Rock Solid Rights: Protecting Jewelry Through IP

Jewelry in India is not mere ornamentation- it is a reflection of heritage, identity, and innovation. In this vibrant intersection of artistry and commerce, where a single motif can become a brand’s signature (and a target for imitation), designers are becoming increasingly savvy about the strategic use of IP laws to protect their work. In India, the legal protection of jewelry designs sits at the crossroads of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Designs Act, 2000, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999- each offering distinct yet sometimes overlapping shields for designers. With the blending of traditional craftsmanship with modern artistry, creators increasingly navigate the overlap between the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Designs Act, 2000. Each offers distinct protections, but the overlap between the two often creates legal ambiguity, especially for jewelry that straddles the line between art and product. 

Jewelry as Art: The Copyright Act, 1957 

Under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, an original artistic work, including sketches, models, and finished jewelry pieces, enjoys automatic protection from the moment of creation. While registration is not mandatory, it is a strong proof of ownership, and the copyright term lasts for the lifetime of the artist, plus 60 years. Copyright protects owners against unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and adaptation. For jewelers, this means that their designs cannot be copied by others without permission, and as long as the work isn’t mass-produced through industrial processes, it remains within the bounds of copyright protection.

This legal framework is ideal for handcrafted, bespoke jewelry, which is often closer to fine art than to mass-produced merchandise.

Jewelry as Product: The Designs Act, 2000 and the 50-Copy Rule

Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, grants protection to the visual features of jewelry design, such as its shape, pattern, configuration, ornamentation, composition of lines or colors applied to an article. Registration under this Act grants the proprietor exclusive rights to use the design and prevent others from copying or imitating it, regardless of the materials used to reproduce the design. Protection is granted for ten years from the date of registration and can be extended by five years, providing up to fifteen years of monopoly rights. In order to avail a design registration, the same must be new or original, should not have been disclosed to the public anywhere in the world prior to the filing date, be significantly distinguishable from known designs or combinations thereof, and lastly, must not contain any obscene material.

Further, registration is not limited to individual pieces—designers can also register a set of items sharing a common design theme, provided they are intended to be sold or used together.

More Than a Name: The Trademark Angle of Jewelry Protection

While copyright protects original artistic expressions and design law safeguards the visual appearance or shape of a product, trademark law protects signs and symbols that distinguish the source of goods. Section 2(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, defines ‘trademark’ as a mark capable of being represented graphically and capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others, and may include the shape of goods, their packaging, and combination of colours. In the context of jewelry, this typically includes brand names, logos, and other identifiers that create brand recognition. This includes branding names and logos of Jewelry companies i.e., Tanishq, Malabar Gold, the shape of goods i.e., Bvlgari’s Serpenti design, the interlocking Cs of Chanel or even the distinctive blue packaging of Tiffany & Co as trademarks - as long as the same fulfil the criteria of being “marks capable of distinguishing goods”. To that extent, marks forming a part of the trade name are entitled to even further protection under Article 8 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, to which India is a signatory. [Article 8 reads, “A trade name shall be protected in all the countries of the Union without the obligation of filing or registration, whether or not it forms part of a trademark.”]. Furthermore, many jewelers use unique initials, signatures, or hallmarks inscribed on their pieces. If such marks are distinctive and extensively and consistently used, they qualify for trademark protection as trade dress. Thus, while trademarks do not protect the form or aesthetics of the jewelry itself, they serve as a powerful tool in protecting and preserving the reputation, brand identity, and commercial value associated with jewelry, particularly in the luxury segment.

The Intersection: When Art Meets Industry

While Copyright protects the artistic concept, such as sketches, drawings, and prototypes, Design registration protects the commercial and industrial application of the finished jewelry piece.  At the heart of the confusion is the fact that a single object—say, a piece of jewelry, or a stylized industrial valve can simultaneously qualify as an “artistic work” under the Copyright Act, and a “design” under the Designs Act, if applied to an article through an industrial process. Thus, what begins as a sketch may become a mass-produced piece, creating legal ambiguity.

This protection is particularly important for the conceptual phase of jewelry design. For instance, the Bombay High Court in Pranda Jewellery v. Aarya 24k held that sketches of gold sheet articles, when reproduced in three-dimensional form, retained copyright protection as artistic works, even though design law did not apply in that case. Notably, copyright serves as a powerful tool when the design is primarily an artistic expression rather than an industrial application.

However, once a design is registered under the Designs Act and is reproduced more than 50 times through an industrial process, copyright protection for that design ceases under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. Consequently, the same is then presumed to be a “design” under the Designs Act, 2000- preventing the risk of dual protection and ensuring clarity in enforcement. If a design is neither registered nor mass-produced, copyright can offer longer protection. However, for commercially exploited designs, registration is essential for securing robust legal recourse. 

This dual eligibility creates ambiguity about which regime governs ownership, duration, and enforcement, especially when the item transitions from conceptual artwork to market product.

To understand this better, reliance is placed on the recent case of Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v. Inox India Limited and Others, wherein the Supreme Court grappled with the tension: When exactly does a creative work under copyright cease being “art” and become an “industrial design”? In its two-prong test to determine the appropriate form of intellectual property protection for the design of industrial gas valves, the Court first examined whether the visual features of the valves were purely functional or exhibited independent artistic expression. It concluded that the shapes and configurations served utilitarian purposes and lacked the standalone artistic character necessary for copyright protection. Furthermore, in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Court examined whether the design had been applied to more than 50 articles through an industrial process. Since the valves had been mass-produced, the Court held that copyright protection ceased to apply, and the design, if protectable at all, fell solely within the purview of the Designs Act, 2000. This ruling underscores that once a design is functionally driven and industrially exploited, it cannot simultaneously claim copyright protection. Thus, the Court held that mass production would lead to copyright loss—even without registration. However, in Pranda, as noted earlier, the Court protected artistic sketches despite their use in production, owing to the lack of uniformity or mass manufacturing. 

Learning from Abroad: International Inspiration and Case Law

Globally, the approach to jewelry design protection varies. In the United States, copyright law covers original jewelry designs fixed in a tangible medium, but only protects the aesthetic elements, not functional features. For example, in Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, the Court clarified that copyright does not extend to the idea of a jeweled bee pin, only to the particular artistic expression. A notable US case, Galatea v. Swarovski, highlighted the importance of demonstrating substantial similarity and access in copyright infringement claims involving jewelry designs. While the case was settled, it underscored the challenges of proving infringement and the value of registration for enforcement. 

Similarly, the European Union offers both registered and unregistered design rights, with unregistered rights providing short-term protection for designs disclosed to the public, and registered rights offering longer, more robust protection.

Further, in the case of Nomination Di Antonio E Paolo Gensini SNC & Anor v Brealey & Anor (t/a JSC Jewellery), the UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that JSC, a UK jewelry seller, was liable for trademark infringement for selling individual links from Nomination charm bracelets—an Italian luxury jewelry brand. Nomination argued that JSC’s resale of these links, sourced from authorised retailers, infringed its registered trademarks. While the Court agreed that Nomination had implicitly consented to the sale of individual links by putting them on the EU market, it found that Nomination had legitimate grounds to object to JSC’s repackaging. Specifically, JSC sold the links in cheap plastic packaging, which the Court held damaged the reputation of Nomination’s luxury brand, thus constituting trademark infringement and passing off. 

Conclusion

The protection of jewelry designs in India is a nuanced interplay of copyright and design law, both offering unique advantages and limitations. While the intention behind Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 is to avoid monopolistic dual protection, in practice, it may create a protection gap, especially when designs aren’t registered and later enter commercial production. This is to say that creators of unregistered designs, once commercially used, may find no legal protection at all- as copyright ends, and the lack of design registration bars action under the Designs Act, 2000. Thus, by understanding these regimes and drawing lessons from international practice, Indian jewelry designers can better secure their creative assets and thrive in a competitive global market.

REFERENCES:

1. https://www.arcticinvent.com/blog/how-to-protect-jewellery-designs

2. https://e-startupindia.com/learn/how-to-patent-jewellery-design-in-india/

3. https://www.sonisvision.in/blogs/protection-of-jewellary-a-combination-of-trademark-design-and-copyright-law

4. https://itsartlaw.org/2024/07/23/carats-contracts-intellectual-property-protection-for-jewelry-designs/

5. https://bytescare.com/blog/jewelry-copyright-infringement

6. https://blog.ipleaders.in/protection-jewellery-combination-design-copyright-trademark-law/

7. https://copyrightalliance.org/how-jewelry-is-protected-by-copyright/

8. https://www.parkerip.com/blog/protecting-a-jewelry-design-in-india-with-intellectual-property-law/

9. https://sharongivoni.com.au/legal-protection-for-jewellery-designs/

10. https://www.ipandlegalfilings.com/protection-of-jewelry-in-india-copyright-or-design/

11. https://www.briffa.com/blog/copyright-protection-for-jewellery/

12. https://spicyip.com/2021/03/protection-of-jewellery-a-combination-of-trademark-design-and-copyright-law-part-i.html

13. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/07/22/protection-of-jewellery-under-law-and-standardisations/

14. https://www.sc-ip.in/post/jewellery-and-intellectual-property-a-conflict-between-copyright-designs-and-trademarks

15. https://businessmitra.com/blogs/design-registration-of-gold-chains-and-necklaces

16. https://cibjo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CIBJO-Special-Report-2023-Ethics-Commission.pdf