The field of fashion law is still in an emerging phase in the country. The law brings in various stakeholders within itself thus the ambit of it in itself is very wide. These stakeholders include designers, celebrities, models, retailers and on a larger purview even common people. It’s not only a separate field but offers the applicability of combination of consumer, business and copyright laws. If we analyse the stance in India then mainly the issues of fashion law are covered under copyright and design act if viewed in a very primitive sense. But there has been a constant realisation that pertaining to the diversity of the field there is a need of more elaborate laws to cater to the needs. Considering the stakeholders involved the present law definitely calls for a better reform and interpretation. Having strong legal equipment provides outsiders too, the confidence needed to run their operations in a foreign land. Due to the same reasons India’s at least within its legal picture comprises of few landmark fashion law cases or judgements which might pave the path for our legal fraternity to explore the unexplored ambits of the field of fashion law. But since law has a nature of setting a future precedence so below are discussed few of the landmark judgements on both national and international level which have proved to be milestones within the shaping of fashion laws as well as conduct within the arena of fashion industry.

• Sales Associates v Forever 21 and Gucci and Sterling jewellers and Wal-Mart

This present case was a collective complaint by the brands of forever 21, Gucci, sterling jewellers and Wal-Mart. The main issue with the case of was of sexual harassment, discrimination and negligence at work place. The initial complaint was made by a forever 21 sales women who allegated that the company had installed CCTV camera within the employee bathrooms. This revelations was only made when the video when viral on internet further casing harassment to the worker. She also added that she had faced frequent sexual taunts from the manager. This was added by a testament by sterling jewellers first female CEO that she had faced on several accounts harassment by the male executives of the company.

It was further added by the court that within The United States of America especially in retail sector majority of the workers were women which amounted to 4.6 million of them thus the court ruled that proper protocol is necessary within these firms for the treatment of women to avoid any kind of harassment and discrimination based on gender.

If you are looking to make a career in fashion law, then have a look at perfect Fashion Law courses  offered as short-term certificate and diploma programme taught by experts in the industry, take Fashion Law Journal and Legal Desire courses on Fashion Law, To know more about course modules, detailed information and registration, Click Here or visit: www.legaldesire.com/fashionlaw

• Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands

In this case, the main question before the court was that were two dimensional or 3 dimensional graphics were copyrightable or not if printed on some commodity. As per the facts varsity brands had more than 200 graphic registrations which they used to print on cheerleading costumes. The copyright included various line patterns, colours and shape formations. Star athletica was sued for copyright infringement since they had printed one such design on their cheerleading costumes. The district granted athletica with a judgement which was of the view that design and the product itself could not be separated thus were ineligible for copyright.

Furthermore, it was ruled by the higher court that any kind of two dimensional and three-dimensional graphics can be very well separated and identified thus were eligible to exist independently. The court also mentioned that any such design that was capable to be depicted in a pictorial and sculpture form, when separated from the product, could very well come within the ambits of copyright. 

• Louis Vuitton v. My Other Bag

This is a very interesting case law where the company by the name of “My other bag” made a parody tote bag where the famous picture of Louis Vuitton bags was printed. The court a very important view in the case stating the a parody product must convey two simultaneous and contradictory messages at the same time which are that the product printed is an original but also it is not original but a parody. This case paved the path for all those products and brands which came into the ambits of parodies.

The company of my other bag was sued under the charges of copyright infringement and design theft. It was argued by sued company’s side that Louis Vuitton has continuously acted like a trademark bully within the industry by the looks of their past actions while Louis Vuitton on the other side contended that its actions are in support of the policy of active protection of their intellectual property. The court ruled that such approach cannot be approved every time and their has to be some sort of freedom provided to the brands in context of their products and as in this case the product was a parody so the charges were not approved.

• Puma v. Forever 21

In the present case puma has filed a suit against forever 21 under the charge of copyright and design infringement of the sneakers manufactured by them by the name of Creeper Sneaker, Fur slide and Bow slide which were part of the Fenty collection which was personally designed by celebrity Rihanna Fenty. The fact which differentiated the case from others was that here the issue of copy right infringement was dealt in relationship with the fact that it was specifically designed by a celebrity and was also endorsed within the public through her name. the court observed that within the copyright application Rihanna’s name was nowhere mentioned nor was she being involved within the suit.

Conclusively, it was rued b the court that as far as the plea of trade dress infringement was concerned, it was justifiably denied stating the reason that just because a specific celebrity was related to the product or endorsed it cannot be the reason to be granted the protection of copyright while it was duly granted on the basis of design uniqueness. Further plea regarding the activity infringement was also granted.

• Rajesh Masrani v/s Tahiliani Designs Pvt. Ltd 

In the present case the question arose within the court that does the patterns printed on the fabrics qualifies as artistic work or not and can it be protected under copyright act and design act. It was contended by the respondent that other than the copyright protection granted to the fabric designs which are drawn for production even the patterns printed on the fabric should be protected under the design act. The present case was an appeal as under the previous judgement Rajesh masrani was prohibited from producing, selling or advertising any kind of similar fabric.

The court stated that any such designs only come under the ambit of copyright protection when not more than 50 such commodities are produced for commercial use. While in the present case only 20 pieces with the specific design were created due to which justified protection was granted and any similar printing, selling or advertising of a similar pattern was prohibited.