In a development that could have wider implications for the protection of original fashion design in India, the Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to designer Anupama Dayal in a case concerning alleged infringement of her registered design work.
Passing an interim order, the court observed that a prima facie case of substantial similarity appeared to exist between Dayal’s original designs and the products manufactured and sold by the defendant. On that basis, the court directed an immediate halt to the sale, manufacture and circulation of the disputed designs until further hearings.
In addition to the restraining direction, the court ordered the defendant to furnish complete disclosures related to the production chain of the contested items, including details of manufacturing units, suppliers, inventory levels and distribution channels. Such disclosures are typically aimed at assessing the scale of alleged infringement and preventing further commercial exploitation while the case is pending.
Why the order matters
The ruling is being seen by legal observers and fashion professionals as a significant moment for India’s creative industries, particularly independent designers who often struggle to enforce intellectual property rights in a market where copying and fast replication remain widespread concerns. Interim relief in intellectual property disputes is not granted lightly; courts generally require evidence suggesting that the plaintiff’s claim is credible and that irreparable harm could occur without immediate intervention. By acknowledging apparent similarity between the designs, the court has effectively recognised that the dispute raises serious legal questions deserving full trial consideration.
The disclosure requirement is also notable. If the defendant’s production and sales scale is found to be substantial, it could influence future claims for damages, profits or injunctions.
Designer calls it a stand for creative integrity
Responding to the order, Dayal framed the case as larger than a personal legal victory. “This has always been about protecting original creative work and reinforcing respect for independent design,” she said in a statement. “I remain committed to safeguarding creative integrity, not only for myself, but for the broader community of designers and artisans who rely on fair recognition of their work.”
Her remarks reflect a recurring concern among designers that intellectual property violations disproportionately harm smaller labels and artisan-linked production systems, where originality is closely tied to livelihood.
Larger industry context
India’s fashion sector has expanded rapidly over the past decade, driven by e-commerce, social media visibility and growing domestic demand. However, that growth has also intensified debates around copying, design ownership and enforcement mechanisms.
While copyright, trademark and design laws exist, litigation in fashion remains relatively limited due to high costs, long timelines and evidentiary complexity. As a result, interim injunctions like this one are often viewed as key tools in deterring imitation.
Industry insiders say the case could encourage more designers to formally register their work and pursue legal remedies where necessary. It may also push retailers and manufacturers to adopt stricter due diligence processes before producing design-led merchandise.
What happens next
The matter will now proceed through subsequent hearings where both sides will present fuller arguments, evidence and documentation. The interim order will remain in force unless modified by the court.
Legal experts note that while interim relief does not determine final liability, it can strongly shape the trajectory of the case, particularly if disclosures reveal extensive commercial use of the disputed designs.
Further developments in the proceedings are expected in the coming months, and the outcome could serve as an important precedent in how India’s courts approach design protection within the fashion and creative economy.
