Instagram Filters and IP – Can AR FiltersViolate Design or Trademark Rights?

This article is the work of Kirti Rai Rayat Bahra University, Mohali ,University School of Law , BALLB (Hons.), 5th Year, while interning at LeDroit India.

Introduction

AR filters now play a key role in how we use social media. From silly dog ears to high-end brand- inspired overlays, Instagram filters are more than just fun extras—they serve as tools for marketing, self-expression, and at times, debate. As digital creativity grows so do legal issues—those related to intellectual property (IP).

One question often comes up: Can AR filters violate design or trademark rights? This piece explores thisfascinating overlap between social media innovation and IP laws, with a focus on India while also looking at examples from around the world.

What are AR Filters?

AR filters are digital add-ons that change a user’s picture or video. They use face detection and live rendering. Users, influencers, or brands often make these filters. You can find them on apps like Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok.

Some filters are fun and harmless. Others copy specific designs—like the Louis Vuitton Monogram, Nike Swoosh, or Cartier glasses. This brings up key questions: Is it against IP laws to use or make these filters without asking? Can they mix up or mislead buyers?

Getting to Know the Legal Rules

To figure out who’s responsible, we need to look at two main parts of IP:

1. Design Rights

Design rights protect how an item looks—not how it works, but its appearance. In India, this falls under: The Designs Act 2000 – This law protects new designs put on any item through factory methods.

2. Trademark Rights

Trademark rights guard signs, logos, shapes, or packaging that identify goods/services. In India, regulated by: The Trade Marks Act, 1999

Can AR Filters Infringe Design Rights?

Here’s how it breaks down:

1. Application of a Protected Design in Digital Space . A design eyewear brand such as Ray-Ban or Gucci could register the design of the shape of its sunglasses. If an AR filter is a reproduction of that design and superimposes it over a user’s face, it can duplicate the look of the protected design.

Whereas the Designs Act, 2000 only guards tangible items, courts can more often than not find the digital replicaof a registered design (such as in an AR filter) to be a reproduction.

Main Issue:

The Designs Act does not specifically mention digital replication, but the increasing use of 3D design in virtual commerce may push for broader interpretation.

2. Shortage of Physical Commercial Utilization

Some might cope with the fact that AR filters do not yield a physical product, they wouldn’t satisfy the “industrial application” criteria in Section 2 (d) of the Designs Act.

But, if an influencer applies a lookalike filter for digital promotion of a brand, courts may perceive this as indirect commercial exploitation.

Where Do AR Filters Stand In Terms Of Trademark Rights Violations?

Things start to escalate quite a bit here.

1. Employing Logos and Trademarks Without Authorization .The Chanel logo, the swoosh of Nike, and Apple’s bitten fruit logo are permanently stamped on people’s faces with AR filters. This may constitute trademark infringement in the face of unauthorized use.

Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, states that a registered trademark is infringed if: It is used in a manner that is likely to deceive or cause confusion. It takes unfair advantage of the reputation of the trademark.

Even in cases where the filter is not associated with selling products, it can: Create false information of brand aﬃliation with the customers.

Weaken the ability of the brand to be recognized as unique. Trademark Dilution and Tarnishment

When filters parody or alter a brand’s logo—like transforming the Nike swoosh into a banana shape—it canlead to trademark dilution. This is a legal issue that can arise even if there’s no actual confusion among consumers.

Tarnishment occurs when the use of a brand harms its reputation. If a filter depicts a brand in a negative light, this could also fall under dilution by tarnishment.

Alright — here’s your piece reworked into a more accessible, human-sounding legal article while keeping it in a legal-analysis format.

I’ve kept the structure clear for readers who may not be lawyers, but still expect credible, insightful content.

When Fun Turns into a Marketing Tool. Augmented reality (AR) filters aren’t just for goofy selfies anymore. They’ve evolved into serious marketing assets. Big brands roll out custom filters for seasonal campaigns, whileindependent creators sometimes design ones that look suspiciously similar to branded products.

Here’s the legal twist: if a luxury eyewear filter lets you “try on” frames identical to a registered design, that’sessentially free advertising — without the brand’s say-so. The risk? Users may believe the brand approved the filter, diverting attention from the actual product and its authorised channels.

The Global Enforcement Puzzle

Instagram is global. A filter might be created in Brazil, hosted on servers in the U.S., and used in India — so whose laws apply? A brand looking to act against infringement has to decide:

1. Which country’s IP laws give them the strongest case.

2. Whether they can afford to file in multiple jurisdictions.

3. How to work with Meta for worldwide takedowns. The reality: many companies focus on their home market and let other regions slide simply because global enforcement is expensive and messy.

Luxury’s Love Affair with Exclusivity — and the AR Threat

High-end brands thrive on the idea that not everyone can have what they sell. But if a Cartier bracelet is available as a free AR effect for millions to “wear,” the sense of rarity fades.

Even without a single fake bracelet being made, the brand’s aura — and in some cases its pricing power — can take a hit.

Platforms and Their Role in Prevention

Instagram’s Spark AR platform has IP rules, but enforcement is mostly reactive. Filters are usually reviewed only after a complaint lands.

A stronger system could include:

Scanning for registered designs and trademarks before publishing. Letting creators check their designs against a protected database. Requiring higher verification for accounts making branded content. Until platforms step up, most of the policing burden stays on brands.

The New Face of Consumer Confusion

Traditional trademark infringement happens at the point of sale. AR infringement is sneakier.

Someone sees an influencer using a brand-inspired filter and assumes it’s oﬃcial. Even if no purchase is made, that subtle brand association can have legal weight — especially if it shapes consumer behaviour later.

Not Just a Big Brand Problem

Independent designers are often hit harder. A jewellery design copied into a viral AR filter can reach millionsbefore the original designer even registers it. In some places, this early exposure kills the novelty needed for design registration, making enforcement nearly impossible.

Beyond Law: Cultural IP Concerns

AR filters don’t just copy commercial products — they can also lift cultural and traditional designs. Using indigenous art or tribal jewellery patterns without consent may not always breach registered IP, but it can still amount to cultural appropriation

Global Perspective: How Other Jurisdictions Handle This United States

The Lanham Act protects against unauthorized trademark use that can cause confusion, mistakes, or deception.

For instance, in the case of Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Hyundai Motor America (2012), the use of LV marks in an advertisement was found to potentially mislead consumers.

If a filter gives the impression of false endorsement, it can be considered infringing.

European Union

In the EU, the Design Directive and the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) hold that digital uses affecting a trademark’s distinctiveness can be liable for infringement.

The 2023 EUIPO guidelines also acknowledge digital representations in virtual spaces, which means IP protection now extends into the metaverse and augmented/virtual reality.

Defences Available

1. Fair Use / Nominative Use

In some areas, filters that simply reference a brand without misleading users—like a quiz asking, “Which luxury brand are you?”—might qualify for fair use.

However, this defense has limitations in India. For registered trademarks, even non-commercial use could infringe if there’s a likelihood of confusion.

2. Parody and Artistic Expression In the United States, parody is frequently protected as free speech under the First Amendment. Filters that satirically make fun of a brand, for instance, might be protected. Although Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (freedom of expression) may provide some protection, India’s trademark law lacks a clear statutory parody defense. Platform Liability and Instagram Third- party creators are typically given access to filter creation tools by platforms such as Meta, the parent company of Instagram. Do they have any legal responsibility? IT Rules’ Safe Harbour Intermediaries are exempt from liability for third-party content under India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, if they: Serve only as a platform. After being informed, remove any content that is infringing.

Instagram is required to take down an infringing filter as soon as a brand reports it in order to maintain its safe harbor protection. — Examples of Cases and Prior Decisions 1. Luxury Brands’ Bans on FaceFilter Filters that mimic their products have been subject to takedown requests from luxury brands such as Burberry and Dior, particularly when the filters become popular among influencers. 2. Gucci Filter and TikTok TikTok was asked to take down a filter with a Gucci belt in 2021 after the brand accused the app of using its logo and design without permission. These instances show that brands are becoming more watchful of how their intellectual property is used, even in transient digital content. — Consequences for Creators and Influencers Influencers and creators may inadvertently employ infringement filters without intending to profit. But when they apply these filters in:

BRAND COLLABORATIONS

Sponsered posts Ad campaigns

If they aid in the misuse of intellectual property, they might be held accountable. Best Practice: Always confirm the IP clearance and source of filters used for advertising. Work together with brands or creators who have been verified. — Future Direction: Regulation in the AR Era 1. Revising Intellectual Property Laws for the DigitalEra AR and VR are not specifically covered by India’s IP laws. Reforms in the future could: Add digital copies to the list of design infringements. Give immersive and virtual experiences trademark protection. 2. Presenting Unambiguous Guidelines India might profit from sector-specific advisories on digital content and intellectualproperty, much like EUIPO’s metaverse guidelines. 3. Digital IP literacy and public awareness It is necessary to educate users and creators about: What is considered trademark or design infringement? the dangers ofunauthorized use of brand-inspired filters.

Conclusion

The rapid development of AR filters on Instagram and other platforms has blurred the lines between art, branding and IP infringement, and it seems that although legislation likely did not contemplate these uses of technology, courts and regulators may be progressively working to catch up.

Are AR filters infringing either design or trademark rights? The answer is yes – sometimes, this is entirely contingent on its use, whether any infringing intentions is proven, and perceptions of differences by consumers.

In the era where we are undoubtedly moving towards a digital avatar existence, branding in the metaverse,and an era of virtual personhood, it is important for our laws to adjust to at least not only permit suchinnovation, but to also protect originality and brands in the new digital economy.