‘Whenever a designer goes to court over plagiarism, this order will be referred to,’ Delhi HC restrains businesses from copying Rahul Mishra’s Tigress design

At the 2023 Paris Haute Couture Week, designer Rahul Mishra showcased his collection titled ‘We – The People’. One of the recurring motifs in the collection was the hand-embroidered Sunderbans Tigress. Last year, a shirt from the designer’s couture collection, featuring the motif, was famously worn by Mark Zuckerberg at the Ambani pre-wedding celebrations in Jamnagar. Soon, machine-made replicas of the motif were everywhere.

The designer says that when he saw celebs wearing replicas of the motif, and his team members broke down after seeing a painstakingly crafted piece replicated, he decided to take legal action. His team identified several businesses that were selling copies of the Tigress motif and filed a case in the Delhi High Court.‘Whenever a designer goes to court over plagiarism, this order will be referred to,’ Delhi HC restrains businesses from copying Rahul Mishra’s Tigress designOn August 4, Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court granted an immediate interim injunction in favour of the designer, restraining multiple defendants from manufacturing, selling, or promoting clothing items or any products that copy the designer’s Tigress artwork – the order also covered “any deceptively similar representation”.

The first hearing of the case is on November 19.The designer and his legal team say that this is a landmark order as it’s not just about protecting intellectual property but also the livelihood of artisans who painstakingly create these designs.

Court restrains businesses from selling imitations or ‘any deceptively similar representation’ of the Tigress designIn an order dated August 4, the HC observed that the defendants’ products are identical to Rahul Mishra’s original designs and could mislead consumers.

The HC has also said that the defendants must maintain accurate records of sales of the disputed products featuring the Tigress artistic work and its floral motifs.The order further said that the defendants, are “restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting, advertising, or otherwise dealing in the impugned products” bearing the designer’s ‘Tigress Artistic Work’, or “any deceptively similar representation”.

This includes the accompanying floral motifs or any products that are “identical, deceptively similar to, or constitute an imitation or substantial reproduction” of Rahul Mishra’s artwork.

The court also stopped these businesses from “reproducing, adapting, distributing, displaying, or otherwise exploiting this copyright, in whole or in part, on social media platforms, e-commerce websites, or any other online or offline medium.”

'Copies are sold for approx ₹18k-20k, while the original may cost around ₹3-4 lakh'When Mark Zuckerberg showed up at Radhika and Anant Ambani’s pre-wedding festivities last year in Rahul Mishra Couture’s hand-embroidered ‘Sunderbans Tigress’ shirt, the image was suddenly everywhere – across social media timelines and stylist mood boards. The designer says he saw it coming. “When Mark Zuckerberg wore this, I knew there would be copies everywhere in the world,” he recalls.And the copies did arrive – faster than Rahul anticipated – turning one of his most distinctive pieces into one of his most copied designs. Designers often swallow the sting of plagiarism; fashion’s open secret is that knockoffs are inevitable. But Rahul says that he draws the line when celebrities start wearing rip-offs. That, he argues, robs artisans of the work that sustains them. If the design hadn’t been copied, he says, it could have generated five times more employment for his craftsmen who spent years perfecting their art.“The work belongs to all the people who brought it to life,” he says. So when karigars texted him, “hamara design copy ho gaya” and team members broke down after seeing a painstakingly crafted piece replicated, Rahul says he decided to act. He approached the Delhi High Court to seek an injunction. The fight, he insists, isn’t just about his intellectual property; it’s about protecting karigars.

‘Mass-produced work takes away participation and employment. That’s my biggest pain point’Rahul says that it is very painful to see copied designs. “As designers, we always ask ourselves –what is the purpose of creating? For me, the purpose is to create a process that is slow, that involves participation.

That participation comes from craftsmen.”Rahul says that many of those creating fake designs come from very high social circles – some even buy pieces from his stores in disguise and then copy them. He explains why celebs wearing copies of his print spurred him to take legal action. “In a way, the rich people of India and the world indirectly create employment in villages by buying our work. I always say, if you copy my design, then copy the process also, and pay the same amount to the craftsmen.

I’d have no problem with that. But don’t copy in a way that changes the process and takes work away from people. Copying the process creates more participation, more employment. That’s the most painful point for me. And garments copied by machines in China? That’s deeply problematic. This kurta could have created employment for 500 people if it hadn’t been copied. In fact, five to ten times more employment could have been generated.

That’s my biggest pain point – it’s not just about copying.”The designer adds that to create any of his pieces, it takes at least two months, because all the work is done by hand. But when these hand-embroidered designs are mass-produced, thousands of pieces can be made in a single day. These copies are sold for `18,000-`20,000, while the original work may cost around `3-4 lakh.

‘The HC observed that even if some elements are changed, it’s still a blunt copy’Rahul says that the High Court’s judgment will give more power to designers and creators.

“Often, people get away with copying by changing a few elements – maybe the tigress comes down, or the colours are changed. But those are poor copies; no machine can match the quality of hand embroidery. That’s why this judgment is a landmark. The High Court observed that even if some elements are changed, this is still a blunt copy.

This gives strength to the law, and it gives us confidence to fight this battle.”The designer adds, “From now on, whenever any designer or creator goes to court over plagiarism, this judgment will be referred to.

Invest in what is original and authentic. Otherwise, it’s like buying something stolen. This is also a social responsibility. We must value originality – that is how the country will grow. That is how you will build billion-dollar brands in India.”

‘The harm is not just dilution of Rahul’s artistic work; it also impacts the livelihoods of artisans’Tarun Khurana from Rahul Mishra’s legal team says that the artistic work in question includes a combination of two elements – The tigress motif and the surrounding floral motif.

“Several third parties across the globe, using machinery, make textiles that have the copied artistic work. These garments could be of any type – a sari, a suit, or any other piece of clothing. On this basis, we identified several defendants who had done so, and all of them were made parties to a suit filed in the Delhi High Court.

Recognising the artistic work and the copyright embedded in it, the HC issued an injunction against all the defendants named in the suit.”‘Celebs and stylists should know who the work belongs to and buy it from the rightful owners’ Explaining that the order carries a larger message, Tarun says, “The second important aspect is that Rahul employs about 2,000 workers who are artisans – who hand-embroidered these designs. They make one piece at a time, which requires immense effort. Compared to this, third parties can produce thousands of artistic work by machine in a day.

So the harm is not just dilution of Rahul’s artistic work and intellectual property rights.

It also directly impacts the livelihoods of these artisans, as well as many other artisans who practice embroidery as a traditional craft.”“The order, therefore, carries a larger message – that this is an issue of responsibility. Celebrities, stylists, and stakeholders in this entire ecosystem should know who the work belongs to and buy it from the rightful owners of the intellectual property.

At present, we have an injunction in place. It appears unlikely that any of the defendants will contest the matter.”Tarun adds that for many years, the trend was to accept copying as inevitable, under the assumption that people know who the original creator is and will buy from them. “Other suits have been filed in the past by designers like Gaurav Gupta and Sabyasachi. In Rahul’s case, the protection is not on the garment as a whole, but on the specific artistic work incorporated into it. In the fashion industry and luxury goods industry, this is a very unique judgment coming to the rescue of Indian fashion designers.”