~Shruti Udayan (2nd year, B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at National Law University, Jodhpur.)
In the dazzling realm of Indian couture, where ornate embroidery is a way of telling the past and every stitch gives a hint of luxury, the distinction between inspiration and imitation is so delicate that it could easily be cut with a silk thread. Anita Dongre, the amazing designer who created the wedding lehengas that have adorned not only the Bollywood stars but also the world-famous icons, has come to the forefront. She is the one who has combined the royal motifs of Rajasthan with modern minimalism. But on the other side of the sequins and zari work, an unrelenting conflict is going on: intellectual property rights. The latest ruling of the Delhi High Court in House Of Anita Dongre Private Limited vs Rishi Vij & Ors (House of Anita Dongre) is not merely a legal footnote it is a tectonic change in the way and the reason India’s fashion industry resorts to policing its creative spirit. The issue at hand, that of so-called “lehenga piracy” cases, has put a spotlight on the Designs Act, 2000 as the proverbial double-edged sword: a protection for the innovators but not a very reliable one since it has so many loopholes.
The Empress of Ethnic Chic: Anita Dongre’s Legacy
In order to understand the implications of the House of Anita Dongre, one has to first present the protagonist: Anita Dongre. Born in Mumbai in 1964, Dongre is not just a brand - she is a revolution. In 1995 she launched her own brand and was one of the first to create “ethnic chic,” blending the best of old Indian crafts with modern shapes. Her House of Anita Dongre covers every segment ready-to-wear, bridal couture, and jewellery, and the chain of her flagship boutiques runs the whole way from Delhi to Dubai. Her empire is expected to generate an annual revenue projected at ₹500-₹550 crore for FY25, per industry analyses.
The Dongre creations are a tribute to India’s rich cultural diversity: imagine the Bandhani prints of Gujarat or the mirror work of Kutch while also bringing the artisans skills to the front and giving the women craftsmen in the villages their rightful place. But success also brings along the dark side. Fast fashion, which is one of the major reasons for the e-commerce platforms like Myntra and Flipkart’s tremendous growth, has also led to an increase in piracy cases. A single Dongre lehenga, which has a price tag of ₹2-5 lakhs, is said to be cloned and sold for as low as ₹3,000-₹10,000, per industry reports on Delhi markets just within weeks. “Plagiarism is the by-product of this industry,” said Dongre in a 2017 Indian Express interview, which is a thought she further supports with her regular IP filings. Then comes the Designs Act, 2000, the legal standing of India that stands firm against such thefts. Protection given to artistic expression is through copyrights while the design registrations of the product safeguard its “features of shape, configuration, pattern, or ornament” that are applied in an industrious manner. Dongre, the visionary, has had over 200 designs registered under her name since 2017, one of which is the disputed lehenga under No. 319595-001a floral motif masterpiece with scalloped hems that are like the desert flowers. This insight transformed the possible loss of income into an absorbing legal battle.
The Spark: Facts of the Infringement Allegation
The situation started to get serious in early 2020 when the House of Anita Dongre learned that a number of extremely similar lehengas had come to Delhi’s bridal boutiques. The offenders were identified as Rishi Vij and his partners who were running clandestine retail operations in the busy local markets. An undercover investigator, hired by Dongre, posing as a typical customer bought a lehenga for ₹8,000. The side-by-side comparatives led to a judgment; the accused’s garment had the same design embroidered on it as the registered design, the same colour palette and the same structure with flared dupatta and embroidered borders. Filing suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Dongre quoted Section 22(2)(b) of the Designs Act, “No person shall apply or cause to be applied to any article a design which is a fraudulent or obvious imitation of the registered design.” The plaint made a picturesque portrayal of the economic sabotage lost sales, diluted brand equity, and the extinction of artisan livelihoods. Besides the injunction, Dongre claimed damages, arguing that the fakes were not “inspired” but exact replicas and that they were very likely to be traced from runway photos or leaked sketches. The defendants, who were small traders, had a very weak counterargument: their lehenga was a “generic ethnic wear” inspired by public domain motifs, not a straight copy. They denied knowing about the registration and blamed Dongre for exaggerating, calling traditional aspects like floral jaali work unprotectable folklore.
However, in the interim hearings, the court gave precedence to the proof over the alibis. Affidavits from Dongre's design team included a detailed report on the lehenga’s creation months of R&D, CAD modelling, and hand-embroidery trials confirming its novelty. Forensic fabric analysis supplied the additional evidence by showing even the matching of the colours and the threads used. This wasn’t Dongre’s first rodeo. Recall her 2017 patent spree post-Lakmé Fashion Week, where she copyrighted entire collections alongside peers like Anju Modi. Yet, Rishi Vij marks a maturation: from reactive filings to aggressive enforcement, signalling Indian designers awakening to IPR as a business imperative.
Legal Labyrinth: Navigating the Designs Act and Beyond
The case House of Anita Dongre v. Rishi Vij deals with the Designs Act of 2000 which is a referendum really. It is a new law replacing the outdated law of 1911 after TRIPS. The law defines “design” in Section 2 (d) of the Designs Act, 2000 quite broadly covering aesthetically pleasing products without taking into account their functions, a definition suited perfectly for the fashion industry where looks are a priority. According to Section 11 of the Designs Act, 2000, if you register your design, you’ll get an exclusivity period of 10 years (which can be extended to 15), but only if your design is accepted by the criteria prescribed in Section 4 of the Designs Act, 2000 it has to be new, not published anywhere, and not obvious. The counsel for Dongre, with great skill, incorporated precedents into their argument. They referred to the case of Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd and pointed out clearly that novelty is the foundation of protection. He said that if your design is similar to the designs which are already there in the market, then it can’t be protected. In this case the lehenga’s wonderful combination of geometric paisleys and asymmetric draping made it unique so it was not affected by the prior unregistered designs. However, the copyright law by the Copyright Act, 1957 also played a role in the case. Section 15 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 is a trapdoor: if an artistic work (like a drawing) goes on being used industrially more than fifty times, copyright disappears, and the protection goes to the designs. Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. has stated this for textiles so designers have to register their designs and copyrights, which is a tedious process, but Dongre has done it without losing. The defendants based their argument on the prior publication bar in Section 4 (b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and said that Dongre’s fashion shows and Instagram videos nullified the novelty claim. However, the court opposed, supporting the application of the “obvious imitation” test from the case of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Wyeth Limited “does the copy fool the consumer’s eye?” The photos of the lehenga that Dongre sold gave the answer loud and clear, Yes same silhouette, same sparkle. Nevertheless, the critics are raising the point that the judgment was delivered too quickly. The interim order made by Justice Prathiba M. Singh under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC allowed a party to get a relief without going into the registrability issue in great detail. There was no inquiry into cancellation of Section 19 even though there were some rumours about the connection of the traditional motifs with the folk art. The court ruling mentioned, following the Micolube India Ltd. v. Rakesh Kumar case, the requirement of prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of Dongre’s ₹500 crore brand over Vij’s street stall and irreparable harm but did not go into the merits of the case.
Gavel Down: The Interim Injunction and Its Teeth
In the ongoing suit filed by House of Anita Dongre against Rishi Vij and others before the Commercial Court, Delhi, the plaintiff secured an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or advertising lehengas bearing the registered design in question. The court, applying Section 22(2) of the Designs Act, 2000, prima facie found the defendants’ garments to be a “fraudulent or obvious imitation” of the plaintiff’s registered design, noting near-identical placement of motifs, scalloped borders, colour palette, and overall visual appeal.
The Court’s reasoning was concise yet rigorous. Upon conducting a visual juxtaposition of the competing garments, it noted that the defendants had appropriated the plaintiff’s distinctive scalloped border and had reproduced the ornamental motifs in a manner amounting to an unmistakable replication with no substantial differentiating features. Consumer confusion loomed large brides mistaking a ₹8,000 fake for Dongre's heirloom. Broader strokes invoked equity: unchecked piracy “demoralizes creators,” per the bench, tilting convenience toward the plaintiff. No bail for defendants; appeals pending.
Yet, as The IP Press astutely notes, this is an interim theatre temporary tourniquet on a hemorrhaging industry. Full trial looms, where validity challenges could unravel the win. Still, it's a morale booster: An Instagram post related to the same case (October 17, 2025) hailed it as proof “your sketches aren’t just art they’re IP worth defending.”
Ripples in the Runway: Implications for Fashion's Future
Firstly, a persistent challenge in fashion design protection lies in assessing novelty, particularly when designers draw inspiration from traditional or community-based motifs. India’s rich cultural repertoire ranging from Bandhani to Madhubani often makes it difficult to distinguish between genuinely original aesthetic contributions and reinterpretations of long-existing cultural expressions. This overlap creates what may be described as the “novelty’s ghost” problem: traditional craft forms, by their very nature, blur the boundaries between public-domain heritage and protectable innovation. The WIPO Draft Articles on the Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) encourage benefit-sharing, community recognition, and responsible commercial use of folklore. In this framework, Anita Dongre’s model, which actively credits and collaborates with rural artisans, emerges as a responsible and progressive approach. However, many designers do not follow such practices. When commercial labels appropriate artisanal motifs without attribution or compensation, they risk not only ethical criticism but also legal challenges framed around misappropriation, misrepresentation, or unfair commercial practices.
Thus, the novelty question in design law is no longer merely doctrinal; it intersects with cultural policy, community rights, and industry ethics. Future reforms may require clearer statutory guidance on distinguishing protectable “new” designs from adaptations of traditional knowledge, potentially aligning with global debates on folklore protection.
Secondly, The fashion industry functions on rapid cycles in which designs may become commercially irrelevant within mere weeks. India’s design registration framework, however, requires approximately six months for registration, creating a lifecycle mismatch: by the time a design is formally protected, its commercial window may already have closed.
The European Union offers a compelling comparative model. The EU Unregistered Community Design (UCD) recognised for three years automatically protects qualifying designs from the moment they are made available to the public. The litigation in Karen Millen Fashions v. Dunnes Stores affirmed the strength of UCD protection and its suitability for fast-moving industries such as fashion, where speed is central to commercial success.
In contrast, Indian designers remain largely unprotected during the interim period before formal registration is granted, which enables widespread copying in markets and online platforms. Incorporating a similar unregistered design right into the Designs Act, 2000 would provide much-needed protection for seasonal collections and strike a better balance between administrative timelines and market realities.
Ethically, it’s thornier. Fashion IP favours elites, sidelining SMEs. Passing-off for trade dress (Colgate Palmolive v. Anchor Health) could level playing fields, protecting “get-up” sans registration. Reforms? Mandatory artisan credits, AI anti-piracy tools and stiffer penalties ₹10 lakhs minimum, per industry lobbies. For Dongre, vindication: sales rebounded 15% post-ruling, per unverified reports. For India Inc., a wake-up, IPR isn’t vanity its viability. As global chains like Zara eye desi markets, homegrown brands must weave legal armour into their looms.
Stitching a Stronger Tapestry: Final Threads
House of Anita Dongre v. Rishi Vij & Ors. isn’t just legalese, it's a love letter to creativity’s guardians. In an era where algorithms clone collections faster than tailors, this ruling reminds: originality pays, piracy pilfers. Dongre, ever the phoenix, emerges not bruised but emboldened, her lehengas symbols of resilience. Yet, as the dust settles, questions linger. Will courts mandate novelty audits? Embrace dual protections? Or let folklore fade into free-for-all? For now, tip your dupatta to Anita: she’s not just designing dresses; she’s drafting destiny.
What say you, fashion fam? Ever spotted a knock-off that nicked your style? Drop thoughts below. Until next, keep creating legally, luminously.
Comments