Supreme Court: IBC Mechanism Cannot Replace Decree Execution or Recovery Proceedings  ||  SC Orders Closure of School Over Loan Default, Directs Police-Assisted Takeover under SARFAESI Act  ||  MP HC: HC Lacks Jurisdiction to Appoint an Arbitrator in International Commercial Disputes  ||  Allahabad HC Imposes Rs 15L Costs on Husband For Filing False Affidavits in Maintenance Proceedings  ||  MP HC Directs ASI to Upload Bhojshala–Kamal Maula Survey Video on Secure Platform For Litigant  ||  Bombay HC: Public Gathering Does Not Justify Handcuffing, Awarded ?50,000 Compensation  ||  Madras HC: Woman’s Dignity Linked to Right to Shelter; Orders Restoration of Demolished Home  ||  SC: Absence of Independent Witnesses is Not Fatal if Injured Eyewitness Testimony is Sterling  ||  Supreme Court: Prosthetic Limb Costs Must Be Compensated To Restore Victims’ Dignity  ||  Supreme Court: Probate Can be Revoked For Non-Impleadment of Parties and Suppression of Facts    

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