5 Important Fashion Law Judgments in India

Fashion Law is still a niche and nascent practice area in the country. The global interest in this area was initially generated after the establishment of the Fashion Law Committee of the New York Bar Association for studying a wide range of compliances and legal issues with the fashion industry. In India, a not-for-profit organisation by the name of  Fashion Design Council of India looks after the recent trends in the fashion business and ensures sustainable growth of the industry in the process. The Copyright Act, 1957; Designs Act, 2000; The Geographical Indication Act of Goods Act, 1999; and the Trademark Act, 1999 are applied when there is an infringement pertaining to the intellectual property in the fashion world besides the Employment Laws and the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Though the laws need to be consolidated to offer a comprehensive and speedy redressal of disputes, the current legislations that exist must not be neglected in an industry that is growing by leaps and bounds every day. The following are few lesser known, yet important judgments in the fashion industry:

1. Mr Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail limited vs Manish Johar (Saket Court) 

In this case the plaintiff is asserted to be in the business of manufacturing and sales of a wide range of fashion products globally ranging from apparel to footwear to perfumes etc under the trademark of "ALLEN SOLLY" which has retained copyright under the Copyright Act 1957. It had been the accusation against the defendant that he used the label and marks of the plaintiffs, counterfeit, and copy and use of aesthetic attributes of the plaintiffs and trade in their fashion products in a mala fide manner, infringing plaintiffs' copyright and trademark rights. Comparing the marks of the plaintiffs and defendants, it is found that the label used by defendants was made with a purpose to deceive and confuse the customers ordering the defendant for handing over the counterfeited products to the plaintiff for destruction.

2. Adidas AG vs Export Fashion, on 20 Nov 2018 (Saket Court.) 

In the above mentioned case a German based company, Adidas was involved in mass production, trading and distribution of variety of sports apparels and accessories around the globe. The plaintiff waas the sole holder of trademark and had complied with related provisions of Copyright and Trademark Acts. The defendant who was involved in wholesale business of sports accessories and apparel was alleged of counterfeiting trademarks of the plaintiffs and selling poor quality products thereby creating bad will in the market. The court held that the defendant's company wass liable for infringing exclusive rights of the plaintiff and passed permanent and obligatory injunction against the defendants from the use of labels of plaintiffs and estopped them from doing business with their sole products bearing counterfeited marks.  The cost of the suit was also awarded in favour of the complainant and against the defendant. It was adverted by the court that long and perpetual use of the trademark endowed the complainant with the non-severable right and synonymous name with the goods and services of the plaintiff. 

3. M/s Oliver Bernd Frier GmbH and others vs M/s Rasul Exports and Anr. On 5 Feb 2014 (Delhi High Court) 

In the aforementioned case the plaintiff accused the defendant of using the trademark "Olive" which is similar to its globally renowned brand name "Oliver". Being engaged in a similar form of fashion business like the defendant, the complainant was suffering losses as there had been a confusion among the public purchasing the products in online and offline mode, that both the trademarks belonged to the reputed complainant. 

The court held that as the plaintiff's label was in prior use in the market it shall continue its mark. And since the defendants were using their own trademarks innocently which appeared to be like the mark of the complainant, they shall stop using their trademark and change its mark and dispose of the stock with a dubious trademark.

4. Ritika Pal Ltd vs Biba Apparels Pvt Ltd on 23 March 2016( Delhi High Court)  

In this case, the complainant accused the defendant of using its copyrighted designs and motifs in manufacturing goods and trading on them. The Court observed that the defendant was not liable since the designs and sketches of the complainant, though capable of being registered under Design Act 2000, were registered under the Copyright Act 1957. As the complainant had produced its designs and motifs more than 50 times, so following the provisions of the Copyright Act 1957, the complainant lost its exclusive rights on design. So the defendants were held as not liable.

5. Rolex SA vs Alex Jewellery Pvt Ltd. on 15 Sept 2014 ( Delhi High Court) 

In this case, it was revealed that the complainant was engaged in business of watches globally and its label and name were used by the defendant to produce and sell jewellery. 

The Complainant claimed to that his trademark rights were infringed.

It was s held that the defendant was guilty of passing off and infringing the plaintiff's trademark and a decree of permanent injunction was passed against the defendant to stop it in using dishonestly the complainants' label and earn gain and good-will by encashment of the reputation of the complainants' brand.