India

Criminal enforcement is widely used in India because it enables search, seizure, and arrest through police action and is often faster in disrupting counterfeit supply chains than civil suits.

In the case of trade marks and copyright particularly, proceedings typically begin with a complaint filed by the rights holder. The police register a First Information Report (FIR), conduct search and seizure operations, arrest accused persons, and file a charge sheet before a judicial magistrate. Criminal enforcement is widely used because it enables swift disruption of counterfeit supply chains through raids and seizure.

Criminal enforcement is available in cases of trade mark infringement and copyright piracy, whereas enforcement of patent and design rights in India is confined exclusively to civil remedies.

Criminal offences under Indian IP law

Criminal offences under the TM Act:

• Section 102. Falsifying and falsely applying trade marks.
• Section 103 and Section 104. Penalty for applying a false trade mark and penalty for selling goods with a false trade mark; includes imprisonment of six months to three years and a fine of INR 50,000 to INR 2,00,000 (approximately USD 550 to 2,200).

Criminal offences under the Copyright Act:

• Section 63. Knowingly infringing copyright. Penalty includes imprisonment of six months to three years and a fine of INR 50,000 to INR 2,00,000 (approximately USD 550 to USD 2200).
• Section 65A and 65B. Circumvention of technological protection measures and removal of rights management information.

Criminal offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Provisions relating to cheating, fraud, and counterfeiting property marks may apply in commercial counterfeiting cases, specifically section 349 which deals with selling goods marked with a counterfeit mark. Penalty may include imprisonment for one year, a fine, or both.

Burden of proof

• The burden of proof lies upon the prosecution in order to prove falsification or unauthorised use of the mark “beyond reasonable doubt”.
• Statutory presumptions assist enforcement — once falsification is shown, the burden shifts to the accused to show lawful authority.
• Police typically seek a registrar’s opinion on trade mark authenticity before proceeding with seizure.

Rights holder involvement

Rights holders in criminal enforcement proceedings are typically expected to:

• file a complaint with the police;
• provide registration certificates;
• give technical product identification support;
• assist during raids and inventory verification; and
• provide expert statements.

Disposition of goods

• Seized goods are inventoried, sealed, and kept in police custody pending trial, and are produced before the magistrate and used as evidence during criminal proceedings.
• Courts typically direct destruction of counterfeit goods, labels, and manufacturing tools to prevent re-entry into the market. However, if no infringement is proven, courts may order release of seized goods to the lawful owner.

While India has designated commercial courts for civil IP disputes, criminal IP cases are handled by regular criminal courts.

Statutes primarily governing IP enforcement include the TM Act, Copyright Act, Patents Act, and Designs Act.

Procedural laws governing IP enforcement include the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Courts involved in civil IP suits

India has specialised IP divisions and benches within select high courts and commercial courts for efficient handling of IP disputes.

• IP rights disputes are adjudicated by designated commercial courts at the district level, or commercial divisions of high courts for matters with higher pecuniary value.
• High courts (original jurisdiction): several high courts (Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and Himachal Pradesh) hold original jurisdiction over IP matters and have established specialised IP divisions to manage IP rights matters.

Rights of IP owners

IP owners can:

• Sue for infringement and passing off, under the relevant law.
• Seek urgent interim relief without notice (ex parte).
• Request seizure and preservation of infringing goods and records.
• Obtain disclosure orders against sellers and intermediaries.

Rights holders can best protect themselves and their intellectual properties to be in the best position to utilise available civil remedies in the following ways:

• Maintain valid IP registrations, which provide statutory rights and make enforcement easier.
• Regularly monitor marketplaces, online platforms, and competitors to detect infringement early.
• For trade marks, keep records of adoption, first use, registration certificates, licensing agreements, invoices, advertisements, and sales figures to prove ownership and goodwill.
• Send legal notices to stop infringement early. Collect infringing samples, screenshots, invoices, and website data to support civil actions before courts.
• Record registered trade marks and copyrights with Indian Customs to prevent import/export of counterfeit goods.

These steps place rights holders in a strong legal position to seek injunctions, damages, and seizure of infringing goods through civil enforcement.

Courts in India grant a wide range of remedies, including:

• Interim and permanent injunctions, including, ex parte ad interim
• Anton Piller orders (court-appointed commissioners to search and seize).
• John Doe/Ashok Kumar orders (against unknown defendants).
• Preservation and sealing of goods and records.
• Delivery up and destruction of counterfeit goods and packaging.
• Damages or rendition of accounts.
• Costs of litigation.
• Punitive/exemplary damages (in appropriate cases).

In terms of damage/loss of profits remedies, Indian courts may award:

• Actual damages based on proven loss or account of defendant’s profits (alternative to damages).
• Punitive/exemplary damages in wilful counterfeiting cases or nominal damages where proof is limited but infringement is clear.
• Costs awards — often partially compensatory in commercial IP matters.

In Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Capital General Store [CS(COMM) 469/2021, order dt. February 3, 2023], a judge of the Delhi High Court observed that “counterfeiting is an extremely serious matter, the ramifications of which extend far beyond the confines of the small shop of the petty counterfeiter. It is a commercial evil, which erodes brand value, amounts to duplicity with the trusting consumer, and, in the long run, has serious repercussions on the fabric of the national economy. A counterfeiter abandons, completely, any right to equitable consideration by a court functioning within the confines of the rule of law. He is entitled to no sympathy, as he practices, knowingly and with complete impunity, falsehood and deception.”

Amongst many others, recently, in an appeal involving sale of counterfeit engine oil in the matter of Castrol Limited v. Vivek Pratap Singh [FAO(OS)(COMM) 77/2025, order dt. December 4, 2025], a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court held that “use of counterfeit motor oil is not merely injurious to the appellant’s intellectual property rights; it has the pernicious possibility of resulting in loss of life and limb. The Court has to adopt a policy of zero tolerance in such cases.”

These cases reflect the firm and uncompromising stance taken by courts in India against sale of counterfeit products.

India treats the sale and distribution of grey market goods as follows:

• International exhaustion doctrine. Once genuine goods are lawfully sold anywhere with the trade mark owner’s consent, their import and resale in India cannot be restricted on trade mark grounds.
• Grey market goods generally lawful. Parallel import and resale of genuine goods is not illegal per se. Liability arises if goods are materially altered, mandatory Indian labelling/regulatory requirements are not met, or consumers are misled about warranty, origin, or authenticity.
• No criminal liability. Sellers are not criminally liable solely for parallel importation.

Several non-IP statutes in India also regulate and penalise the manufacture, sale, and distribution of counterfeit goods, particularly to protect consumers, public safety, and market integrity:

• Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Prohibits unfair trade practices.
• Customs Act. Enables border enforcement against counterfeit imports and exports.
• Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Penalises falsification of packaging, labelling, and misrepresentation of origin, quantity, or manufacturer details, which are common in counterfeit goods.
• Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Criminalises manufacture and sale of spurious or counterfeit drugs and cosmetics.
• Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India regulates and penalises counterfeit or unsafe food products, including seizure, license cancellation, and prosecution.
• Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016. Unauthorised use of certification marks, such as the ISI mark, is punishable. The Bureau of Indian Standards can seize non-compliant counterfeit goods.

India offers brand owners the option to pursue both criminal and civil enforcement against counterfeiting and trade mark/copyright infringement. These routes are often used in parallel, and each has distinct procedural features, advantages, and practical challenges.

The choice of route typically depends on the rights holder’s objectives — whether immediate market disruption or long-term injunctive control is the priority.

Benefits of criminal enforcement

• Criminal enforcement is widely used in Indian anti-counterfeiting practice because it enables rapid coercive action through the police.
• Search and seizure operations can be conducted against manufacturers, warehouses, and retailers, often resulting in immediate disruption of counterfeit supply chains.
• The availability of arrest, seizure of stock and machinery, and the threat of imprisonment creates a strong deterrent value. Criminal complaints can be effective where counterfeit operations are organised, large-scale, or repeat in nature.
• Police raids, particularly with prior investigation and rights holder assistance can secure physical evidence that is later useful in civil proceedings as well.

Challenges of criminal enforcement

• Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt and depend heavily on police resources, technical understanding, and local enforcement priorities. Timelines to final conviction can be long.
• Procedural safeguards such as obtaining the Registrar’s opinion on trade mark validity before seizure can add steps.
• Outcomes may vary by jurisdiction depending on enforcement capacity. Rights holders typically must remain closely involved by providing technical authentication support and documentation.

Benefits of civil enforcement

• Civil enforcement provides direct court-controlled remedies and is the primary route for obtaining injunctions and monetary relief. Indian commercial courts and IP-focused high court benches are experienced in granting urgent interim relief, including ex parte injunctions, search and seizure orders (through court commissioners), asset disclosure orders, and website blocking directions.
• Civil actions allow strategic targeting of manufacturers, distributors, marketplaces, and online intermediaries in a single proceeding.
• Courts can award damages, including punitive damages, or account of profits.
• Civil proceedings are particularly effective for brand protection strategy, online enforcement, and repeat-infringer control through continuing injunctions.

Challenges of civil enforcement

• Civil litigation involves court costs, court fees, and ongoing procedural management.
• While interim injunctions can be obtained quickly in strong cases, full trials and final damages determinations can take time.
• Recovery of awarded damages depends on the defendant’s traceability and financial capacity.

Counterfeiters in India have adopted more sophisticated and technology-enabled methods in recent years:

• Counterfeiters increasingly copy holograms, QR codes, barcodes, and packaging to make fake goods appear genuine.
• Fake or duplicated QR codes and serial numbers are used to bypass basic verification systems.
• Counterfeit goods are widely sold through e-commerce platforms, social media, and unauthorised websites, making tracing difficult.
• High-quality printing and imaging tools allow counterfeiters to closely replicate original product packaging.
• Counterfeit goods are inserted into legitimate distribution channels to avoid detection.

Measures to combat these methods include:

• Technologies such as radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, nano-optical features, and covert security markings help ensure product authenticity.
• Combining visible, hidden, and digital authentication features improves protection.
• Secure QR codes linked to centralised databases enable real-time product verification.
• Serialisation and traceability systems help identify counterfeit goods during distribution.
• Proactive monitoring of online platforms and consumer awareness help detect and prevent counterfeiting.

Legally, combatting these methods requires a layered approach: customs recordals, proactive online monitoring, test purchases, coordinated civil–criminal actions, court commissioner raids, platform takedowns, product authentication technologies, and supply-chain intelligence gathering. Courts increasingly support dynamic injunctions and disclosure orders to unmask repeat online offenders.

India has witnessed a clear and significant shift toward online and social-media driven counterfeit sales, while brick-and-mortar counterfeit markets remain active. Notable trends include a rise in counterfeit promotion through social media pages, reseller accounts, messaging application product catalogues (particularly WhatsApp and Telegram), and closed-group selling channels operating outside public view.

While live shopping and live commerce have been rapidly developing globally, India’s live commerce ecosystem has not yet become a dominant mainstream retail channel comparable to markets like China.

Dupe culture has certainly contributed to the normalisation of counterfeit goods, particularly in fashion and accessories categories. Although not all consumers actively seek counterfeit goods, increased price sensitivity and broader economic pressures have contributed to a greater degree of consumer tolerance for lower-priced alternatives, including products that may infringe intellectual property rights.

India has not yet enacted a single comprehensive online marketplace liability statute, but regulatory tightening has been incremental and accelerating:

• IT Rules. Intermediaries must appoint a Resident Grievance Officer, a Nodal Contact Officer, and a Chief Compliance Officer, and must acknowledge IP-infringement takedown requests within 48 hours and act on them within 15 days. Non-compliance results in loss of safe harbour.
• Courts have been ahead of legislation in practice, consistently issuing platform-compliance and seller-disclosure orders that effectively impose liability-by-conduct on marketplaces that fail to cooperate.

There has been measurable procedural progress in India for rights holders pursuing financially focused anti-counterfeiting strategies:

• Commercial courts. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, has improved timelines and procedural efficiency in IP disputes. Commercial IP matters are now subject to time-bound timelines and summary judgment procedures.
• Punitive damages. Indian courts are increasingly willing to award punitive and exemplary damages in clear counterfeiting and trade mark infringement cases.
• Asset disclosure orders. Courts grant bank account disclosure orders, seller identity disclosure directions from e-commerce platforms, and consolidated proceedings against multiple defendants.
• Civil raids. Court-appointed commissioner proceedings and structured raid procedures have been more comprehensively standardised, improving evidence capture in support of damages claims.

Platforms that have been identified as particularly challenging for brand protection in India include online general marketplaces such as Meesho and IndiaMart; social media platforms including Instagram, and Facebook; video streaming platform YouTube; and instant messaging apps, including WhatsApp and Telegram.

Domain name disputes are handled through both international and domestic procedures:

• Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) (generic top-level domains (gTLDs)). Disputes relating to domains such as .com, .org, and .net are resolved under the UDRP administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center. Remedies include transfer or cancellation of infringing domain names.
• .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) procedure (.IN country code top-level domain (ccTLD)). Domain disputes involving .in domains are governed by the INDRP rules administered by the National Internet Exchange of India. Remedies include transfer of infringing domain names and costs.
• Court enforcement. Indian courts recognise domain names as protectable IP and allow civil suits for trade mark infringement and passing off. Courts may grant injunctions, including dynamic injunctions, domain suspension/blocking, and transfer orders.

Recent trends in this field include increase in cybersquatting, typosquatting, and domain names used for phishing, counterfeit sales, and impersonation, especially involving well-known brands.

There is an increase in fraudulent websites with typosquatting of well-known brands to appear legitimate. These domain names also include country name India and/or general terms such as “store”, “sale”, and “support”, and so on.

The expansion of the gTLD namespace has materially worsened the problem. New TLDs such as .shop, .store, .online, .site, .xyz, and country-code extensions including .in, .co.in, and .net.in provide counterfeiters with a near-unlimited supply of low-cost registration options, making comprehensive defensive registration economically unfeasible for most brands. Courts have responded by incorporating new-TLD blocking into dynamic injunctions, but the volume of domains requiring active monitoring has grown beyond what manual review can sustain.

Popular social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook, video streaming platforms such as YouTube, and instant messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Telegram have become key channels for counterfeiters, who create fake brand accounts, impersonate authorised sellers, and advertise counterfeit goods. Social media is often used as the initial point of consumer engagement, after which transactions are shifted to private messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram, making detection and enforcement more challenging.

The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) (such as Meta AI and Grok AI) has enabled counterfeiters to auto-generate brand-lookalike advertising creatives at scale, capitalising on low‑quality AI-generated content (“slop”), produce realistic product imagery, and fabricate customer reviews. These capabilities significantly lower the barrier to entry for bad actors and amplify the reach and credibility of counterfeit listings across social media.

Social media platforms remain a central tool for counterfeit sellers.

• Fake brand accounts are created using brand names and logos; for instance, counterfeit apparel sellers operated Instagram pages impersonating legitimate brands to promote duplicate products.
• Bad actors also operate through their own accounts, openly marketing products as “first copy” or counterfeits of well-known brands and offering them at significantly discounted prices.
• Short-form promotional videos and reels are used to market counterfeit products.
• Social media posts are used to initiate contact, after which buyers are redirected to WhatsApp or Telegram for order confirmation and payment.

Common methods used by bad actors to evade detection include:

• Counterfeit sellers frequently delete or abandon social media accounts after enforcement action and resume operations using newly created accounts.
• Use of slight spelling variations or modified brand logos to avoid automated detection and remain active on platforms such as Instagram.
• Moving consumer interactions to private messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, where transactions are completed outside public view.
• Avoiding public disclosure of supplier or location details, with operational information shared only privately, which makes identification and enforcement more difficult.
• Operating multiple backup accounts simultaneously so that business continuity is maintained even if one account is suspended.

Telegram’s channel and group infrastructure has emerged as the primary wholesale counterfeit-distribution channel in India, displacing earlier B2B-marketplace venues. Channels dealing in counterfeit products have subscriber bases numbering in the thousands. WhatsApp Business accounts are used for retail-level distribution. Both platforms’ end-to-end encryption hampers monitoring and interception efforts, and access to platform data can typically be obtained only pursuant to court orders.

In the last 12 months, some improvements have been made, for example, major platforms have strengthened IP enforcement tools:

• Amazon India has implemented tools such as the Brand Registry programme and Project Zero that help IP owners protect their IP, including providing access to Amazon’s “Report a Violation” tool, which permits IP owners to search Amazon’s catalogue with ease and deal with counterfeits.
• Flipkart has implemented Flipkart Brand Hub, which helps establish brand ownership supported by Flipkart’s Brand Assure programme, enabling structured reporting and resolution of IP infringements.

Conversely, there have also been certain hindrances to brand protection:

• Suspended sellers easily re-register across platforms (no cross-platform identity linkage).
• Private messaging platforms such as Telegram continue limited compliance with Indian disclosure orders.

Existing laws applicable to AI:

• The IT Act and the IT Rules primarily regulate AI-generated content. Section 66D addresses cheating by personation using computer resources, applicable to AI-generated impersonations and deepfakes. Section 79, along with the 2021 Intermediary Guidelines, places due diligence obligations on online platforms, requiring active monitoring and takedown of unlawful AI-generated content, including misinformation and harmful deepfakes.
• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, regulates the collection, processing, and use of personal data, which directly affects AI systems that rely on personal data for training or deployment.
• The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, safeguards consumers from unfair trade practices, misleading advertisements, and deficient services, and can be invoked where AI-enabled systems mis-sell financial products, misrepresent AI-driven health devices, or cause consumer harm through opaque e-commerce algorithms, with the Central Consumer Protection Authority empowered to order corrective advertising and impose penalties for misleading AI claims, including advanced dark patterns.

Government advisories and regulatory approach:

• In November 2025, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) released the India AI Governance Guidelines, focusing on safety, accountability, and fairness, utilising existing laws to guide AI development.
• Several sectoral bodies and technical bodies have been adopting an AI-specific framework, such as the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) Digital Lending Guidelines, to require transparency, consent, and accountability in automated decision making.

Prospective and evolving legal framework

India is considering broader digital legislation, including the proposed Digital India Act, which is expected to address emerging technologies such as AI, although no final draft has been proposed yet.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has not issued specific AI-use regulations for advocates. However, the general professional conduct obligations under the Advocates Act, 1961, and BCI Rules focus on traditional conduct such as maintain competency in the work they undertake, including independent verification of research, citations, and draft before filing as well as of maintaining confidentiality, amongst other things.

In February 2026, the Supreme Court took cognisance of use of an AI-generated non-existent judgment by a lower court and observed that it would constitute misconduct and legal consequence shall follow.

India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, regulates the processing of personal data, including data used by AI systems, and imposes obligations such as lawful use, purpose limitation, and data security on entities deploying AI. MeitY has also issued advisories requiring platforms using AI to ensure compliance with privacy and intermediary laws, particularly in preventing misuse of personal data and harmful AI-generated content.

There has been a strong emergence of deepfake-related issues in India with a noticeable increase in the misuse of brand names and public figures’ likenesses through AI-generated content on platforms such as Instagram and YouTube. These are often used in fake endorsements, misleading advertisements, or fraudulent promotional content.

Brand protection strategies typically include prompt monitoring and detection, issuance of takedown notices to platforms, enforcement under the IT Act and intermediary rules, and, where necessary, legal action seeking injunctions and removal of infringing content. These measures have proven effective in mitigating reputational harm and preventing further misuse.

While there is no standalone deepfake statute, rights holders have successfully pursued relief under personality and publicity rights, developed by Indian courts as a facet of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and the passing-off doctrine. Courts have granted urgent injunctions protecting an individual’s voice, image, and likeness against AI-generated misuse content and restrained further circulation.

India does not currently have a dedicated cryptocurrency statute, but cryptoassets are regulated through existing financial, taxation, and anti-money laundering laws.

• Under the Income Tax Act, 1961, amendments introduced through the Finance Act, 2022, classify cryptocurrencies as virtual digital assets (VDAs). Gains arising from the transfer of such assets are taxed at 30%, and a 1% tax deducted at source (TDS) is imposed on crypto transfers above the prescribed threshold.
• Crypto exchanges and other VDA service providers fall within the ambit of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Consequently, such entities are required to undertake Know Your Customer (KYC) verification, maintain transaction records, and report suspicious transactions to the relevant authorities.
• Proposed laws. The Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill (2021) was proposed to be tabled in Parliament to create a comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies; however, the bill has not yet been enacted. While the 2021 Bill is not available in the public domain, as per the Lok Sabha bulletin, the purpose of the 2021 Bill was to create an enabling framework for the official digital currency to be issued by the RBI.
• Central Bank Digital Currency. Separately, the Reserve Bank of India is developing a Central Bank Digital Currency known as the e-Rupee, representing a government-backed digital form of currency.

Digital piracy is addressed primarily under the Copyright Act and IT law frameworks.

• Copyright Act. Unauthorised streaming, uploading, or downloading of copyrighted content constitutes infringement under section 51, with criminal penalties under section 63 for commercial piracy; sections 65A–65B (2012 amendment) specifically target TPM circumvention and streaming piracy tools.
• Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023. Sections 6AA and 6AB prohibit camcording and online transmission of films without authorisation, with penalties of three months to three years’ imprisonment and fines up to 5% of production cost; authorities may also order blocking of infringing platforms.
• IT Act and IT Rules. Intermediaries must remove pirated content upon notice or court order to retain safe-harbour protection; courts routinely grant dynamic injunctions to block piracy websites.

Site-blocking injunctions are well established in Indian jurisprudence and routinely granted in content-piracy cases. The toolkit includes:

• ISP-level blocking. Courts direct internet service providers (ISPs) and the Department of Telecommunications to block infringing URLs, domains, and IP addresses.
• Dynamic injunctions. Orders extend to mirror and proxy sites; rights holders can submit updated lists for immediate blocking without fresh court proceedings.
• App-store delisting. Courts order platforms like Google Play Store and Apple App Store to remove piracy apps.

QR code abuse in India has grown into a significant vector for both consumer fraud and counterfeit product authentication fraud.

Specific abuse patterns observed:

• Reports and government data show a significant increase in QR code fraud and “quishing” (QR code phishing) in India. The Ministry of Finance informed Parliament that QR code fraud cases nearly doubled in two years, reaching about 39,638 cases in the 2023–24 financial, with financial losses rising to approximately INR 56.34 crore.
• According to CERT-In, the Indian government’s cyber-security agency, several cases involved scammers placing their own QR code stickers over original ones at parking meters, metro stations, or local stores. In 2024, CERT-In had also issued a nationwide alert over QR code-based, phishing, and fake VPN scams.
• Counterfeit websites mimicking a brand’s official product verification portal are indexed behind a fake QR code, consumers often see an “authentic” confirmation message regardless of whether the product is genuine. Sellers display a fake “brand official” Unified Payments Interface (UPI) QR code on counterfeit goods to collect payment while reinforcing the illusion of legitimacy.

Indian Customs border enforcement operates under a dual framework of rights-holder-activated recordal and customs-initiated ex officio action, governed by the Customs Act and the Customs IPR Rules.

• Recordal system. Registered trade mark owners, copyright holders, GI owners, and design owners may record their IP rights with Indian Customs through the ICEGATE portal using the Automated Recordation and Targeting System (ARTS). Once recorded, customs officers are obliged to suspend clearance of any consignment containing goods that prima facie infringe the recorded right, notify the rights holder and the importer, provide an inspection opportunity, and await confirmation before proceeding to forfeiture and destruction. A security bond is required from the rights holder at recordal to indemnify the importer against wrongful detention.
• Ex officio powers. Customs officers also have independent power to detain consignments suspected of infringing IP rights without a prior recordal, where the customs officer has reasonable grounds to believe a shipment contains counterfeit goods. In practice, ex officio action is most effective at major ports where customs officers have received brand-specific training or where intelligence tips from rights holders or foreign customs services flag a consignment.

Recent global disruptions, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and broader supply-chain shifts, have had measurable effects on border enforcement against counterfeit goods in India, though many of these impacts were operational rather than structural. The experience has produced both temporary disruptions and some longer-term institutional adjustments. Particularly during the pandemic, customs authorities had to operate with limited staff and health-related restrictions while still managing increasing volumes of essential goods.

Based on the Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs data, the categories of goods with the highest seizure volumes and growth rates include:

• Fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) and packaged foods. Particularly health supplement and protein supplement products.
• Apparel and footwear. Particularly sportswear and athleisure; strong demand and high brand price premium create counterfeiting incentives.
• Cosmetics, personal care, and skincare. Driven by the “masstige” market boom and social-media-driven demand for premium brands.
• Electronic accessories and mobile peripherals. Chargers, earbuds, cables — nearly impossible to distinguish visually; safety risks from non-compliant counterfeit chargers and batteries.

The process upon detention of a suspected consignment comprises:

• Detention notice. If customs finds prima facie evidence of infringement, it may suspend or detain the goods and inform the importer and the rights holder.
• Inspection. Customs may allow inspection of the detained goods by the rights holder and importer to determine whether they are counterfeit.
• Confirmation. Rights holders must confirm within a prescribed period whether goods are counterfeit. Failure to respond within the deadline results in automatic release of the consignment.
• Importer response. The importer may contest the detention; disputes are adjudicated by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Customs.
• Confiscation and disposal. On confirmation of infringement, the goods are confiscated and typically destroyed under rights holder’s and customs’ supervision.

Cost allocation. Storage, handling, and examination costs are initially borne by the importer. Destruction costs are shared between the rights holder and importer in practice, with customs sometimes bearing a portion. Rights holders may recover destruction costs from the importer through civil proceedings. The security bond deposited at recordal may be called upon if customs incurs costs attributable to wrongful detention.

Benefits of the system include:

• Prevents counterfeit goods from entering domestic circulation.
• Works at bulk shipment level which means high disruption value.
• Online recordal system.
• Customs increasingly experienced with IP enforcement.

Downsides of the system include:

• Requires active rights holder participation.
• Cost burden on rights holders.
• Effectiveness varies by port and officer training.
• Small parcel and courier shipments are harder to intercept.

Over the past few years, India’s border enforcement regime under the Customs IPR Rules, has strengthened through digital IP recordation systems, specialised IPR cells at major ports, and increased officer training.

Looking ahead, greater technological integration, data sharing, and targeted risk assessment are expected to improve enforcement. However, rising small-parcel e-commerce imports and limited inspection capacity may continue to hinder effective border control.

Customs is the first line of defence, detecting and seizing counterfeit goods at ports, airports, and land borders. Customs shares seizure details with rights holders and police for investigation, raids, and criminal prosecution.

Under rule 9 of the Customs IPR Rules, customs must provide the name and address of the importer to the rights holder upon request, and may also share additional relevant details of the suspended consignment (subject to confidentiality safeguards).

Under rule 10, customs must similarly provide the name and address of the rights holder to the importer, along with other relevant consignment information where appropriate.

The information may be used to determine infringement, support seizure/destruction proceedings, and initiate civil or criminal action. The information cannot be publicly disclosed or used for unrelated commercial purposes, and disclosure remains subject to protection of confidential information and due-process requirements.

The remedies that can be obtained against importers caught importing counterfeit products include:

• Seizure and confiscation. Customs can seize and confiscate counterfeit goods to prevent market entry.
• Destruction. Infringing goods may be destroyed under customs supervision.
• Penalties and fines. Importers can face monetary penalties for illegal import.
• Civil action. Rights holders may seek injunctions, damages, and delivery up of goods.
• Criminal prosecution. Importers may face fines and imprisonment for dealing in counterfeit goods.

India has an established framework for anti-counterfeiting training, with active brand participation; the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), through the National Academy of Customs, conducts IP-focused training for customs officers, and brands routinely provide product samples, authentication guides, and technical workshops to assist in identifying counterfeit goods. Brand representatives are often consulted during seizure and examination of detained consignments.