Modern Designs, Ancient Roots: India and the Riyadh Treaty

Introduction

“A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin, and culture is like a tree without roots.” – Marcus Garvey

As India embarks on its third decade of the 21st century in the global economic arena, its Intellectual Property (IP) system has found itself at a timely inflection point. India’s ratification of the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (DLT), 2024 will facilitate an overhaul of the antiquated industrial design registration process by “dramatically improving the administrative process.” But with progress comes a conundrum: Is such harmonization compatible with authentic protection for Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCE) and Traditional Knowledge (TK)? Or will India’s artisans continue to see their cultural heritage transformed into commercial design without attribution or compensation?

The Riyadh Design Law Treaty (DLT), 2024

The DLT, negotiated in November 2024 under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), aims to foster agreement on global standards for procedural aspects of industrial design law around the world. It achieves this by introducing electronic filing systems, implementing digital exchange of priority documents and, most importantly, establishing a 12-month grace period for disclosure. All of this is aimed at increasing speed, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, to improve industrial design law and thereby foster creativity. The treaty also allows for multiple industrial designs to be included in one application, permits a divisional filing of an application without affecting the filing date of the original application, and establishes systems for licensing, renewal, and transfer of an industrial design on a national register.

While the DLT is largely procedural, its relevance extends to modernization and worldwide administrative consistency. Article 11 of the DLT specifically encourages contracting parties to establish electronic filing systems and recognize traditional knowledge (TK) that is embedded into designs. India formally acceded to the DLT in December 2024, with India’s accession intending to amend the Designs Act, 2000 to be compliant with the DLT, as India attempts to balance a commitment to be globally integrated with a commitment to protect TK that embodies Indigenous creativity.

The Evolution of Industrial Design and the Cultural Implications in India

Over the past couple of years, the industrial design ecosystem in India has witnessed rapid growth, especially attributable to MSMEs and design-based startups. According to the 2024 WIPO report, India is now in the global top ten for patents, trademarks, and designs, with filers reporting a 36.4% increase in industrial design filings in 2023. Much of this increase exemplifies the trajectory of India’s innovation abilities and investment in digital IP infrastructure. However, India also confronts a significant challenge: how to protect traditional knowledge and indigenous forms of design within this rapid marketplace evolution.

India has a considerable inventory of traditional cultural expressions including Madhubani and Warli style art and textile designs. Nonetheless, legal protection of traditional cultural expressions is still largely limited to the fragmented protections provided by the Geographical Indications of Goods Act, 1999 and the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL). As the culture of design expands its possibilities for activity, India must think through providing procedural modernization with a moral obligation to the protection of traditional creativity.

Disclosure of Traditional Knowledge: The Central Dilemma

The DLT allows contracting parties to “require” applicants to disclose traditional knowledge incorporated in design applications but does not mandate it. This optionality creates uneven global protection. Some countries may implement strong disclosure systems, while others may not, allowing appropriation of Indian traditional designs without acknowledgment or benefit-sharing.

This inconsistency undermines India’s ability to prevent unauthorized use of traditional motifs in other countries. Designs based on Indian TK could be registered in jurisdictions with lower standards for disclosure, making it hard to use Indian laws to pursue any legal option if a design is misappropriated. Further, since this disclosure option is not mandatory, it weakens India’s position at WIPO’s IGC-GRTKF, where India has been an advocate for mandatory disclosure.

India also needs to find a way to impose stringent domestic disclosure standards under India’s amended Designs Act, but it also needs to press for stronger international TK protections.

Legislative Implications of the Designs Act, 2000

India’s acknowledgment of the DLT will require significant amendment of the Designs Act, 2000 to align domestic processes with treaty obligations. Proposed changes include amending Section 5 (allow for multi-design applications), amending Section 44 (to incorporate electronic records and licensing), and amending the Act to add TK disclosure.

1. Multi-Design Applications

The multi-design approach of the treaty will affect application processes and fee structures significantly. This will lessen the administrative burden, but may also obscure individual designs, particularly where there are TK-based designs. Lawmakers will have to weigh efficiency against thorough examination to effectively address cultural appropriation.

2. Digital Infrastructure

Mandatory electronic record-keeping will increase transparency, but it comes with concerns regarding data privacy, community consent, and the potential for misuse of digitized traditional designs. A national TK-based motif database will be useful to conduct searches of prior art. However, it must take seriously the ethical management of data and community oversight.

3. Disclosure and Community Rights

India must define when disclosure is required, how consent of the community will be procured, and how benefit-sharing will be enforced. These will include clear definitions, evidentiary standards, and procedures that ensure notice to community members, as well as an opportunity to challenge unauthorized registrations.

4. Enforcement and International Cooperation

Robust enforcement with penalties for non-disclosure, the ability to challenge after registration, and cross-border cooperation will determine the success of India’s legislative scheme. These factors will service domestic and international processes, while still embedding India’s cultural priorities.

Building a Culturally Aligned Future

India’s accession to the DLT presents both opportunities and challenges. The optional disclosure system should not be seen as a limitation, but as an opportunity to develop a model for cultural protection and innovation. India should set a global standard by merging IP modernization with cultural heritage protection through mandatory TK disclosure in domestic legislation.

The establishment of Traditional Design Registers, community-led databases inspired by the People’s Biodiversity Registers under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, will support documentation of indigenous designs, assist prior art searches, and enable community participation in the IP system.

The benefit-sharing framework must provide equitable compensation to communities for commercialization of traditional designs. This may include royalty licensing, contributions to community development funds, or collaborative design initiatives that support sustainable cultural ecosystems.

India must also persistently drive international engagement for TK disclosure obligations through WIPO. By using its domestic framework as a model, India can influence global policy development. Capacity building, training initiatives, and skills monitoring will be critical to ensuring effective implementation and long-term cultural equity.

Conclusion

India becoming a party to the Riyadh Design Law Treaty is progressive in modernizing the design registration process and aligning with international standards. However, without appropriate safeguards, India may unintentionally contribute to the commodification of culture disguised as efficiency. The optimal approach lies in creating a legislative framework that balances procedural modernization with protection of vital national cultural elements, ensuring that India’s artistic traditions are preserved as they compete in the global market.