ARTISANAL LEGACY VS. IP PROTECTION: DEFENDING INDIA’S ARTISANAL LEGACY

 Authors- Shruti Udayan & Paavni Gupta,

B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), National Law University, Jodhpur

Abstract

Fashion depends heavily on change, and yet when it comes to IP, it creates a cruel divide between luxury brands and India's artisan community. While these global fashion houses enjoy the protection of trademarks, copyrights, or design registrations, traditional crafts like chikankari, Kolhapuri chappals, or Banarasi silks barely get any protection except for GI tags, which cover only the names without covering the style or technique. The exclusion of artisans from due credit and compensation can be seen in the case of Dior using chikankari without acknowledgment and Prada for Kolhapuri sandals. Weak enforcement, high registration cost, and international disparity in law exacerbate the imbalances. The paper looks at such issues to contrast the fractured Indian IP regime against the more established European and American regimes. It proposes reforms that include widening GI protection to cover methods as well, strengthening enforcement on a cross-border basis, using blockchain tracing, and rewarding ethical partnerships. Protection of artisans is not only a need in the law but also a moral imperative for the safeguarding of culture and sharing in the future world of fashion.

Fashion is all about novelty, but more so, about reinvention, it relies on intellectual property rights to shield itself. Tools such as trademarks, copyright rights, design registrations, help protect brand names, logos, prints, and the overall feel of the product. Collectively, these help the designers unleash their true creativity however, the same are refused to small artisanal craftsman. 

However, the limits of intellectual property are especially clear in fashion. Many garments are perceived as “functional” and therefore fall outside copyright protection, resulting in inconsistent and incomplete enforcement. In Europe, design rights offer broader safeguards, whereas in the US, designers rely more heavily on trademarks and a limited number of design patents. The system in India is still developing. Items like Kolhapuri chappals, Banarasi silks, or Pochampally ikat may have Geographical Indication (GI) tags, but these only protect the name, not the design itself. This means a global brand can borrow the style without technically breaking the law.

For luxury houses, IP rights act as a passport to international licensing and brand growth. But for Indian artisans, these protections often fall short, offering little in the way of recognition or fair compensation. The relationship of fashion and intellectual property is both symbiotic and troublesome, it a safety net for established labels but also a loose weave for artisans whose cultural heritage is too often left unprotected. This piece attempts to explore this relationship and how young and local artisans are deprived of the protection that is rightfully theirs.

The Dior Controversy

In the glittering world of high fashion, where creativity is valued highly and traditions are often used without proper credits, hidden acts of intellectual property theft are becoming more common. By the coming years these violations are expected to change significantly due to the influence of globalisation, online marketing and a strong desire for unique exotic styles. A very clear example of this is when Dior used Lucknow’s chikankari embroidery without permission which caused a lot of anger around the world and showed how weak the protection of traditional and cultural crafts really is. 

The year 2025 has witnessed a staggering 35% year-over-year increase in reported IP infringements worldwide, according to the  European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) joint reports. Fashion, a field that used to be a forefront of innovation is now responsible for about 28% of these cases, up from 18%in 2023. This increase is not just about obvious counterfeiting anymore, it’s more about subtle “inspirations” where designs are copied from local artisans and sold at extremely higher prices without any recognition of their cultural roots. Taking the Dior case in reference, During the Paris Fashion Week in June 2025, the French luxury brand unveiled a $200,000 houndstooth overcoat which sparked outrage in the media. The garment was created in over 34 days with the help of 12 anonymous artisans from Lucknow. It combined mukaish, a delicate metal thread technique with chikankari, a traditional style from Uttar Pradesh both are highly valued in the world of luxury. Yet despite the significant contribution and skill of artisans, their stories were never acknowledged. The price of the coat can cover an entire artisan’s family’s living costs for years. This was just a way to pay them a little, erase their history from public memory and keep all the profits for themselves. Looking at the bigger picture for 2025, IP infringement is showing signs of a perfect storm. One major factor is the rapid growth of digital technology: AI tools are being used to create products almost instantly, and a study from Standford found that 40% of these infringement cases come from basic software that copies traditional designs. Online platforms make it easy for these fake products to reach the market, which hurts the income of real artisans. In early 2025, the Indian IP office received almost 250 complaints related to geographical indications, which is a 50% jump from before. Most of these complaints are in the fashion industry, like Kolhapuri chappals and Kanchipuram silks. Another issue is slow enforcement: even though there are strong laws like the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act or the EU’s Design Regulation, it’s hard to take action across borders. For example, India didn’t file a lawsuit against Dior and Company, which is based in France. Instead, the issue was left to public opinion, which led to a sad apology and a weak promise to support weavers in Lucknow too little, too late.In terms of money, the losses are huge. Small artisans, who contribute about $10 billion every year to India’s handicraft industry, are losing 30 to 40 percent of their income because of these issues. For every Dior coat that is sold, a chikankari craftsman loses out on commission for custom work. However, there is some positive news in the form of new ideas. Projects like the blockchain-based tracking system started by IBM and the Fashion Revolution network now put digital certifications into fabrics, which can be checked using a mobile app. Programs like India’s GI e-Marketplace aim to help artisans reach customers directly, cutting out middlemen who take a cut. 

The Dior saga isn’t just a random mistake it’s a clear signal. It shows how intellectual property laws need to change: update geographical indications to protect not just labels but also techniques; require proper credit in global trade deals like the WTO's TRIPS Agreement. 

From Milan to Kolhapur 

Prada’s unveiling of its Spring collection at the Milan Fashion Week, left many eyebrows raised and jaws dropped. One design in particular was responsible, a sleek leather sandal that looked strikingly familiar to Indians.

The resemblance was uncanny, a handcrafted leather slipper made for centuries in Maharashtra and Karnataka. Kolhapuris are not just chappals, they carry history, culture, skill and, even Geographical Indication [“GI”] protection in India since 2019, making it unique to Kolhapur. When Prada revealed similar designs, without any mere mention of the cultural roots of the design and style, it soared much outrage. An artisanal skill reduced to a mere luxury design. It is known that a team of design and technical experts visited the town, back in July to inspect the design, study the vegetable tanned leatherwork and also, observe its market in India. While the visit was solely symbolic, it opened doors to potential collaborations and a hope for the artisans to receive the credit that is due to them.

However, a deeper legal and ethical issue is at play here. The GI regime in India, only offers protection to the name, “Kolhapuri chappal”, and not to the style, thus, leaving the style and design as a potential fodder for exploitative big names, absolutely unchallenged.  This is a gap that needs to be addressed, especially in a country like India where local artisanal work is prominently prevalent and for the same, the artisans and craftsman deserve to protect their art. The artisans and craftsman hold centuries of practise, knowledge and skill, yet, their designs are replicated globally without any share of credit or name.

In this episode, it is not just a fashion scandal, it mirrors how intellectual property struggles to safeguard the local artisans of India in today’s luxury driven world.

 IP Rights in India for Small Artisans: A Patchwork of Progress and Gaps

In India, fashion and handicrafts IP regime is drawn from various legislations: The Designs Act, 2000 providing protection for a new design up to 15 years, the Copyright Act, 1957 protecting artistic features such as motifs and the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for branding. However, crucial to this on the overlapping realms of copyright and design protection: Once design is applied industrially for instance, when produced in quantities more than 50, copyright ceases to exist, and the creator is, therefore, put to registration for designs. For small-scale artisans, the GI Act, 1999 offers a distinct instrument linking products with their geographic origin, thus increasing the credibility and market price of items like Lucknow chikankari or Kolhapuri chappals. But, as noted, protection under the GI is provided only to the name and not to the process or look and feel of the product, thereby leaving scope for “inspired” copies. High registration fees and lack of awareness continue to bar the registry, only a small fraction of India’s 7,000-plus traditional crafts are GI tagged, and enforcement against foreign violators is limited by the challenges inherent in cross-border litigation.

In comparison, it’s more fragmented in the US. It would depend on copyright protection under the separability test: if the artistic features can be separated from the garment’s utilitarian function-purportedly excluding clothing shapes but allowing prints or patterns. Design patents supposedly protect ornamental features better but are costly and time-consuming (up to 20 years from filing). Trademark holds sway, protecting logos (i.e., the Louis Vuitton monogram) under the Lanham Act, with an anti-counterfeiting enhancement by the DMCA for online takedowns. Fast-fashion knockoffs survive design protections being lax-the failed attempts at passing the Innovative Design Protection Act are testament thereto.

Europe, instead, possibly presents the most robust framework, which rests under the EU Community Design Regulation, offering unregistered designs in the form of the UCD for three years from creation and registered designs for as long as 25 years. In most cases, copyright usually applies in fashion with no separability test and treats designs as a whole, benefitting small creators. Enforcement, however, depends somewhat on the member state. Unlike India's GI focus on cultural heritage, EU protections emphasize novelty and individual character, making it easier to sue for style appropriations.

Being cost-effective (design registration being less costly than US patents), Indian system is less expansive for traditional knowledge. While artisans do benefit from initiatives such as GI e-Marketplace that provides direct sales, global discrepancies are being observed: Laws in EU and US favour well-established brands that can afford a legal battle, while Indian creators have to depend on public backlash or merely symbolic labels.

Suggested Remedies and Changes in the current governing laws

To meet the challenges posed by instances such as Dior and Prada, specialists recommend specific reforms to India’s IP system, notably the Geographical Indications Act, 1999, to more effectively protect small craftspeople from exploitation. Some of the main recommendations are to extend GI protection beyond mere names to include underlying methods, styles, and traditional knowledge so as to preclude “inspired” replicas without credit much like the protection offered by Europe’s Community Design Regulation to aesthetic features in a holistic way. Gathering momentum: Strengthen international enforcement: Update the GI Act to allow for automatic reciprocal recognition pursuant to bilateral treaties or WTO TRIPS, obliging foreign brands to register GIs in the target market and levying heavy penalties for cross-border violations, including cultural appropriation provisions. In order to enable micro-entrepreneurs, implement collective rights systems for artisanal communities, streamlining registration procedures with subsidies, digital platforms e.g., EUIPO-style portals for quick filings, and awareness drives to increase GI take-up among MSMEs. Also, implement blockchain for tracing and require ethical sourcing certifications in trade policies, providing tax breaks for cooperations that guarantee just royalties and credit finally aligning India's laws with international standards to promote just trade while maintaining cultural heritage

Conclusion

An optimistic view considers fashion as the range that bridges the past with the present, holding together tradition and innovation. At the time that it's stripped of its credit, it becomes an act of exploitation rather than the exchange. For Indian craftsmen, each weave or stitch or cut does not just produce an object but creates a memory, a livelihood, and a legacy. The current Intellectual Property regime reduces this legacy to price tags and luxury showpieces.

Artisans must be given limelight and not just symbolic labels. The law should provide more stringent protection mechanisms like fierce trademarks, digital mechanisms to track the authenticity, multilateral trade agreements recognizing community rights. Brands must begin choosing to collaborate instead of appropriating, from extraction to respect.

Fashion’s future will not be measured by how swiftly it reinvents trends but by how fairly it reinvents its conscience. Fashion can claim to be an artistic, inclusive, and just exercise when the artisans can function as equal partners alongside luxury houses, and their names and stories be wrapped into every item.

Note - The information contained in this blog is for general information purposes only. We endeavour to keep all the information up to date and try our level best to avoid any misinformation or any kind of objectionable content. If you found any misinformation or objectionable contents in this website please report us at editors.ilw@gmail.com