Auyhored By: Angelina Josephine C J
Government law College Thiruvananthapuram
ABSTACT
This research explores an in-depth analysis of intellectual property crime has evolved into a multi-faceted, sophisticated organised crime syndicate over the years. Inherently a commercialized tort has metamorphosed, threatening national security and fiscal stability. Ministry of Finance’s detection of ₹41,664 crore in GST fraud (2025-26) and INTERPOL’s Operation Liberterra III has reflected upon counterfeited commerce provides economic and material benefits towards money laundering and transnational activities in the recent years. Behavioural analysis, supported by the Lyu & Wang (2025) study emphasises on the psychological exploitation of status driven culture subsidising violent illicit activities, confirmed by UNODC. With the evolving criminal tactics, judicial remedies like John Doe order and investigative rigour and machineries must be amplified to an exceptional level in order to tackle challenges ahead.
INTRODUCTION
The global fashion industry is an ever-changing field built on luxury. It has emerged itself as a business icon valued at approximately $1.84 trillion in 2025[1]. Such commercialization depends heavily on commodifying creativity, where each commodity carrying a price tag, derives its value from brand equity[2] projecting an intangible spirit of uniqueness[3], prestige, heritage and the inevitable reputation the brand has built upon for years.
”Law, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action; and is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational.”[4]
Every aspect of life must be subjected to law. In this way, uniformity in dispute resolution and delivering justice can be effectively enforced. Therefore, luxury must be integrated into the facet of legal jurisprudence to protect the status of every commodity possessing their own intrinsic characteristics. This can prevent entities from misusing the very nuance that makes each respective commodities distinct, promoting a healthy and balanced coexistence of businesses built on mutual trust, fairness, cooperation and understanding. There has been a significant increase in Superfakes, dupes, grey markets, rip offs and even AI deep fake collaborations. They violate the intellectual property rights such products must uphold. In order to facilitate this, Lanham Act[5] was introduced in 1946 to protect trademark rights. It provides civil remedies to brands, where criminal rights may seemingly refrain from deterrence.
But it is not just limited to the violation of company’s rights. There’s an increasing trend in counterfeit products sold throughout the world, in physical stores, online and even on the notorious dark web. This subtly enters into the realm of criminal aspect – counterfeiting. In such cases criminal law regarding organised crimes involving counterfeiting of fashioned, luxurious goods remains obsolete and silent. Due to the difficulty in traceability when digital trails remain wiped out completely, investigation stagnates. This facilitates the continuation of such criminal acts.
But an obvious reason often many miss out is that since effective laws are incompetent in execution, money acquired from counterfeiting are extensively used for aiding terrorist activities[6]. Therefore, fashion crimes are subsumed under a wider umbrella of anti societal threats which many remain unaware of.
BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
There’s a difference between trademark infringement and trademark counterfeiting. The former is about making or selling something that has attributes similar in nature to the original.
For example, if ‘prado’ is sold for ‘Prada’, such an act constitutes trademark infringement. They are confusingly similar which cajole the average buyer to opt for it with a view of similarity in its physical nature. However, such practices are detrimental to the consumer as well as the manufacturer. S. 29(1) of Trade Marks Act 1999[7] uses the deceptive similarity test to identify rip-offs from the original. This section is applicable to every brand. But 29(4)[8] offers exclusive protection to well-known brands like Chanel and Hermès even if it is used upon a completely different product. In the US, the Lanham Act provides protection under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 if a brand’s logo has been used on another product without their permission.
In trademark counterfeiting the product is faked on a substantial level to mimic the original. Under s. 102 of trade Marks Act 1999, Falsifying a trademark attracts its penalty under section S.103. The deterrence is higher for counterfeiting due the involvement of mens rea. In the US the damages often received are 2 million along with potential jail sentence. The gravity is higher because it is a crime against the society at large affecting the public exchequer and economic exploitation of a country[9] by the booming black-market sectors. Their operations pose a challenge to collect Goods and services tax and custom duties duly paid. It is evident that this inadvertently affects the national economy. Using the infrastructure of a country to aid in unlawful and illegal acts without Tax payment amounts to theft. To prevent this, such acts are considered as the highest form of crime and shall also be liable to punishment accordingly.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
John doe order
Usually in a civil lawsuit, the name of the defendant and their address is crucial for the procedures. But in trademark infringement/ counterfeiting cases, the seller’s name may or may not be known. To prevent such hindrance, the Indian law introduced John Doe order or Ashok Kumar order
- Origin: Joe Doe was a fictional character created in medieval England to sue those who were illegally ejecting lessees. This was extended to a later case Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd 1976[10], where a court conducted a surprise search into a factory premise without prior suit or other civil procedure keeping in mind the apprehension of evidence being tampered on notice. In India the name is replaced with Ashok Kumar, a widely familiar name in India. This was done in the case Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal (2002).[11]
- Process: The Court appoints a neutral lawyer called local commissioner LC[12]. LC along with the brands lawyer and with the help of police carry out a surprise raid onto the premise in question. They are incumbent with the legal authority to search and seizure[13] of infringed/ counterfeited items and inventory accounts. In the code of civil procedure 1908, order 39 and section 151 deals with this procedure.
- Cases: in a recent case Rahul Mishra & Anr. v. John Doe & Anr[14], Delhi HC in January 2025 allowed a John Doe order for the counterfeited Sundarbans and Tigress couture collections. The well-known Hermès International v. Macky Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd[15] Delhi High court on November 2025 ruling stated that the consumer need not be confused for the similarity if the counterfeiting is done on a well-known brand. In Fabindia Limited v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors[16] multiple anonymous sellers or e-commerce can be taken down as a measure against digital piracy for commercialising unauthorised products.
Black market
Such trademark practices on a large scale seldom come under organised crime under s. 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 as an economic offence defined in 111(iii), where any group of people are acting in concert as organised crime syndicates[111(ii)]. They carry out continuing unlawful acts. This comes under the purview of black market.
Earlier, from a small-scale organised crime, it has evolved into a sophisticated multibillion dollar shadow economy still beyond the judicial reach. A persistent component involved is counterfeited goods inter alia drugs, human trafficking, weapons, illicit goods and services, cybercrimes and so on. Such markets are different from traditional or e-commerce. To avoid John Doe orders, players have strategically moved away from public domains. Laws focus on the physical item rather than on the financial regulations. Many fake end products can be purchased only through crypto wallets or by using referrals or membership to access the domain. It is safe to say law has trailed behind the tactics employed by the fake sellers.
Some reports and analysis confirm the impact counterfeit products have created:
- In 2025–26, the Indian government detected over 24,109 cases of fake GST invoices, with nearly ₹41,664 crore at risk.[17] That is 18% to 28% (luxury product slab) of GST that could have been deposited in the public exchequer has been sealed away with the parallel market.
- In 2026 a report from OECD ‘From Fakes to Forced Labour’ proved a direct link between counterfeited trade and the prevalence of child and forced labour[18].
- UNODC has confirmed that profits from fake luxury goods fund transnational crimes including narcotics and human trafficking.[19]
CASE LAW DISCUSSION
Louis Vuitton v. Harshit & Ors. (2025)[20]
The Louis Vuitton v. Harshit & Ors (2025) is a major example for the tiered operations masking various unlawful activities under the guise of fake luxury products. Investigations into a Haryana-based manufacturing hub revealed such an operation. A manufacturing hub for fake Louis Vuitton products was traced and arrested managers who were in operation. The crackdown discovered beneficial owners remained insulated through offshore shell companies. They were layered to fund real estate scams. This case marks a significant judicial shift from treating counterfeiting as a mere trademark infringement to identifying it as a sophisticated socio-economic offence affecting the vast majority of people as well. The legal breakthrough occurred as authorities moved beyond physical inventory seizure under the John Doe order to trace the proceeds of crime. It was discovered that illicit profits were being layered to finance real estate scams, necessitating a transition from Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).[21] This precedent confirms that modern counterfeiting is a financial crime. The correlation between section 103 of trademarks act 1999 and application of Prevention of money laundering act proves the disturbing reality it shadows.
The 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.”
Eroding the fabric of the national economy also poses another serious question – Terrorism. It is appropriate to question where anti national activities are a looming danger for the economic security of the country.
Operation Liberterra III
An Interpol led global operation led to 3,744 arrests across 119 countries exposing the very structural relationship between the immoral practices like human trafficking, migrant smuggling and illicit trade and trade in counterfeited luxury commodities. The movement of irregular migrants were coupled with the movement of counterfeited products, which incidentally aids in such acts financially. [22]
This operation proved itself to be an integrated system which survives on capital acquired from such products to subsidise operation of transnational crimes.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
There arose a crucial question that – why counterfeited commerce is prevalent among other illegal activities like narcotics and human trafficking in the black market? There’s 2 aspects that must be looked into which makes the fashion industry prone to exploitations.
Social aspiration for status
Humans being a social creature thrives on acceptability and status received from the society.
In 2026 luxury consumers are purchasing to attain the status signalling. Despite the actual authenticity of the product, consumers look for gratifying their psychological reward of fitting in. In a recent study by Lyu & Wang, in 2025, explored how consumers look for status attainment over the substance of the commodity purchased. In those who care less about the craft of the product, 70% are more likely to buy super fakes. [23]
Artificial scarcity
The fashion industry purposefully fixes a higher price to project exclusivity among a select few. This is called price skimming. Along with price, a quota is fixed. This inadvertently creates a safe gap for the black market because their offer is accessible through a reduced price or availability, over quality.
Social media
Social media enforces moral neutrality in buying counterfeited items without worrying about the legal aspects and underlying dangers in such practices. Influences impose a sense of social standing on the viewers which they ought to mimic, ignoring the consequences that entail.
Gravity of offence
It is easier to take advantage of human psychological weakness rather than committing dacoity or robbery. The gravity of punishment is also questionable when the operation is limited from judicial overreach.
If a crime syndicate smuggled cocaine worth of 1 million compared to smuggling fake Louis Vuitton bags worth of 1 million, the differences in punishment reflects on the underlying mentality they possess to carry out counterfeited trade. In Indian courts the mentality to view trademark crimes as commercial disputes rather than a criminal offence leading to weaker punishments, resonates a revamp in jurisprudence.
Potential terrorism
The Delhi court’s observation “repercussions on the fabric of the national economy”[24] is highly concerning. A crime syndicate operationalising upon the money acquired by selling counterfeited products is aiding another extremely serious crime against the people and the state – Terrorism. This is a historic parallel to the demonetisation in 2016. The government of India identified the critical apprehension of fake 1000 and 500 rupees notes distributed cross-border.
Hindrances to be resolved
To combat problems Sections 101–103 of trade marks act 1999, provides punitive actions. Alongside, a first-time offender may face a minimum of 6 months to 3 years in prison, and shall be liable to a fine of ₹50,000 to ₹2 Lakhs.
Under Section 115, a police officer not below the rank of DSP can search and seize counterfeit goods without a warrant, essentially a cognizable offence. On the civil side Section 135 allows court to grant injunctions, damages or delivery up, that is seizing the counterfeited goods for destruction.
But the application is often reactive, not disruptive. Under Section 115(4), a police officer must obtain the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks before conducting a raid while technological advancements have proved its agility far beyond the reach of traditional law enforcements.
CONCLUSION
Resolving such issues will grant speedy response and effectiveness in carrying out investigations and punitive reforms.
- Maximum punishment must be ensured to the accused to ensure such offences are not carried out in furtherance
- Time is the essence of many organised crimes.
Investigation requiring opinion from registrar of trade Marks possesses time lag in conducting raids. This inadvertently help the perpetrators escape through the faultlines created by the very system which ought to eradicate this menace
- Sometimes law lags behind society. Police, ED and other investigation agencies come across limits to the accessibility into digital trails left in hawala transactions, front business and smurfing. It is time to revamp the existing technological machineries towards tackling evolved continuing unlawful activities in the field of fashion industry and vindicate them with the enhanced criminal procedures and punitive measures
- Societal approach: A universal trend has been inculcated to justify purchase of counterfeited goods. This adopted approach must be recognised as a detrimental step towards tainting our identity and national sovereignty. Law enforcements must recognise a wider range of threats masked inside a rather harmless anomaly.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. Table of Cases
Indian Jurisprudence
- Fabindia Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar, CS(COMM) 861/2023, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7721
- Hermes Int’l v. Macky Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8581
- Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Harshit, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1938
- Rahul Mishra v. John Doe, CS(COMM) 1194/2024, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8560
- Taj Television v. Rajan Yadav, (2002) 24 PTC 341 (Del)
II. Statutes & Parliamentary Materials
- The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, No. 12 of 2017
- The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No. 5 of 1908
- The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, No. 15 of 2003
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999, No. 47 of 1999
III. Reports & International Materials
- FICCI CASCADE, Decoding the Journey of GST Reforms: GST and Its Effect on Economy, Business and Household Consumption (Sept. 18, 2025).
- INTERPOL, Global Operation Safeguards 4,400 Potential Trafficking Victims, Detects 13,000 Irregular Migrants (Jan. 26, 2026), https://www.interpol.int/News-and-Events/News/2026/Global-operation-safeguards-4-400-potential-trafficking-victims-detects-13-000-irregular-migrants.
- OECD/EUIPO, From Fakes to Forced Labour: Evidence of Correlation Between Illicit Trade in Counterfeits and Labour Exploitation (2026), https://doi.org/10.1787/540dc43e-en.
- N. Office on Drugs and Crime, Transnational Organized Crime: The Globalized Illegal Economy (2026), https://www.unodc.org/toc/en/crimes/organized-crime.html.
IV. Secondary Sources (Journals & Articles)
- Lyu, J. & Wang, Y., The Illusion of Status: Decoding the Consumption of ‘Superfakes’ in the Digital Age, 42 J. CONSUMER BEHAV. 114 (2025).
- GST Fraud Alert: India Uncovers 24,109 Fake Invoice Cases in FY 2025-26, SAG Infotech Blog (Dec. 11, 2025), https://blog.saginfotech.com/gst-fraud-alert-india-uncovers-24109-fake-invoice-cases-fy-2025-26.
- Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Finance, Measures to Curb GST Evasion (Dec. 9, 2025), https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2081234.
[1] Statista, ‘Global Apparel Industry Statistics: Market Size and Trends (2025)’ (23 May 2025) https://www.uniformmarket.com/statistics/global-apparel-industry-statistics accessed 7 March 2026.
[2] David A Aaker, Managing Brand Equity (Free Press 1991).
[3] Scafidi C, ‘Fiat Fashion Law! The Design Piracy Prohibition Act’ (2006) 59 Stanford Law Review 77.
[4] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (first published 1765-69, 1809 edn)
vol 1, 38.
[5] Lanham Act (1946) 15 USC §§ 1051-1141n.
[6] OECD/EUIPO, Trends in Trade in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods (OECD Publishing 2019)
[7] The Trade Marks Act, 1999, S. 29(1)
[8] The Trade Marks Act, 1999, S. 29(4)
[9]Tarun Khurana, India’s Stand on Counterfeit Goods, Khurana & Khurana (Apr. 15, 2022),
[10] Anton Piller KG v. Mfg. Processes Ltd. [1976] Ch 55 (CA)
[11] Taj Television Ltd. v. Rajan Mandal, [2003] F.S.R. 22 (Del. HC)
[12] The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXVI, Rule 9
[13] The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX, Rule 7
[14] 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 3
[15] 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8581
[16] 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7721
[17] GST Fraud Alert: India Uncovers 24,109 Fake Invoice Cases in FY 2025-26, SAG Infotech Blog (Dec. 11, 2025),
[18] OECD/EUIPO, From Fakes to Forced Labour: Evidence of Correlation Between Illicit Trade in Counterfeits and Labour Exploitation (2026), https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/from-fakes-to-forced-labour_540dc43e-en/full-report/component-7.html
[19] U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, Transnational Organized Crime: The Globalized Illegal Economy (2026), https://www.unodc.org/toc/en/crimes/organized-crime.html.
[20] 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1938
[21] The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, (15 of 2003)
[22] INTERPOL, Global Operation Safeguards 4,400 Potential Trafficking Victims, Detects 13,000 Irregular Migrants (Jan. 26, 2026), https://www.interpol.int/News-and-Events/News/2026/Global-operation-safeguards-4-400-potential-trafficking-victims-detects-13-000-irregular-migrants.
[23] Lyu, J. & Wang, Y., The Illusion of Status: Decoding the Consumption of ‘Superfakes’ in the Digital Age, 42 J. CONSUMER BEHAV. 114 (2025).
[24] Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Harshit, CS(COMM) 214/2025
