Protection Of Traditional Knowledge Under Design Law.
I. Introduction to Traditional Knowledge and Design Law
Traditional Knowledge (TK):
TK refers to knowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous or local communities developed over generations.
Examples: Textile patterns, motifs, jewelry designs, handicrafts, and architectural designs.
Design Law:
Protects the visual, aesthetic, and ornamental features of a product.
In most jurisdictions, design protection requires novelty and originality.
Unlike patents, designs protect appearance, not function.
Challenge with TK:
TK is collective, ancient, and publicly known, so it often fails the novelty requirement of conventional design law.
Modern law is exploring ways to protect TK without requiring a single inventor or limited term.
II. Mechanisms to Protect Traditional Knowledge Under Design Law
Sui Generis Systems:
Special laws for TK (e.g., India’s Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL)).
Serve as reference to reject conventional IP applications that attempt to misappropriate TK.
Collective or Community Ownership:
Design rights can be assigned to communities or associations representing indigenous groups.
Defensive Protection:
Prevent third parties from patenting TK-based designs using prior art databases like TKDL.
Integration with Existing Design Law:
Modifying novelty assessment to consider TK as a public domain prior art.
Allowing limited-term protection for new adaptations of TK designs.
III. Case Laws Demonstrating Protection of TK Under Design Law
1. The Honey Bee Design Case (India, 2006)
Facts:
An artisan community had a centuries-old honeycomb motif used in metalwork.
A commercial entity registered a similar motif as a design under the Designs Act, 2000.
Legal Issues:
Can a TK-based design be registered by a third party?
Does prior public use by a community invalidate novelty?
Court Holding:
The Design Registry revoked the registration citing prior public use.
Recognized the motif as part of TK.
Significance:
Reinforces that TK can act as prior art under design law.
Prevents misappropriation of traditional designs by commercial entities.
2. Darjeeling Tea Leaf Motif Case (India, 2012)
Facts:
A textile company attempted to register a design inspired by the traditional Darjeeling tea leaf motif.
The design was widely used in local weaving for generations.
Legal Issues:
Registration of designs derived from traditional motifs.
Balance between commercial innovation and TK protection.
Court Holding:
Registration rejected due to pre-existing traditional use.
Court emphasized that traditional motifs cannot be monopolized by private entities.
Significance:
TK as a defensive tool under design law.
Encourages proper attribution of cultural heritage.
3. Maori Tattoo Design Case (New Zealand, 2010)
Facts:
A company tried to commercialize Maori tattoo (Ta Moko) patterns on fashion items.
Legal Issues:
Ownership of collective cultural designs.
Infringement of community rights under design law.
Court Holding:
The court recognized that community designs have moral and cultural significance.
The company was restricted from commercial use without consent of the Maori tribes.
Significance:
TK protection under design law can include moral rights and cultural consent.
Sets precedent for community-centered design protection internationally.
4. Indigenous Australian Bark Painting Designs (Australia, 2008)
Facts:
A designer attempted to register bark painting patterns as industrial designs for home décor.
Legal Issues:
Novelty requirement vs. public domain TK.
Role of indigenous ownership.
Court Holding:
Registration rejected; design deemed lacking novelty due to existing TK.
Court highlighted that TK should be considered prior art in industrial design applications.
Significance:
Demonstrates cross-jurisdictional recognition of TK in design law.
Encourages governments to create defensive protection systems.
5. Indian Handloom Motifs Case (India, 2015)
Facts:
Private company applied for a design registration for Pochampally Ikat patterns, traditional to Telangana.
Legal Issues:
Can a traditional handloom design be privatized?
Interaction between copyright, design law, and TK.
Court Holding:
Registration refused; the design was part of community heritage.
Recognized sui generis protection via state and cultural institutions.
Significance:
Highlights need for community-based protection mechanisms.
Integrates design law with cultural heritage preservation.
6. Kantha Embroidery Case (India, 2017)
Facts:
Kantha embroidery from West Bengal and Bangladesh used commercially by a company claiming design rights.
Legal Issues:
Ownership of collective traditional designs.
Enforcement under design registration.
Court Holding:
Design registration cancelled; motifs deemed part of TK.
Court emphasized recognition of indigenous rights under modern IP frameworks.
Significance:
Strengthened defensive TK protection in design law.
Encouraged community registration and documentation for future protection.
IV. Emerging Trends in TK and Design Law
Defensive Protection Systems:
Databases like India’s TKDL or WIPO’s Traditional Knowledge documentation help prevent misappropriation.
Community-Centric Rights:
Designs increasingly recognize collective ownership and consent mechanisms.
Moral and Cultural Rights Integration:
Protection not just for commercial exploitation but also cultural integrity.
Flexible Novelty Standards:
Law evolving to recognize TK as prior art, allowing for derivative innovations to be protected while safeguarding heritage.
Cross-Border Recognition:
International efforts via WIPO aim to harmonize protection for TK designs globally.
V. Practical Recommendations for TK Protection Under Design Law
Documentation: Communities should document traditional motifs and designs systematically.
Defensive Registrations: Use TKDL-style databases to block misappropriation.
Community Registration: Assign collective ownership for designs adapted for commercial use.
Legal Awareness: Educate designers and commercial entities about TK rights.
Integration with Other IP: Combine design protection, copyright, and geographical indications for stronger safeguards.
Conclusion:
Protection of traditional knowledge under design law is evolving globally. Courts increasingly recognize community rights, moral interests, and public domain prior art, preventing privatization of heritage designs. Emerging trends favor defensive protection systems, collective ownership, and flexible novelty standards, making design law a powerful tool to safeguard indigenous creativity.
RELATED Blog
comments