Supreme Court Directs Preventive Detention to Curb Illegal Mining in Chambal Sanctuary  ||  SC: Courts Must Frame Points For Determination and Give Reasoned Judgments in Ex Parte Cases  ||  Supreme Court: Clause Saying ‘Can Be Settled By Arbitration’ Does Not Mandate Arbitration  ||  SC: Employees Appointed Without Advertisement or Interview Cannot be Regularised  ||  Delhi HC: Non-Disclosure of Conflict By Andre Yeap Vitiates Arbitral Award in MSA Global Dispute  ||  Punjab & Haryana High Court: Arrest Memo Alone Not Final Proof of Arrest Time  ||  Rajasthan HC: Govt Department Cannot Terminate Outsourced Employee, Only Recommend Action  ||  Raj HC: HRA and Allowances Part of Deceased's Income for Motor Accident Compensation Calculation  ||  J&K& Ladakh HC: Executing Court Cannot Issue Levy Warrants While S.47 CPC Challenge is Pending  ||  J&K &L HC: Husband’s Girlfriend Not ‘Relative’ Under Sec 498A IPC, Cannot Be Prosecuted for Cruelty    

Ritika Private Limited v. Biba Apparels Private Limited - (High Court of Delhi) (23 Mar 2016)

‘Ritu Kumar’ designs lose copyright battle

MANU/DE/0784/2016

Intellectual Property Rights

The Delhi High Court reiterated a ruling that “once a drawing, a sketch or a design is used for creation of dresses, then, once the dresses cross 50 numbers, no copyright can subsist in the drawing and sketch under the Indian Copyright Act”.

The Plaintiff had claimed copyright ownership of designs sold under the ‘Ritu Kumar’ label and had alleged Defendant to have employed former employees of Plaintiff, who possessed relevant trade knowledge, to create prints and garments imitating its copyrighted designs. Instead, the court accepted Defendant’s counter that once copyright in a design was applied to an article by an industrial process more than 50 times, ownership of copyright ceased and the article had to be registered under the Designs Act for continued protection. It also rejected Plaintiff’s arguments that copyright work was excluded from the definition of designs. It opined, Section 15 of the Copyright Act simply required the copyright work be ‘capable of being registered’, whether or not it fell under the definition of the Designs Act was irrelevant.

Relevant : Microfibres Inc. Vs. Girdhar & Co. & Anr. MANU/DE/0647/2009 Section 15 Copyright Act, 1957

Section 2 Designs Act, 2000

Tags : RITU KUMAR   DESIGNS   COPYRIGHT   INDUSTRIAL PROCESS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved