Allahabad HC: MPs, Judges and Ministers May Use ‘Hon’ble’; Civil Servants are Not Entitled to it  ||  Calcutta HC: Salary Withholding and Harassment Claims are Not Defamation Without Reputational Harm  ||  Gauhati HC: Officer Resigning Without New Govt Appointment Cannot Claim Pension under Assam Service  ||  MP HC: Attachment & Auction are Quasi-Judicial Duties of Tehsildar; Action Invalid Without Mala Fide  ||  Supreme Court: Fence-Sitters Cannot Raise Seniority Disputes Once Third-Party Rights are Settled  ||  SC: Medical Negligence Claims Can be Filed Against Deceased Doctor’s Legal Heirs Who Inherit Estate  ||  Supreme Court: Bail Must Be Considered if Speedy Trial Rights are Violated, Regardless of Offence  ||  Supreme Court: Article 226 Cannot be Used to Seek FIR Registration Without Exhausting Remedies  ||  SC: Dowry Deaths Remain a Grave Social Issue, Especially in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Karnataka  ||  Supreme Court Outlines Principles Governing Exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 227    

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