Abstract:
This research explores how urban fashion brands dilute traditional clothing identities under the pretext of “fusion wear,” commodifying cultural symbols without community consent. This paper explores how traditional clothing, especially from marginalized communities, is often turned into trendy fashion statements, stripped of the meaning and stories they carry. It introduces the idea of the “identity economy,” where cultural symbols like clothing are repackaged for profit while their deeper histories are overlooked. By examining Indian trademark law, cultural appropriation theory, and real-world examples, the paper argues for more inclusive legal frameworks, frameworks that should protect cultural expressions and ensure acknowledgment and respect where it is deserved.
1. Introduction
The emergence of fashion as a form of ‘self-expression’ presents a troubling contradiction: garments of marginalized groups that were previously ignored or belittled are now being appropriated and branded ‘fusion wear’ by mainstream and often urban fashion labels. The shift from cultural fabric to fashion fabric is not only an aesthetic transformation; it is also legal, social, and profoundly political.
For centuries, garments like handwoven sarees, turbans, phulkaris, and angarkhas were proudly worn as markers of cultural identity in India and the Global South. A traceable system of know-how and community-oriented stitching, plus fabrics procured locally, have preserved these garments. Today, in the fast-paced world of fast fashion and Instagram fame, these garments increasingly go into mass production, waterfall out of their historical casing, and get stamped into either ‘boho-chic’ or ‘ethnic’ fashion. They are then sold, often without any recognition or compensation granted to the originating communities. The objective of this paper is to investigate this disjunction.
We are now operating in what can be termed an “identity economy”, a marketplace in which clothing, patterns, and symbols serve as cultural currency. But when identity becomes a commodity, it begs the question: who owns culture? And more importantly, what would happen to traditional identity once it is diluted not by mimicry but rather by misattribution?
This paper looks at the legal friction between trademark dilution and cultural sharing, especially in relation to how urban fashion brands intersect with traditional clothing coming from marginalized communities. While the cultural interchange was conceptually very fluid, today, the urgency, profit-driven, rapid fashion raises serious questions about consent, recognition, and protection. This is especially true for post-colonial societies where clothing has been used both as a site of oppression and resistance.
This issue touches upon the intellectual property regime in general and, more specifically, trademark law, design protection, and GIs. Indian IP law is primarily silent on matters concerning community ownership of unregistered cultural markers like embroidery motifs or fabric drapes. Furthermore, Sections 9(1)(a) and 11 of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, relating to distinctiveness and confusion, seldom take into account cases involving the cultural dilution whereby there is no deception of the public but the heritage of a community has been nevertheless distorted.
Some international frameworks that have stepped in to provide a normative explanation include the WIPO Draft Provisions on TCEs and the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 2003). Elsewhere, legal realization has been sporadic and incomplete. According to a WIPO report of 2022, less than 10% of over 370 disputes involving traditional cultural expressions filed across the globe were able to result in enforceable community rights. (Source: WIPO Traditional Knowledge Division, 2022 Report)
More importantly, the language of “fusion” and “inspiration” used by fashion houses functions as a legal grey zone, a way to extract cultural value without legal liability. The paper postulates that branding derogates economically and dilutes cultural distinctiveness to an extent whereby original communities find it difficult to maintain authenticity, confer market value upon, or even legally control.
Bridging legal theory and cultural analysis, the article inaugurates a fresh perspective locating fashion law within the politics of visibility, recognition, and systemic marginalization. It also proposes that trademark dilution doctrine, though currently used to protect powerful brands, can and should be reimagined to protect community-held symbols of identity, especially when these are used commercially without attribution or consent.