisans.
Cultural Misappropriation and Exploitation by luxury and commercial fashion brands.
Misappropriation occurs when a brand copies, replicates or adopts indigenous cultural motifs and designs without any authorisation, consent, credit or compensation to the original creators of the design. Misappropriations lead a to double burden, as firstly, the community loses its control over the representation of its cultural identity, and secondly, the commercial gains exclusively benefit these fashion houses. The economic consequences of misappropriation are also very serious, as, due to this, the indigenous artisans are unable to compete with the mass-produced version of their craft and heritage, leading to cultural dilution. There have been various instances of misappropriation of traditional designs of India, like the Prada controversy of replication of the kolhapuri chappal design, and then the Sanganeri block print replication by Sabyasachi Mukherjee in collaboration with H&M.
Existing legal frameworks in India and limitations in them in the context of traditional and indigenous designs.
Presently, these are the legal instruments which govern Intellectual property in India
- The Designs Act, 2000
- The Copyright Act, 1957
- GI Act, 1999
- Indian Patents Act
- Trademarks Act,1999
These acts have many loopholes and gaps, which lead to cultural misappropriation of traditional and indigenous designs. The Designs Act, 2000, safeguards and provides legal protection to novels and industrially applicable designs, but it excludes traditional indigenous designs and motifs for the reason that they are old or published before registration. And therefore, disqualifies these centuries-old craft from being protected; in addition to this it the act only recognizes individual works and does not accommodate community ownership, which is the very nature of these traditional designs.
The Copyright Act, 1957, safeguards artistic works but is unsuccessful in covering undocumented orally transferred cultural knowledge. It also expires after a fixed time period, whereas traditional designs exist in perpetuity. Once the copyright expires, the designs return to the public domain, where they can be misused.
The GI Act protects geographical indications, only protects names tied to the location, not the motifs or design elements and it does not have global enforcement without foreign registration.
The Indian Patents Act only protects inventions, and sui generis knowledge and designs cannot be patented. The Trademarks Act, 1999, protects commercial brand identifiers but not the cultural symbols held by the communities collectively.
Therefore, the existing laws in India are not sufficient to protect traditional designs, as none of these laws mandate prior informed consent, moral rights of the community, or benefit sharing. These laws do not provide comprehensive community-centric, cross-border protection, making the present protection piecemeal and reactive rather than pre-emptive or global. This regulatory vacuum or gap leads to misappropriation, exploitation and erosion of these centuries-old traditional and indigenous designs and motifs.
Comparative Analysis with other countries
International legal discourse shows that various countries have taken initiative in safeguarding their indigenous heritage. The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, has proposed a legal framework emphasising collective authority, perpetual protection and community-driven consent for ‘traditional cultural expressions. Although this is still under negotiation, it does serve as a global blueprint for its member states.
New Zealand has empowered its ‘Māori communities’ with control and rights over sacred symbols, traditional designs, crafts and knowledge through customary law and statutory mechanisms. These rights emphasise collective ownership and provide protection from commercial misappropriation of these designs, especially of the sacred designs and motifs like ta moko. The advisory committee on Māori trademarks and the WAI-262 tribunal findings ensure that the brands obtain community consent and share benefits with the community. This reflects a legal model that prioritises indigenous and cultural integrity over conventional IP authorship.
Various African nations like Kenya and South Africa, have introduced legal mechanisms under cultural property regimes to protect and safeguard tribal heritage. South Africa’s Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act, 2013 recognises economic and moral rights and indigenous communities, though the enforcement remains slow. Kenya’s Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act, 2016 grants community ownership, registration, and benefit sharing rights over traditional designs, making sure that these designs if used with a prior consent is taken from the community.
Countries such as Mexico and Peru have enacted statutes that recognise indigenous textiles as cultural patrimony and require contractual authorisation before commercial use. India, on the other hand, despite of being a hub of traditional crafts, lacks in operationalising similar statutory and legal framework, creating a significant contrast with global emerging standards.
Relevant cases of misappropriation of traditional Indian designs
In the case of R. Narayan &Co. v. Sree Saibaba Textiles, the court held that copying traditional motifs without any authorization amounts to passing off and creates confusion in market and is an act of unfair competition. This case shows judicial acknowledgement of misappropriation of traditional designs and textiles. [8]
In Rajpal Singh v. State of Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recognised artisan creativity and craft as labour and cultural identity, and noted that lack of state support results in loss of intangible heritage. [9]
In Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co., the Supreme Court clarified that once any artistic work, like motifs or designs, is applied to industrial production beyond a certain number of units, it loses its copyright protection. This demonstrates the gap in the copyright laws to protect traditional designs once they enter mass production. [10]
In the case of Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire & Ors v. Prada Group & Ors., the Bombay High Court dismissed the PIL for lack of locus, revealing a critical legal gap in the statutory framework that protection cannot be enforced by communities at large, leaving traditional designs vulnerable.[11]
Suggestions
- The recurring trend of cultural misappropriation in haute couture indicates the need for a separate sui generis legal framework for safeguarding the cultural heritage and traditional design from exploitation by the fast fashion industry.
- A dedicated statute is required which gives statutory and legal rights over traditional design to the communities that have created the design through their generational transmitted knowledge of the craft.
- The new statute must recognize collective authorship or ownership, as these designs belong not to a single individual, but to the community as a whole. This fills the vacuum in the present legal framework, which recognizes individual ownership but not community-based ownership.
- Such legislation must also protect such designs in perpetuity rather than for a limited time as under the copyright act.
- Just giving statutory rights over these designs is not sufficient; rather, there must be laws protecting the livelihood of the orders by a provision of benefit sharing and compensation for the creator community.
- There must be a provision for mandatory prior informed consent for the commercial use of design from the community itself, and also a mandatory design source disclosure for haute couture using the traditional indigenous designs.
- There must be capacity-building programs for these artisans through legal awareness, digital access, and market skill development.
Conclusion
The analysis of the topic i.e. safeguarding heritage in haute couture, underscores that traditional designs are not just artistic expression but living cultural identities of these communities. India has a very rich cultural diversity with a thriving handicraft ecosystem that is centuries old. This paper, through various real-life cases highlighted the instances of these cultural heritage and designs being misused and misappropriated. This study also reveals a clear vacuum in the present IP laws in India which are inefficient in protecting these traditional designs and therefore the need of the hour is a separate sui generis legal framework establishing community based statutory rights over these designs, prior consent for commercial use and benefit sharing with the communities, these are the steps towards cultural justice, sustainability and inclusivity, ensuring global recognition of India with fair compensation and rightful acknowledgement for the creator communities, the suggested sui generis framework is not against cultural appreciation or innovation rather it only opposes misuse, exploitation and misappropriation of traditional designs. This paper thus suggests that safeguarding heritage today is extremely essential to make sure that the custodians and bearers of these traditional designs never again become spectators to their own cultural exploitation.
Name- Srishti Mishra
College- New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth (deemed to be university), Pune, Maharashtra.
[1] Nandini Bhat & Priyanka Rao, Protecting Indigenous and Traditional Designs in the Fashion Industry: A Legal Perspective, 12 J. Intell. Prop. Rts. 215 (2018).
[2] M. Kapoor, Indigenous Embroidery and Global Fashion Markets: Legal Gaps in India, 8 J. Indian Cultural Heritage & L. 57 (2021).
[3] Naveen Thakur, Haute Couture and the Commodification of Tradition, 5 FASHION THEORY & L. 144 (2018).
[4] Priyanka Borpujari & Manjari Sahasrabuddhe, Cultural Identity and Artisan Rights in India, 12 J. INTELL. PROP. RTS. 215 (2019).
[5] Ruth L. Okediji, Traditional Knowledge and the Public Domain, 63 VAND. L. REV. 1235 (2010).
[6] A. Malik, Limits of GI Protection for Traditional Designs in a Global Market, 18 Socio-Legal Rev. 93 (2021),
Anandita Roy, Need for Sui Generis Protection for Traditional Cultural Designs in India, 6 Nirma U. L. J. 233 (2022).
[7] Kate Fletcher, Sustainability and Artisanal Collaboration in Couture, 18 TEXTILE FUTURES 301 (2022).
[8] R. Narayan & Co. v. Sree Saibaba Textiles, 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 378.
[9] Rajpal Singh v. State of Haryana, 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 1757.
[10] Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co., (2009) 4 SCC 396.
[11] Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire & Others v. PRADA Group & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2681 (Bom. H.C. July 16, 2025).