SC: General Reference to a Tender’s Arbitration Clause Does Not Incorporate it into a Contract  ||  Supreme Court: Partnership Veil May be Lifted to Detect Illegal Sub-Letting Arrangements  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Dearness Relief For Pensioners than Employees' DA is Arbitrary under Article 14  ||  Supreme Court: NCLT Should Not Assess Merits of Pre-Existing Dispute in Section 9 Applications  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies that the Right to Vote is Not a Fundamental Right But a Statutory Right  ||  Chhattisgarh High Court: Minor’s Voluntary Elopement With a Lover Does Not Constitute Kidnapping  ||  Bombay HC: Staring at Co-Worker’s Chest is Morally Wrong But Does Not Amount to Voyeurism under IPC  ||  Delhi HC: Loss of Confidence in Employees Entrusted With Funds is Valid Ground For Termination  ||  Allahabad High Court: Gram Nyayalaya Has Jurisdiction to Decide Maintenance and Execution Petitions  ||  J&K&L HC: Non-Publication of Sec 4(1) Notice in Gazette and Local Newspapers Vitiates Acquisition    

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