Can You Legally Own Your Saree Drape?

A saree is a single length of unstitched cloth. It can make you the highlight of the room with its rich patterns, or charm you with how beautiful its simple colours can look. It is the craft of draping that does the real work. We cannot ignore how that craft turns an unstitched piece of fabric into one of India’s most elegant statements.

Now there is a scene from Best of the Best, a Netflix dance comedy film, that has sparked a conversation worth having from a legal perspective. The film stars Maitreyi Ramakrishnan, who wore a blouseless drape. The blouseless drape has been having its moment as a feminist statement, and very rightly so. We admire that, and we admire the true history it honours.

Creator Natasha Thasan, who goes by the creative title, the “Saree Architect” and runs the page Drape Therapy, alleges that the look lifted her 2020 purple one-shoulder drape. The film’s costume team had reached out to her to consult, and she declined.

In a September report by The Nod Mag, costume designer Elisabeth Vastola named Thasan’s work as an inspiration for the film’s draping and pleating. Ramakrishnan says that during filming, around a year ago, she texted Thasan about wearing a blouseless drape and received her support.

Where this ends up is not the question for us. Our question is what happens when stars wear a craft like this, and when content creators keep creating it. How do we define inspiration? Who infringes what? And can anyone own how a saree is worn?

Now that the ingredients are laid out, it is time for the actual tea.

Can Indian Law Protect a Saree Drape? Trademark, Copyright, Designs and Patents Explained

Indian law has four main IP tools, and each asks a different question of a wrapped garment.

Trademark. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 protects a mark that can be represented graphically and can tell one trader’s goods or services from another’s (Sections 2(1)(m) and 2(1)(zb)). “Graphically” means it can be shown on the register as a clear image or words. A photo could show a drape, so that is not the hurdle. The hurdle is that a drape tells shoppers how a garment is worn and not who sold it. A brand name like Drape Therapy does that job. Section 9(1) also rejects marks that lack distinctiveness or are customary in trade practice, meaning what the whole trade routinely does. Regional drapes are shared traditions and not one seller’s signature.

Unconventional marks go beyond words and logos, such as shapes, packaging and colours. In Christian Louboutin v. Abubaker, Louboutin sued a shop selling red-soled shoes. In 2018 a single judge held that a single colour is not a “mark” and dismissed the suit. In 2019 the Division Bench reversed that.

Copyright. The Copyright Act, 1957 protects expression and not ideas. A saree print or sketch is an artistic work (Section 2(c)), and a reel counts as a cinematograph film (Sections 2(f) and 13), so Thasan’s photos and videos are protected. R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) draws the line between an idea and its form. If a rival studies her drape and then shoots their own photos and videos of the same pleating, they have used her idea of how to arrange the saree and anyone is free to do that. It becomes infringement only if they copy her actual footage or images, for example by reposting, tracing or recreating her composition.

Designs. The Designs Act, 2000 protects shape, pattern or ornament applied to an “article” by an industrial process and judged solely by the eye (Section 2(d)). An article is anything manufactured, an industrial process includes manual and mechanical methods, and “judged by the eye” means the feature must matter to how the finished article looks. Pleats are arranged by a wearer on a body, so a drape fails that definition before the Section 4 test of being new or original begins. A pre-stitched saree is an article and its “configuration” is how its parts are arranged, such as stitched-in pleats. That can qualify if it is new. Section 15 of the Copyright Act bites sellers. Once a print is produced industrially on more than 50 sarees, copyright ends unless it is registered as a design.

Patents. The Patents Act, 1970 protects an invention, meaning a new product or process with an inventive step and industrial application (Section 2(1)(j)). An inventive step is a technical advance that is not obvious to an expert. Industrial application means it can be made or used in an industry. The saree’s roots reach back to the Indus Valley, and textile scholar Rta Kapur Chishti documented 108 draping styles. That vast public stock destroys novelty under Section 2(1)(l). Now imagine, in the grandest hyperbole, a drape never seen under the sun. It would still be an aesthetic choice and not a technical solution. Designers prove how far a signature drape can travel anyway. Tarun Tahiliani is widely credited with pioneering the pre-draped concept saree, and Gaurav Gupta took his sculptural, origami-style pleating to Paris Haute Couture Week in 2023. Fame in fashion and on social media is real, but it is not legal protection and the law’s cover for the drape itself remains thin and largely untested.

What Indian law does protect. Mother Teresa’s white sari with three blue borders is a registered trademark. The Missionaries of Charity applied in 2013 and the registration was reported on her canonisation day in 2016. It covers the pattern on the fabric and not how anyone drapes it. Brand names such as Nalli are registrable. Geographical Indications protect the Kanjeevaram or Banarasi weave, a good tied to a place.

The upshot. A draper can protect a brand name for tutorials, products or services (a word mark, not the drape), original videos and photographs, design rights for pre-stitched garments, and contracts and credit for collaborations, which is where disputes like the Netflix one tend to be settled. The drape itself stays free.