ABSTRACT
The world of fashion has rapidly shifted towards fast fashion and has led to the disruption of the traditional textiles industries, particularly the culturally rich and heritage-driven countries like India. Known for its handloom and indigenous textile crafts, India’s local industries are now suffering severe threats from global fashion trends that imitate, mass-produce, and profit from traditional designs without rightful use, recognition, or compensation. This trend has given rise to numerous concerns within the emerging field of fashion law, a specialized legal domain that addresses issues such as design piracy, cultural appropriation, and the misuse of various indigenous knowledge in the fashion industry. Fashion law would integrate elements from intellectual property, contract, labor, and international trade law to safeguard the rights of the designers, artisans, as well as consumers
This paper critically examines how the fast fashion phenomenon affects India’s textile industry, specifically through the lens of intellectual property rights (IPR). It focuses on four major areas like: geographical indication of goods (registration and protection) act 1999; the inadequacy of the designs act 2000, in safeguarding traditional textile art; widespread trademark exploitations, the paper aims to contribute to the broader discourse of fashion law in India, advocating for legal reforms that recognize the importance and protects traditional textile expression as both cultural and commercial assets. The research combines doctrinal analysis with key case law and identifies existing legal gaps while proposing reforms to strengthen the protection of India’s textile heritage in an increasingly globalized market.
KEYWORDS
Fast Fashion, Intellectual Property Rights, Geographical Indication, Design Law, Trademark Infringement, Handloom Protection
INTRODUCTION
India’s handloom and textile sector is not only a significant contributor to the national economy but also a repository of cultural legacy and indigenous artistry. The country boasts an immense diversity in weaving techniques, dyeing processes, and embroidery styles that have been passed down through generations. Unfortunately, the traditional textile industry finds itself on the defensive as global fast fashion brands aggressively replicate Indian designs and mass produce cheap products.
Fast fashion, by definition, emphasizes rapid production and consumption, often disregarding the intellectual and cultural value of the designs it reproduces. This has led to the commodification of India’s textile artistry, weakening the economic position of artisans and undermining centuries-old heritage. Despite the presence of legal instruments Geographical Indication, Design Act, and trademark laws, enforcement remains insufficient, thereby facilitating unchecked cultural appropriation and design theft
Delivering the nuances of IPR laws in India for textiles, identifying the gaps that permit such violations, and proposing targeted reforms to preserve and promote India’s handloom identity against the tide of globalization.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research employs a qualitative, doctrinal methodology grounded in a comprehensive review of legal statutes, judicial precedents, and academic literature. The qualitative nature of research allows for a nuanced interpretation of existing intellectual property rights frameworks and their impact on traditional textile practices. By adopting a doctrinal approach, the paper focuses on critically examining primary sources such as the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection Act), 1999; the Design Act 2000; and the Trade Mark Act 1999. These sources are supplemented with the case law analysis, including decisions from the Delhi and Calcutta high courts, which provide judicial interpretation and practical application of these laws in the context of fashion and design
Secondary sources such as reports, academic journals, and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) publications are used to contextualize India’s legal framework within global discussion on fashion law and cultural heritage protection. The methodology also includes comparative insight from the international legal system and trade agreements to recommend holistic reforms. All legal references are cited using the 20th edition of the Bluebook to maintain citation consistency and academic rigor
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Scholarly discussions have explored the socio-economic impact of fast fashion on traditional industries, but often lack in-depth legal analysis and a practical framework. The Sustainability in the Handloom Traditions of India(2024) emphasized the urgent need to protect India’s handloom sector from global market distortions and highlighted the limitations of the current intellectual property instrument. Similarly, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) publication draws attention to the need for sui generis legal protection mechanisms that preserve traditional cultural expressions and address gaps in mainstream IP regimes.
Studies like “The Vanishing Loom” By Dasgupta And The Gupta (2019) and “Cultural Rights in Commerce” By Bhatia(2020) shed light on the livelihood crisis of artisans, linking it directly to the commodification and unauthorized commercial exploitation of indigenous designs. While these works offer insightful overviews, they fall short in integrating the principle of emerging Fashion law—a discipline that encompasses not only intellectual property but also labor, trade, and consumer protection aspects within the fashion industry.
There is a growing consensus in the legal scholarship, such as the work of Scafidi (2018) and Basu (2022), that fast fashion’s appropriation of cultural symbols from marginalized communities constitutes both an economic and ethical failure of the legal regime. However, literature remains sparse on practical enforcement. This paper aims to contribute to this underdeveloped area by offering a qualitative, doctrinal legal analysis and actionable legal reforms to strengthen the role of IPR and fashion law in safeguarding India’s textile heritage.
METHOD
This section explores the legal avenues and framework that are currently available to protect India’s textile and handloom industries through intellectual property rights. Each subsection analyzes specific statutes, case laws, and enforcement challenges while illustrating the real-world implications for traditional textile communities. The focus is also placed on how specific regional art like Sambalpuri handloom and Pipili artwork, both iconic crafts of Odisha, serve as powerful test cases to examine the effectiveness and limitations of current laws. These heritage crafts have faced significant challenges due to the influx of cheap, fast fashion imitation that misappropriates their unique patterns and motifs without consent or credit. Protecting these forms of cultural preservation, but also empowering rural artisans’ economies in the age of globalization.
1. GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS UNDER THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS ACT, 1999
The Geographical Indications (GIs) are meant to protect the goods that have been specific geographical origin and qualities linked to the origin. Prominent GI-registered Indian textiles include Banarasi Sarees, Kanjeevaram Silks, and Chanderi Fabrics. Under section (2)(1)(e)of the GI Act, these products qualify for protection based on the origin and reputation.
Despite statutory provisions, enforcement remains dismal. In Puma SE V. Dedi Impax Pvt. LTD., the Delhi High Court stressed the need for better IPR enforcement. In Tea Board India v. ITC Ltd, the Calcutta High Court held that the misuse of GI terms can damage the commercial and cultural standard of the community, even if the product is not identical.
In practice, GI tags often serve as mere identifiers with limited deterrent value, largely due to poor enforcement and lack of consumer awareness. A prominent example involves artisans of Kutch, Gujarat, known for Intricate Ajrak, A block print tradition, who have repeatedly complained about rampant misuse of Ajrak GI Tech despite the registration under the GI Act unauthorized manufacturer. Unauthorized misuse of a drug GI tag. Despite the registration under the GI Act, unauthorized manufacturers, both within and outside the region, continue to sell mass-produced and inferior quality ajrak label products through e-commerce platforms and export houses.
Additionally, there have been no visible legal actions taken against these violators, and the lack of a formal certification system tied to GI uses enables false claims without fear of penalty. This reflects a broader systematic issue where GI tags, although legally enforceable, lack infrastructural backing for market supervision or an artisan redressal mechanism. The absence of regular market audits and proactive suo moto action from authorities like the GI registry renders the protection framework ineffective, thereby failing to deter fast fashion corporations from capitalizing on India’s cultural assets with impunity.
2. DESIGN ACT 2000.
The Design Act protects novel and original designs that can be applied to a product through industrial processes. Traditional design, however, often fails to meet the nobility requirement due to its historic and repetitive nature. Section (2)(d) defines a design but excludes functional attributes, which further limits the protection.
In Microfiberes Inc. V. Girdhar, the court recognized the infringement of a registered design, setting a precedent. In Biba Apparel Pvt. Ltd. V. M/S, Ramesh Kumar, the High Court restrained a retailer from copying Biba’s ethnic prints, indicating the judiciary, willingness to protect fashion IP. However, the judgment scope didn’t extend to traditional artisans. Who originated similar motifs generations earlier?
Fast fashion brands continue to appropriate Indian aesthetics, as evidenced by multiple instances where major labels have incorporated traditional Indian patterns without credit. For example, brands like Zara and Urban Outfitters have been previously criticized for selling garments with designs resembling traditional block prints or embroidery traditional patterns as “ boho” or “ethnic chic” without disclosing or compensating the source community.
3. Trademark Misuse.
Trademarks under the Trademark Act 1999 protect brand identity; however, fast fashion often misuses cultural symbols and names associated with Indian textiles without origin authenticity.
In Kiara Fashion V. Fab India, misleading use of traditional terms led to customer confusion, underlying the brand dilution caused by such practices. Artisans lack a source of registered and enforced trademark, leaving them vulnerable to misrepresentation.
In the case of Khadi & Village Industry Commission(KVIC) V. Fab India also highlighted the unauthorized use of Khadi, where the court stressed the significance of the protection of trademarks that symbolize national and cultural identity.
The persistence, absence of legal mechanisms that empower artisan groups to register collective and certification trademarks, for the weakening of their commercial autonomy.
Legal loopholes and enforcement challenges
The fragmented legal framework lacks coordination across the statutes. The GI Act, Design Act, Trademark Act operates in silos. No central body currently ensures the unified enforcement; additionally, there are no statutory provisions for enforcing community rights or compensating the community for cultural misappropriation.
The NS Tomar Committee Report 2020 on GI enforcement recommended streamlining of enforcing enforcement agency and establishment of an appellant body, yet this proposal remains unimplemented.
The lack of punitive deterrents, particularly for corporations, and the complexity of litigation discourage groups from seeking redress. Judicial delays further erode the possibility of timely relief.
Furthermore, consumers’ lack of awareness regarding GI and trademark protection diminishes the efficacy of these instruments. Government campaigns like “Indian Handloom brand” are positive steps, but lack the reach of funding required to fulfill the impact.
SUGGESTIONS.
Based on the above analysis, it becomes evident that India’s traditional textiles sector requires targeted legal and policy interventions. The following recommendations aim to bridge the gap by identifying the existing IPR law and enforcement practices, thereby ensuring meaningful protection and promotion of indigenous textile heritage.
- Simplifying GI and design registration, reducing procedural hurdles and cost to make IPR tools accessible to grassroots artisans, including providing multilingual documents and assistance.
For example, the government can set up a mobile IP registration clinic during textile expos or festivals, for example Surajkund Mela, to help artisans register their design, and GLS on site with legal assistance and digital facilitation in the regional language - Strengthening post-registration enforcement- Creating a national IPR enforcement authority dedicated to protecting cultural heritage goods with field-level officers and digital monitoring systems
For example, a dedicated team can regularly audit online marketplaces like Amazon and Flipkart to identify unauthorized use of registered GI tags such as Chikankari or Ajrakh. It initiates takedown or penalty procedures. - Legal aid and pro bono networks- establishing IPR legal aid cells in law colleges and urban legal services authorities to assist underrepresented artisan communities,
For example, National Law College can collaborate with the state handling department to assign final year law students as ‘IP Fellows’ who help the rural artisan file applications for GI or design protection and pursue claims. - Mandatory disclosure by retailers-Make legal mandatory for e-commerce and fashion retailers to disclose the source of design inspired by traditional art under a fair source certification regime
For example, when a fast fashion label tells a courthouse styled in Bargu prints, they should include a “design-oriented statement” disclosing the inspiration and source, much like a nutritional label on food items. - Amend the Design Act-Introducing a separate category for traditional and cultural design, exempt from novelty requirement but protected under a sui generis system.
For example, a section in art could enable long-standing designs like Kani Weave from Kashmir to be protected even if variations have existed historically with a collective license mechanism. - Recognition of community rights- Amend existing IP laws or introduce a new traditional cultural design act to recognize collective community rights with a royalty sharing mechanism.
For example, Australia’s protection of Aboriginal arts artisans, clustered like sambalpuri viewers of Odisha, could receive royalties whenever the design is licensed to a national or global fashion brand. - enhanced penal provision- introducing substantial penalties, including commercial ban and criminal liability for repeat offenders who misappropriate cultural heritage.
For example, if a fashion brand is found violating GI norms multiple times authority could restrict its retail license for a certain period and levy damages payable to the artisan cooperative. - Global advocacy: leading initiative at WIPO to ensure cross-border protection for GI and traditional design, and pursue bilateral trade agreements that mandate mutual recognition of IP relating to cultural heritage. This could include advocating for India’s inclusion in international frameworks like the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement, which provides protection for appellation of origin and GI across signatory countries.
For example, India can negotiate with the European Union to include GI protection for handloom products for a free trade agreement similar to its 2020 proposal during India-EU FTA negotiation that sought mutual recognition in key Indian GIs, including basmati and Darjeeling tea. Such bilateral talks can serve as a model extending similar protection to textile-like GIs, Sambalpuri and Chanderi.
Conclusion.
India’s textile and handloom sector stands at a precarious juncture fast fashion aggression and expansion, backed by global capital and marketing powers, continue to commodify and misappropriate India’s traditional design. Despite possessing a fairly comprehensive IPr framework, a lack of enforcement awareness and cohesive policy has left artisans exposed
To safeguard the nation’s textile legacy, India must recalibrate their legal mechanism, promote community-driven rights, and implement reforms with a ground-level focus. A holistic, inclusive IPR strategy can provide recognition and economic empowerment to artisans, ensuring India’s textile tradition thrives in a globalized world rather than fade into commercial Oblivion.
The significance of this protection became even more pronounced when viewed through the lens of region-specific art, from as sambalpuri, handloom, and pipili artwork. These are not merely economic activities, but vibrant cultural identities go in with heritage and symbolism, sambalpuri fabric and its intricate ikkat patterns, and people’s ceremonial artwork represent the culture, traditional knowledge, and craftsmanship that are being diluted through imitation and commercial brands.
Effective protection of such art forms under IPR, coupled with proactive state support and global advocacy, can act as a model for other traditional industries across the country. By including these forms explicitly within cultural preservation policy and fashion law discourse, India can set a precedent of protecting indigenous identity through law. Fashion law is still an emerging discipline in the country, holding the potential to bridge the gap between cultural legacy and contemporary commerce. If supported by reforms, they are both legally sound and culturally sensitive.
Therefore, a battle against fast fashion and overreach must be fought not only marketplace, but in the courtroom, Legislative chambers, and academic platforms, with the value of tradition can convert it into tangible legal rights and sustainable livelihoods. The textile and handloom sectors stand at a precarious juncture. Fast fashion’s aggressive expansion, backed by global capital and marketing powers, continues to commodify the misrepresentation of India’s traditional culture. Despite possessing a fairly comprehensive IPR, the frame of the traditional design lacks the enforcement awareness and cohesive policy that has exposed artisans.
To safeguard the national textile legacy, India must recalibrate its legal mechanism that promotes community-driven rights and implement reforms with a ground-level focus and a holistic, inclusive IPR strategy. This can provide both recognition and economic empowerment to artisans, ensuring India’s textile tradition thrives in a globalized world. Rather than fade into commercial oblivion.
Ashlesha sahu
SOA National Institute of Law