top of page
Challenges in Enforcing Design Rights on User-Driven Digital Platforms: A Legal and Practical Analysis

Author: Ayush Raj, The Assam Royal Global University


Abstract

The rise of the digital platform economy has significantly changed how traditional intellectual property laws work, especially in the area of industrial designs. This research paper examines the legal and practical challenges of protecting design rights on user driven online platforms in India. The study focuses on important laws such as the Designs Act, 2000, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Intermediary Guidelines, 2021. It also compares these with international laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of the United States and the Digital Services Act of the European Union. Through this analysis, the paper finds that the legal system has not kept up with technological changes.

The main issue identified is the conflict between the strict requirement of “absolute novelty” in design law and the fast, viral spread of content on digital platforms. The findings show that the “50 reproduction rule” under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act can become a “digital trap” for online creators. Additionally, the large scale and anonymity of online platforms make traditional notice and takedown systems less effective.

The paper concludes that India needs to move from a reactive approach (responding after violations occur) to a proactive compliance system. It suggests introducing a 12 month grace period and updating statutory damages to better protect creators in the growing digital economy.

Keywords

Designs Act 2000, Intermediary Liability, IT Rules 2021, E-commerce Infringement, Digital Novelty, Digital Services Act.


Introduction

The global economy is changing in a big way. Today, creativity and design are no longer limited to physical workshops, they are mainly sold and shared through digital platforms like Amazon, Flipkart, social media, and 3D printing websites such as Cults3D. In this new system, design rights are very important because appearance often influences what people buy. Unlike patents or trademarks, design rights focus only on the visual appeal of a product.

However, India’s main law for protecting designs is the Designs Act, 2000 was created at a time when business mostly involved physical goods and local markets. With the rise of online platforms, a new problem has emerged i.e “e-infringement.” This means designs can be copied and shared online very quickly, across countries, and often anonymously. While technology has made it easier for people to create and sell designs, it has also made it harder to protect them.

This creates a gap between traditional laws, which are based on physical locations and slower legal processes, and the fast, borderless nature of the internet. This study focuses on that gap. It aims to examine Indian laws related to design protection and the responsibility of online platforms, identify the challenges of enforcing rights online such as dealing with large-scale copying and jurisdiction issues, and compare India’s system with international practices like notice and takedown procedures. The main question is whether India’s current legal system is strong enough to deal with modern issues like “algorithmic piracy”, and what changes are needed to better protect designs in the digital age.


Literature Review

Over time, design law in India has changed from protecting fine art to focusing on the appearance of products used in industries. The Designs Act, 2000 says that a design must be completely new “absolute novelty”, meaning it should not have been shown anywhere in the world before it is officially registered. However, in today’s digital world, this rule can be difficult to follow. A design shared on social media can spread very quickly, and even one post can destroy its “newness” before the designer gets a chance to register it.

Another important issue is the relationship between design law and copyright law. Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957 deals with this. In the case of Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & CoThe Delhi High Court decided that if an artistic design is used on products more than 50 times, it will lose copyright protection. After that, the design must be protected under design law instead. This “50-copy rule” is now seen as outdated because, in the digital age, designs can be produced in large numbers very quickly using technologies like 3D printing and automated manufacturing.

Several important court cases have helped shape how design law is applied today:

  • Carlsberg Breweries v. Som Distilleries: It is allowed to combine design infringement claims with passing-off (brand misuse) claims in one case.

  • Lifestyle Equities v. Amazon: Online platforms can be held responsible if they actively participate in selling infringing products.

  • Inox India v. LNG Express: Courts use a “twin test” to decide whether something is artistic or functional.

  • Crocs Inc. v. Liberty Shoes: A design cannot be protected if it was already publicly shown before registration.

Experts are also discussing the role of online platforms (intermediaries). The Information Technology Rules, 2021 require platforms to take more responsibility and act carefully when dealing with user content. While these rules improve complaint systems, they do not clearly deal with design-related issues such as how to visually compare products to check for copying under the Designs Act.

When compared to international laws like the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), India’s approach is still mostly reactive. In contrast, the EU is moving toward a preventive system, where platforms must verify sellers (Know Your Business Customer or KYBC) to reduce fake or copied products from being listed in the first place.

There is also growing concern about newer platforms like 3D printing sites and fast fashion companies. For example, cases involving Shein in the United States have introduced the idea of “algorithmic IP theft,” where companies use artificial intelligence to track trends and quickly copy popular designs. In India, small designers often struggle to fight such big companies because legal cases are expensive and there are not enough specialized courts for intellectual property. Experts believe that India needs to move away from slow, manual enforcement of design rights and adopt faster, technology-based solutions to better protect creators in the digital age.


Methodology

This research mainly uses a doctrinal method, which means it studies and explains the law by looking closely at existing rules and legal texts. It examines important laws like the Designs Act, 2000 and the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with rules made under them, such as the Intermediary Guidelines, 2021. By studying things like the purpose of these laws and specific sections, the research helps us understand the current legal system in India.

The research also compares India’s laws with those of other regions like the United States and the European Union. This is important because online platforms work across countries and are often influenced by international laws like the DMCA (USA) and the DSA (EU).

India mostly follows a “notice-and-takedown” system, where content is removed only after someone complains. On the other hand, the EU follows a more proactive approach, where platforms must verify sellers (KYBC) to prevent problems before they happen. Using both methods together helps the research connect traditional legal ideas with modern digital challenges like online copying (“e-infringement”) and global online trade.


Main Analysis

The Legal Framework of Design Protection in India

The Designs Act, 2000 is the main law in India that protects how products look, their design or appearance. According to this law, a “design” includes things like shape, pattern, color, or decoration applied to a product, as long as it is meant to be judged only by how it looks. However, the law does not protect features that are purely functional, trademarks, or artistic works already covered under copyright law.

To get protection under this law, a design must be officially registered. It must also be a completely new “absolute novelty”, meaning it should not have been shown or used anywhere in the world before registration. This creates a problem in today’s digital world. For example, if a designer shares their work on Instagram or a blog before registering it, they may lose their legal protection because the design is no longer considered new. The law does give a small exception, if a design is shown at certain official exhibitions, the designer gets a 6-month grace period to register it. But this does not apply to most online sharing, which leaves many creators unprotected.

Another limitation is the duration of protection. A registered design is protected for 10 years, with a possible extension of 5 more years total 15 years. This is shorter than copyright protection, as the law aims to balance innovation with public access over time. One of the most complicated and frequently disputed issues is the overlap between design law and copyright law, especially under Section 15 of the Copyright Act.


The Nature of User-Driven Digital Platforms

User-driven platforms have fundamentally changed the "article" to which designs are applied. We can categorize these platforms into three primary types:

1. E-commerce marketplaces: Websites like Amazon, Flipkart, and Meesho allow many sellers to list their products. Designs are shown through photos and descriptions. The problem is that copied or very similar designs can be sold by many different sellers at the same time, making it hard to control infringement.

2. Social media and content platforms: Apps like Instagram, and Pinterest, Facebook help trends spread quickly. Influencers often promote cheaper copies “dupes” of popular or expensive designs and may link directly to products that copy the original design. This increases the spread of infringing designs.

3. 3D printing platforms: Websites like Cults3D and Thingiverse share digital design files (CAD files). These files are like the blueprint of a product. People can download them and create physical items using 3D printers at home. Since these designs are shared digitally and produced individually, it becomes very difficult to track and stop infringement.


Key Enforcement Challenges: Scale, Anonymity, and Jurisdiction

The biggest problem in protecting design rights online is the huge scale of copying. Companies like Shein use artificial intelligence to track trending designs on social media and quickly create similar products within just a few days. Traditional legal processes, like filing a case in court, are too slow to keep up. By the time a court orders action, the copied products may already be sold out and no longer available.

Anonymous online sellers can pop up, do business, and vanish very easily. They can set up shop online with hardly any real checks, and if one account gets blocked for copying someone else’s design, the same person can just create a new account under a different name and start all over again. On top of that, many of these sites use strong encryption or store their data on decentralized networks, which means it’s very hard for authorities or the rights-holder to figure out exactly where the counterfeit product first came from or who actually made it.

Another big problem is jurisdiction. A design registered in India is only protected there; if the person making the copied product is in China and the website selling it is hosted on a server in the United States, Indian law doesn’t automatically apply to them. Even though Section 1 of the IT Act 2000 says India can prosecute certain online offences committed from outside the country, in practice, enforcing an Indian court order against a foreign company that has no office or assets in India is extremely difficult and often doesn’t work. Because the internet ignores borders, but laws are still tied to specific countries, the Designs Act struggles to keep up with online infringement that spans multiple nations.


Case Law Analysis: The Design-Copyright Interface

The overlap between the Copyright Act and the Designs Act causes confusion, especially in the digital world. According to Section 15(2), if a design is used on more than 50 products, it loses copyright protection and must be registered under design law.

In Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & CoThe court said this rule exists to stop people from having permanent control over commercial designs. But today, reaching 50 copies happens very quickly online.

In Ritika Pvt. Ltd. v. Biba Apparels, the designer lost the case because the design was already used on more than 50 clothes. This creates a “digital trap” if a design becomes popular and crosses 50 sales without registration, the creator may lose all protection.

To solve this issue, in Inox India v. LNG Express (2025), the Supreme Court introduced the “Twin Test.” This helps decide whether a work is artistic or meant for industrial use. The court also made it clear that if a design is meant for mass production, it should be registered early, because effort alone is not enough to keep copyright protection.


Comparative Analysis: India vs. US and EU

In the United States, the DMCA mainly helps with copyright issues through a “notice-and-takedown” system. This means content is removed only after the owner complains. However, design patents are harder to protect this way because platforms do not want to decide complex design comparisons without a court’s decision. So, the responsibility of finding and reporting copying mostly falls on the design owner.

In contrast, the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) follows a more proactive approach. It requires online marketplaces to verify the identity of sellers (called “Know Your Business Customer” or KYBC) before allowing them to sell products. It also uses “Trusted Flaggers,” whose complaints about illegal content must be handled quickly.

This EU system works better for protecting designs because it reduces anonymity and makes platforms more responsible for preventing infringement, instead of acting only after a complaint is made.


Reform Suggestions

Introduction of a 12-Month Grace Period: India should align with global standards by allowing a 12-month window between a design’s first public disclosure and its filing date. This would protect creators who need to test the market on digital platforms before committing to registration costs.

Abolishing the 50-Reproduction Rule for Digital Works: The Section 15(2) "guillotine" should be amended to exempt works where the "reproduction" is digital or occurs via additive manufacturing (3D printing), allowing copyright to persist longer for independent creators. 

Modernizing Statutory Damages: The ₹50,000 cap under Section 22 should be replaced with a framework that allows for "accounts of profits" or "treble damages" in cases of willful or systemic infringement, similar to the remedies available in trademark and copyright law. 

Implementing "Trusted Flaggers" in IT Rules: Following the EU DSA, the Indian government should certify IP protection agencies as "Trusted Flaggers," whose takedown requests must be acted upon by platforms with higher priority and without the immediate need for a court order. 

Extending the Definition of "Article": The Designs Act should be explicitly amended to include GUIs, icons, and virtual assets, ensuring that the "aesthetic appeal" of purely digital products is protected.


Conclusion

The digital transformation of the Indian economy has outpaced the legislative framework established by the Designs Act, 2000. While the Act was designed to protect industrial aesthetics in a brick-and-mortar world, this research demonstrates that the current "absolute novelty" requirement and the restrictive "50-reproduction rule" under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act have become significant hurdles for modern creators. In an era where a design can go viral and be reproduced thousands of times in a single day via 3D printing or fast-fashion algorithms, the legal "guillotine" that strips away copyright protection is both outdated and punitive.

The analysis reveals that the primary challenge in enforcing design rights on user driven platforms is not just the scale of infringement, but the anonymity and jurisdictional fluidity of the digital marketplace. India’s current "notice-and-takedown" system, while useful, remains a reactive measure that fails to address "algorithmic piracy" and systemic e-infringement. To foster a robust digital creative economy, India must modernize its approach. Moving toward the European Union’s model of "Know Your Business Customer" (KYBC) and implementing a 12-month grace period would provide creators with a necessary safety net. Furthermore, replacing the meager statutory damage caps with more stringent financial deterrents is essential to discourage willful infringement by large scale digital entities.

Ultimately, the protection of design in the digital age requires a shift in perspective from viewing designs as static physical attributes to recognizing them as dynamic digital assets. Only by harmonizing the Designs Act with the realities of the IT Rules, 2021, and international best practices can India ensure that its legal system promotes innovation rather than inadvertently stifling it.


References






Related Posts

RECENT POSTS

THEMATIC LINKS

bottom of page