MODULE 2: FASHION LAW AND IP PROTECTION
Fashion law in India is increasingly growing day by day. Every Indian now
dreams of wearing designer clothes and owing the best of designer wears in
India. Some noticeable designers in India include Sabyasachi, Manish Malhotra,
Ritu Kumar, Rohit Bal and many others to name a few. Fashion is a creative
area and copying fashion materials and designs is most easily done as there is
no proper legislation in India to regulate the copying of fashion designs per se.
The fashion industry suffers from the loopholes of the law as the traditional
laws for the protection of intellectual property rights are not sufficient to cover
up the issues plaguing the fashion industry. Fashion designs are the result of the
creative mind of the designer and since this is the intellectual property of the
designer, the owner of the designs must have some legal protection available to
him/her. People blatantly copying fashion designs infringes the right of the
owner, he should be entitled to legal remedies for infringement of his/her
The various types of intellectual property protections that are available to the
owner of a fashion design can be categorized as below:
1. PATENT- A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention. In other
words, a patent is an exclusive right to a product or a process that generally
provides a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a
problem. Patents fall into one of a few categories: design patents (those based
on decorative, non-functional features), utility patents (inventions of new and
useful processes, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or new and
useful improvements thereof), or plant patents (new and distinct, invented or
discovered asexually reproduced plants including cultivated sports, mutants,
hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a
plant found in an uncultivated state). The patent owner may give permission to,
or license, other parties to use the invention. He may also sell the right to the
invention to someone else, who will then become the new owner of the patent.
Any new invention, innovation in terms of a technical aspect, fabric or any
material, design calls for patent protection.1 Typically licenses mean for an
utility patent. This isolates the class of configuration patent, which got
consideration after New York Samsung debate. Configuration licenses are as
yet practical things, yet they secure the fancy or beautifying part of useful
things. On the off chance that you have a shoe that has a fascinating shaped or
sculptural foot rear area that doesn't have a specific exceptional capacity, yet is
a piece of this generally practical thing,
the shoe might have design patent possibility. Nike is one of the top 10 design
holders of U.S. design patents.2
2. TRADEMARK- It is that part of IPR which guarantees a character as a logo,
work or any stamp with the end goal to demonstrate an item and recognize the
equivalent from its rivals. The utilization of exchange check law ranges from
not just the assurance of logos and brand names, yet in addition other particular
highlights of an item. Trademarks can likewise be either inside the piece of
clothing or quietly showed on little bits, for example, catches. Trademark law
has additionally prompted the presentation of exchange dress i.e. the aggregate
picture of the item including as size, shape, shading or shading blends, surface,
designs or even specific deals systems.
Indian law statutorily ensures trademarks according to the Trademark Act,
1999. Segment 2 (zb) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, characterizes Trademark as
"exchange check implies a stamp equipped for being spoken to graphically and
which is fit for recognizing the merchandise or administrations of one
individual from those of others and may incorporate state of products, their
bundling and mix of hues." According to Section 2 (m) a check can incorporate
a gadget, mark, heading, name, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numerical,
state of merchandise, bundling or blend of hues or any such mixes.
Trademarks are utilized to recognize items and brands from each other, and can
assume an essential job in ensuring the architect's notoriety. Words,
expressions, images, and structures pass on a lot to the shopper with respect to
the dimension of value and generosity of a brand. Regularly, images make it
less demanding for buyers to rapidly distinguish the wellspring of the item and
mirror a brand's quality. A man who professes to be the proprietor of the
trademark can apply for the enlistment of its stamp for merchandise too
benefits. Exchange Marks Designers can utilize exchange stamp law to ensure
logos and brand names, as well as other unmistakable highlights of an item, for
example, measure, shape, shading or shading blends, surface, illustrations or
even specific deals strategies.
Other than these two classes, the form business for the most part depends upon
the Copyright Act 1957 and the Designs Act 2000. There have been different
examples where the form planners have utilized these laws for the insurance of
Copyright is that part of IPR which ensures security for abstract and imaginative
work albeit officially distributed and put to utilize. It very well may be looked
for under the Copyright Act, 1957 in India for a time of lifetime of the
craftsman and an extra 60 years after he passes away. It assumes a noteworthy
job in persuading a maker and in this manner guaranteeing that the illicit
utilization of his inventiveness or expertise isn't gotten.
Area 2 (c) of the Copyright Act characterizes creative fills in as a depiction, a
model, drawing, etching or a photo, regardless of whether any such work has
aesthetic quality; or some other work of masterful craftsmanship.
Aesthetic work likewise incorporate an illustration which further incorporates a
graph, outline or plan regardless of their creative quality. The protest of
copyright is to give the proprietor of such illustrations, select rights to duplicate
and make available to be purchased three dimensional propagations by the give
of licenses, with the goal that the aptitude and work put by them in such
illustrations could be remunerated.
The creator of an imaginative work is taken to be the main proprietor of the
copyright in the work.
Area 14 of the Copyright Act 1957, presents the accompanying rights on the
proprietor of the copyright in regard of his creative work:
- To recreate the work in any material shape incorporating delineation in three
dimensional of a two dimensional work or in two elements of a three
- To impart the work to the general population;
- To issue duplicates of the work to general society not being duplicates as of
now available for use;
- To incorporate the work in any cinematograph film;
- To make any adjustment of the work;
The copyright in a masterful work is encroached by its proliferation, or any
generous piece of it, in any material shape without assent. With regards to the
form business, the law of copyright is critical.
Area 15 of the Copyright Act is an extraordinary arrangement in regards to
copyright in plans which
are enrolled or are equipped for being enlisted under the Designs Act, 2000. It
(1) Copyright will not subsist under this Act in any structure which is enrolled
Plans Act, 2000.
(2) Copyright in any plan, which is fit for being enrolled under the Designs Act
yet which has not been so enlisted, will stop when any article to which the
structure has been connected has been recreated in excess of multiple times by a
modern procedure by the proprietor of the copyright or, with his permit, by
some other individual.A careful perusal of the above provision clearly shows
that Copyright Act and Designs Act overlap each other on the issue of design
protection. The Copyright Act, particularly Section 15, when read conjointly
with the Designs Act, lays down a basic framework for design protection in
India. The overlap between Designs Act and Copyright Act is as follows:
1) Designs capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 200066 and
registered as per the provisions of the Act get protection under the Designs Act
2) Designs capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000 but not so
registered get protection under the Copyright Act, 1957.
3) Designs not capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000, as they
are original artistic works, get protection under the Copyright Act 1957.
Considering the fact that fashion design is a sort of design, the above described
framework for design protection is relevant and applicable to fashion design
protection also. It means that a fashion design which is capable of being
registered as “design” under the Designs Act, 2000 and registered as per the
provisions of the Act will get copyright protection only under the Designs Act
and nowhere else. In this scenario, copyright in registered fashion design will
subsist for a maximum period of fifteen years. Further, a fashion design which
is capable of being registered as “design” under the Designs Act, 2000 but not
so registered will get copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Copyright in fashion design, in this context, will subsist up to fiftieth
reproduction by an industrial process of the article to which design has been
applied. And at the end, a fashion design which is an original artistic work and
hence not capable of being registered as “design” under the Designs Act, 2000
will get copyright protection in the form of copyright in original artistic work
under the Copyright Act, 1957. Copyright in an original artistic work
automatically subsists as soon as the work comes into existence and it remains
during the lifetime of the author plus sixty years, when published during the
lifetime of the author. It is evident, from the above discussion, that protection
offered to fashion design as an original artistic work is much stronger than the
protection offered to it as a design capable of being registered under the Designs
Act, 2000. In other words, a fashion design is better protected as an “artistic
work” under the Copyright Act, 1957 than as a “design” under the Designs Act,
2000 and because of this reason, fashion designers in India always tend to term
their creative works i.e. fashion designs as artistic works and to protect like the
same. However, courts in India have developed jurisprudence, through a series
of their judgments, to determine when a design is an “artistic work” and when it
is a “design” in the sense of Designs Act, 2000. The decision rendered by the
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Masrani Vs.
Tahiliani Design Pvt. Ltd.3 was the first and foremost step in forming that
In this case, the plaintiff (respondent in the appeal), M/s Tahiliani Design Pvt
Ltd., was a private limited company under the creative leadership of Mr. Tarun
Tahiliani and it claimed to have a major presence in the fashion industry in
India enjoying global reputation with over 80 outlets in 20 countries. The
plaintiff claimed that the drawings which were made in the course of developing
the garments and accessories by the plaintiff were artistic works under Section
2(c) (i) of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was further claimed by the plaintiff that
the garments or accessories themselves were works of artistic craftsmanship
under Section 2(c) (iii) of the Act, while the patterns printed or embroidered on
the fabric were also artistic works in their own right.
The plaintiff, alleged infringement of copyright by the defendant (appellant in
the appeal), Rajesh Masrani, on the ground that there was a colourable imitation
or substantial reproduction of the plaintiff's fabric prints including the
underlying drawings/sketches thereof, or of any other of the plaintiff's
copyrighted works including works of artistic craftsmanship or other literary or
artistic works. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a decree of permanent
3 2008 PTC (38) 251 (Del).
injunction, damages and rendition of accounts against the defendant for
infringement of the plaintiff’s alleged copyright in the designs. An ex parte ad
interim injunction order was passed in favour of plaintiff. Later on, in his order,
the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court confirmed the ex parte ad
interim injunction and allowed the application of the plaintiff for restraining the
defendant from reproducing, printing, publishing and distributing, selling or
offering for sale plaintiff’s copyrighted prints in any form whatsoever and
dismissed the application of defendant for vacation of ex-parte injunction order.
Against the order, the appeal was filed by the defendant.
The defendant/appellant raised four contentions: firstly, the plaintiff/respondent
had no right to claim protection under the Copyright Act, 1957 as the artistic
work for which copyright was alleged to exist was actually 'design' which came
under the purview of the Designs Act, 2000 and since the same was not
registered under the Designs Act, the plaintiff was not entitled to protection
under the said Act; secondly, the textile design did not constitute 'artistic work'
within the meaning of Section 2(c)(i) of the Copyright Act and was, therefore,
not capable of protection; thirdly, as no copyright subsisted under Section 15 of
the Copyright Act, 1957, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed in
view of the same and fourthly, plaintiff had no right to claim protection under
the Copyright Act, 1957 because he was also not the registered owner of the
However, the plaintiff/respondent responded that the protection of the
Copyright Act, 1957 was available to him because of the following reasons:
firstly, the patterns printed or embroidered on the fabric were original artistic
works; secondly, “artistic work” was distinct from “design” and remained
“artistic work” per se distinct from the “garment” (article) to which it was
applied and, therefore, was covered under the exclusion contained in Section
2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000; thirdly, the plaintiff was the author/owner of the
copyright in the creative work (i.e. print) done by Mr. Tarun Tahiliani for and
on behalf of the plaintiff, or by designers employed by the plaintiff-company;
fourthly, the prints, which were the subject matter of the suit, were part of the
couture line and not more than twenty or possibly fewer copies were made of
any single costume and fifthly, registration is not a prerequisite to get the
protection against infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957. It was further
argued by the plaintiff that since the subject matter of the suit (i.e. print) was
original artistic work and was covered within the definition of Section 2 of the
Copyright Act the case for infringement of copyright was made out against
defendant within the meaning of Sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act.
The Honourable Court, after analysing the relevant provisions of the Designs
Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957 and after examining the plaintiff’s mode
of creation and execution of the artwork on a finished garment, held that the
plaintiffs' work was entitled for protection under Section 2(c) of the Copyright
Act and was an original artistic work. Since the work was an 'artistic work'
which was not covered under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, it was not
capable of being registered under the Designs Act and the provisions of Section
15(2) was not applicable.75 It was further pointed out by the Court that
maximum twenty copies were made of any single costume/ garment on which
plaintiff’s work (i.e. print) was applied. Therefore, Section 15 (2) of the
Copyright Act, 1957, which bars the subsistence of copyright in a design
capable of being registered under the Designs Act but not so registered upon the
reproduction of an article to which the design was applied more than fifty times,
was not applicable in the present case and copyright rightly vested with the
plaintiff with regard to his artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957.76 The
Court also did not accept the plea of the plaintiff that to claim protection under
Copyright Act, registration was compulsory. The Court observed that it was
settled law that registration of the work was not compulsory and was not a
condition precedent for maintaining a suit for damages for infringement of
Copyright.77 In view of the foregoing and after making comparison of the
works of both plaintiff and defendant, the Court concluded that defendant
committed infringement of copyright of plaintiff and it was a flagrant case of
piracy of copyrights.
Although a clear and elaborate distinction between “copyright in artistic work”
and “copyright in design” was not made in this judgment, nevertheless its
importance for fashion industry could not be negated. This case clearly lays out
the interface between the Designs Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957.
Copyright protection used to be forfeited by many designs because of Section
15 (2) of the Copyright Act. But this decision demonstrates that in the cases of
real fashion designers who make exclusive lines, where reproduction is limited,
copyright law acts as a powerful tool of protection.
The jurisprudence which was developed in aforesaid case was further
elaborated, by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in a detailed and
lucid manner in Microfibres Inc. Vs. Girdhar & Co. & Anr. 4This case was
related with the infringement of design of upholstery fabrics.
The Plaintiff (appellant in the appeal), Microfibres Inc., was a manufacturer and
seller of upholstery fabrics with designs derived from the original and unique
artistic works either conceptualized or drawn by its employees or by assignation
of the copyright in such artistic works to the appellant by the original artists.
Plaintiff considered those designs as artistic works and alleged violation of its
copyright in the artistic works applied to upholstery fabrics by the defendant.
Allegation of an attempt to pass off the goods of the defendants as that of the
plaintiff was also levelled.
The defendants (respondent in the appeal), Girdhar & Co. & Anr., contended
that the designs, in respect of which the plaintiff claimed proprietary right and
4 2009(40) PTC519 (Del).
protection under the Copyright Act, 1957, did not constitute artistic work rather
they were designs in the sense of the Designs Act, 2000 and hence not capable
of protection within the meaning of Section 14(c) of the Copyright Act. In case
novelty existed in the same, the statutory protection in such designs could only
be under the provisions of the Designs Act, 2000 by obtaining necessary
registration there under. And that was not done in this case by the plaintiff.
Moreover, the defendants argued that copyright in designs would also not
subsist in view of provisions of Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as
fabric or cloth to which said designs were applied had been reproduced more
than fifty times.
Accepting the pleas made by the defendant, the learned Single Judge of the
Delhi High Court held that plaintiff’s work was design capable of being
registered under the Designs Act, 2000 and not the artistic work. The exclusion
of an “artistic work” as defined in Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act from the
definition of “design” under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act was only meant to
exclude the original artistic works like paintings of M.F. Hussain. It was the
original paintings, sculptors and such works of art which were sought to be
specifically excluded from the definition of “design” under the Designs Act,
2000. The Court held that, thus, in the present case, the Design Act which
would give protection to the appellant and not the Copyright Act. However, the
plaintiff failed to register his works under the Designs Act hence no protection
would be available to him under the said Act.
Aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, the plaintiff preferred
an appeal. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, after making a detailed
analysis of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act read with Section 2(d) of the
Designs Act and Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act and their interplay with
each other, did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. In this
whole process, the Court made certain observations which are of great
significance not only to understand the distinction between “artistic work” and
“design” but also to discern the scope of “copyright in artistic work” and
“copyright in design”. The Court held: if the design is registered under the
Designs Act, the Design would lose its copyright protection under the Copyright
Act but not the original painting. If it is a design registrable under the Designs
Act but has not so been registered, the Design would continue to enjoy
copyright protection under the Act so long as the threshold limit of its
application on an article by an industrial process for more than 50 times is
reached. But once that limit is crossed, it would lose its copyright protection
under the Copyright Act.
In the backdrop of the judgements discussed above, it can be concluded that a
fashion designer seeking to protect his/her creations under the Copyright Act,
1957, needs to prove:
1) that his/her creation is an “original artistic work” within the meaning of the
Copyright Act, 1957 and is not a “design” within the meaning of the Designs
Act, 2000; and
1) that the article (e.g. garment), to which the design derived from the creation
has been applied, has not been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial
process by the owner of the copyright or, with his license, by any other person.
The above proposition apparently looks very attractive to fashion designers as it
extends copyright protection for their creations. However, the scope of this
protection is limited and not worthwhile for large number of fashion designers
as it enables the designers to protect only their couture lines wherein only
limited pieces of an exclusive garment are created.83 Garments which are parts
of ready to wear and mass market collections can-not be rendered protection
under the Copyright Act, 1957 because they are produced in large quantities (at
least more than fifty).
DESIGNS ACT 2000
The registration and protection of industrial designs in India is administered by
the Designs Act , 2000 and corresponding Designs Rules , 2001 which came
into force on 11th May 2001 repealing the earlier Act of 1911. The Design
Rules, 2001 was further amended by Designs (Amendment) Rules 2008 and
Designs (Amendment) Rules 2014. The last amendment in Designs Rules came
in to force from 30th December, 2014, which incorporates a new category of
applicant as small entity in addition to natural person and other than small
The industrial design recognizes the creation new and original features of new
shape, configuration, surface pattern, ornamentations and composition of lines
or colours applied to articles which in the finished state appeal to and are judged
solely by the eye.
The Designs Act affords protection to the “design” registered under the Act.
Section 2 (d) of the Designs Act defines the term “design” as follows: Design
means only the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or
composition of lines or colours applied to any article whether in two
dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial process or
means, whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, which
in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye.
It means that not every design but only those designs which fit into the
definition of “design” as provided under Section 2 (d) of the Act can be
registered under the Designs Act. Apart from it, a design, to get registration and,
consequently, to get protection under the Designs Act, must satisfy the ensuing
conditions as well:
1) It must be new or original.
2) It must not have been disclosed to the public anywhere in India or in any
other country by publication in tangible form or by use or in any other way prior
to the date of filing for registration.
3) It must be significantly distinguishable from known designs or combination
of known designs.
4) It must not comprise or contain scandalous or obscene matter.
From the perspective of fashion industry, the Act does not protect the entire
garment as a whole; rather, it only protects the particular/individual aspects like
shape, pattern, colour etc. of the garment. Moreover, to be protected under the
act, these particular aspects must not only satisfy the definition of “design” as
provided under the Act but must also be registered under the Act.
Under the Act, the proprietor of a registered design gets copyright in the design
which means the exclusive right to apply the design to any article in any class in
which the design is registered. It means the Act affords protection not in a
particular article but against a class of articles as enumerated in Schedule III of
the Designs Rules, 2001. Goods manufactured by the fashion designers may fall
under the following classes of goods:
1) Class 2: Articles of clothing and haberdashery - undergarments, lingerie,
corsets, brassieres, nightwear; headwear; footwear, socks and stockings;
neckties, scarves, neckerchiefs and handkerchiefs; gloves; haberdashery and
clothing accessories including buttons, clasps for garments, for headwear and
for footwear, laces, pins, hand sewing, knitting and embroidery equipment and
clothing accessories such as belts, suspenders, braces etc.
2) Class 3: Travel goods, cases, parasols and personal belongings, not elsewhere
specified - trunks, suitcases, briefcases, handbags, key-holders, cases specially
designed for their contents, wallets and similar articles; umbrellas, parasols,
sunshades and walking sticks; fans etc.
3) Class 5: Textile piece-goods, artificial and natural sheet material – lace
embroidery; ribbons, braids and other decorative trimmings; textile fabrics etc.
4) Class 10: Clocks and watches and other measuring instruments, checking and
signaling instruments - watches and wrist watches etc.
5) Class 11: Articles of adornment – jewellery etc.
As per the provisions of the Designs Act, copyright in the registered design
subsists for a period of ten years from the date of registration and may be
extended further for a second period of five years on the application regarding
the same. During the existence of copyright in registered design, the Designs
Act protects registered design from piracy. If a person commits any act
involving piracy of registered design, he is liable, on every act of piracy, to pay
to the registered proprietor of the design a sum not exceeding twenty five
thousand rupees recoverable as a contract debt or if the proprietor elects to bring
a suit for the recovery of the damages for any such act involving piracy, and for
any injunction against thereof, to pay such damages as may be awarded and to
be restrained by injunction accordingly and the total sum recoverable shall not
exceed fifty thousand rupees. Proprietor of the registered design has to institute
the suit in any court not below the court of District Judge.
The above-mentioned provisions of the Designs Act lay down in detail the
mechanism to check piracy of registered design. However, they do not suit the
needs of the fashion designing industry on account of three reasons.
1. No protection to unregistered designs
The Designs Act only protects registered designs not the unregistered designs.
Hence, fashion designers who have not duly registered their designs cannot get
the benefits of the Act. They cannot file a suit for the recovery of damages for
unauthorized copying of their designs and for an injunction against the
repetition thereof. Considering the dynamic nature of fashion industry where
fashion design houses come up with a fresh collection of fashion items at a
regular interval usually every season, fashion designers need automatic and
immediate protection independent from registration for their designs. And in the
absence of the concept of unregistered design protection, the Design Act is
unable to provide the same. Further, it deprives the designers of the privilege of
putting their innovative creations to the market, observing the reaction to the
same and then deciding whether the particular design in question is worth
registration or not.
2. Time consuming registration process
In order to avail protection against piracy under the Designs Act, design
registration is pre-requisite. For fashion designers, this process is of very little
use. The process of registration as elaborated in the Act and the Designs Rules
(see Figure 2) is intricate and time consuming hence not favorable to the needs
of dynamic fashion design industry. The whole process of design registration in
India (i.e. from the filing of application till the grant of certificate of
registration) takes about 10 to 12 months. And that is problematic because the
projected life of a piece of garment in a designer store lasts for a maximum
period of one season which is three to four months. In this backdrop, a designer
is left with only one option that is to apply for design registration much before
the expected date of presentation of his/her designs to the market. This ensues
into another challenge relating to the maintenance of secrecy about designs’
features. During the pendency of the application, fashion design remains
susceptible to exploitation by the employees of the designers or by any other
person in whose wrong hands the design may fall. Moreover, the designer is at a
risk since the success of the design registered prior to market exhibition and sale
of the same is not known to the designer. Hence, once the registered design hits
the consumer market, the designer may find that the design is not appreciated
and has not met the expected demand thus making the whole cumbersome
procedure undertaken by the designer for registration of that design as futile
3. Inadequacy of Damages Although the Designs Act incorporates provisions
for recovery of damages from any person involved in the act of piracy of
registered design but puts a limit on the amount of money that can be recovered
(i.e. not exceeding fifty thousand rupees). This ceiling on damages is a mockery
of the grandeur associated with couture creations which are worth lakhs of
From the above discussion, it is clear that these three shortcomings of the
Designs Act create hindrance in the effective protection of fashion designs
under the Act.
Overlooking the global approach towards Fashion law, and protection of
interests of people engaged n fashion industry, industries like Fashion
Foundation of India (FFI), Fashion Design Council of India (FDCI) and
Apparels Export Promotion Council (AEPC)
➢ FASHION DESIGN COUNCIL OF INDIA (FDCI)
The Fashion Design Council of India (FDCI), a not-for-profit
organization, is the apex body of fashion design in India. It is represented
by over 400 members and was created to promote, nurture and represent
the most incredible talents in the country. Its prime objective is to
propagate the business of fashion in India and globally by adding
resplendent flair in the form of coveted fashion weeks. FDCI is the
fulcrum for activities that have been supported by the Ministry of
Commerce and Industry, Ministry of Textiles and Gujarat State Khadi
and Village Industries Board as they actively facilitated trade at various
fashion weeks. With each passing year, the FDCI builds on artisanal
fortitude and embarks on a journey with a brilliantly dynamic approach
fired by inspirational ideas.
Over the years Fashion Design Council of India has worked to provide a
platform for Indian Fashion Designers with the aim of promoting Indian
Fashion Wear in domestic as well as International arenas. The clear goal is to
endorse and encourage designers grow their brands locally and
The Council has address the changing needs of the industry as
and when they evolve and has worked to foster growth of the Indian Fashion
Industry with support from the Ministry of Textiles and other related
Governmental bodies. In order to work towards its mission, the council has
worked in the following directions for industry growth and betterment.
India Fashion Week & Trade Show Events:
The Council has been instrumental in promoting the Indian Fashion Industry
globally through its platforms India Fashion Week – Autumn Winter & Spring