Fashion Counterfeiting in India: A Legal Perspective

Abstract

Fashion counterfeiting in India has emerged as a significant challenge to the fashion industry, undermining brand value and intellectual property rights. The rapid growth of fast fashion and social media has facilitated the widespread circulation of counterfeit fashion apparel and accessories. This article analyses fashion counterfeiting through a legal perspective, focusing on the intellectual property frameworks governing trademarks, copyrights, and design protection in India. Through a close analysis of judicial precedents such as Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj, it examines the judicial approach to fashion counterfeiting. Drawing on case law, the article evaluates India’s legal framework, judicial developments, and enforcement challenges, and highlights the need for more stringent laws and intellectual property protections to safeguard creativity and innovation in the fashion industry.

Keywords: Counterfeiting, Fashion Law, Trademarks, Intellectual Property, Online Marketplace

Introduction

Today’s fashion industry is dynamic and constantly evolving, shaped by emerging trends and external forces such as climate change and shifting political priorities. Fashion is one of the fastest-growing and most important contributors to the country’s economy. The global textile and apparel market is valued at over $1.9 trillion and continues to grow with rising demand for manmade fibers. India is the world’s second-largest producer of textiles and garments and its third-largest exporter, with the sector valued at $248.7 billion and employing 45 million people. The fashion industry accounts for around 2% of India’s GDP and approximately 11% of manufacturing Gross Value Added (GVA) as of February 2026, with more than 22,000 million garments produced annually. By 2030, the textile industry’s share of GDP is expected to more than double, reaching close to 5%. With exports currently ranging between $35 billion and $38 billion, India has set an ambitious Vision 2030 target of $100 billion, supported by trade agreements and market diversification. This underscores the immense economic significance of the fashion industry in the country.

The economic importance of the fashion industry rests on the innovative efforts of designers and artisans and the traditional knowledge that forms the foundation of this fast-evolving sector. Over the last two decades, the rise of social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook has fueled the growth of fast fashion — the bulk production of fashionable goods at low cost, often inspired by celebrities and popular runway trends. Influencers play a major role in driving demand for affordable fashion through “hauls,” where they showcase recent purchases and share purchase links with their audiences.

Fast fashion has had a significant impact on the industry. While it has made fashionable apparel more accessible and affordable, and has contributed to the industry’s rapid growth, it has also fueled the imitation and counterfeiting of original designs. Counterfeiting takes two forms: deceptive and non-deceptive. In deceptive counterfeiting, consumers are unaware that the goods are fake and believe them to be genuine branded products. In non-deceptive counterfeiting, consumers know the goods are unbranded duplicates but purchase them anyway because they are more accessible and considerably cheaper than the originals.

The Indian legal system protects the creativity, innovation, and intellectual property of the fashion sector primarily through four statutes: the Copyright Act, 1957, which protects original work and design drawings; the Trademarks Act, 1999, which protects brand names, logos, and unique packaging; the Designs Act, 2000, which protects the design of an article; and the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which protects products that originate from a specific region and possess a quality or reputation tied to that location. The core challenge lies in the ground reality of the fashion industry, where counterfeit products enter both physical and online markets, making it difficult to track and control imitation at scale.

This article examines these legal frameworks — the Copyright Act, 1957, the Designs Act, 2000, the Geographical Indications of Goods Act, 1999, and the Trademarks Act, 1999 — and evaluates how effective they are in combating fashion counterfeiting in the country. Through an analysis of case law and statutory frameworks, it aims to explain what fashion counterfeiting is, why it persists, and what its implications are for the fashion industry.

Decoding Fashion Counterfeiting: Concept, Causes and Consequences

Counterfeiting means producing an almost identical replica of an original good with the intent to deceive the consumer. Under Article 51 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 1994, counterfeit goods are defined as any goods, including packaging, bearing without authorization a trademark that is identical to a trademark validly registered for such goods, or that cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from that trademark, thereby infringing the rights of the trademark owner under the law of the country of importation. Counterfeit goods are often so similar to the originals that they become difficult to distinguish.

According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, counterfeiting is the crime of making an exact, fraudulent copy of something in order to deceive people into believing it is genuine.

Imitation occurs on a large scale in the fashion industry. For instance, clothing and accessories from popular brands are frequently imitated and sold at a fraction of their original prices, though often made with cheap, lower-quality materials that are highly susceptible to damage and wear. Another example is when local sellers copy the trademarks of immensely popular brands such as Gucci or Louis Vuitton and sell duplicate goods at low prices. The term “counterfeiting” is closely related to “knock-offs” and “fakes”: in knock-offs, goods are sold with the same design but under a different name, whereas in counterfeiting, goods are sold under the original brand name itself. Although imitation contributes to rapid growth in the industry, it raises significant legal and ethical questions.

Reflecting the nature of international trade, the trade in counterfeit goods forms a globally complex network that spans international borders, diverse legal systems, and competing policy priorities. Fashion counterfeiting offers fashionable looks at lower prices, making the industry more accessible and inclusive, and social media influencers and content creators help fast fashion reach larger audiences. However, it also costs millions of jobs, drains economies, and deprives governments of tax revenue. Counterfeiting exposes consumers to unsafe and potentially hazardous materials that bypass safety standards, and it indirectly supports unethical working conditions and the evasion of environmental regulations. Buying counterfeit goods also means forfeiting consumer protections such as after-sales service and warranties. Fashion counterfeiting is therefore a multifaceted challenge that may appear superficial and temporarily beneficial but carries long-term consequences that weaken the integrity of the industry.

Legal Protection Under Indian Law

Creators, designers, design houses, brands, and local artisans can seek protection for their work under four major Indian statutes: the Copyright Act, 1957; the Designs Act, 2000; the Trademarks Act, 1999; and the Patents Act, 1970. These four legislative frameworks form the pillars of fashion law in India.

A. The Copyright Act, 1957

The Copyright Act is crucial for safeguarding unique, creative expressions such as fashion sketches, fabric patterns, embroidery designs, and other visual creative works. It defines “artistic work” as a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving, or photograph, irrespective of artistic quality, and also includes works of architecture or artistic craftsmanship. A wide variety of clothing, accessories, and articles thus fall within its scope of protection. Under Section 14 of the Act, the owner is granted exclusive rights of reproduction and adaptation, allowing creators to sue counterfeiters of their work — an important safeguard for designers’ creativity and original thought. Section 22 of the Act protects a creator’s work for their lifetime plus 60 years after death, ensuring long-term protection.

The Act does have limitations. Under Section 15(2), if a designer mass-produces a design pattern in quantities exceeding 50 units through an industrial process, and the design is registered or capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000, copyright protection is lost and the design falls exclusively within the scope of the Designs Act, 2000.

B. The Designs Act, 2000

The fashion industry is largely a visual industry, so the aesthetic appeal or design of goods must be protected. The primary legal framework governing the protection of original, novel designs is the Designs Act, 2000, which protects the aesthetic and visual appeal of goods — generally the non-functional aspects. It follows a “first to file” rule, granting designers exclusivity over their patterns and helping prevent commercial imitation. Under Section 2(d), a “design” is defined as including the shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colours applied to any article, whether in two-dimensional or three-dimensional form, and strictly covers the visual appeal of the goods. Under Section 11, a design is protected for an initial term of 10 years from the date of registration, which can be extended once for a further period of 5 years, for a maximum total protection period of 15 years. This allows designers to protect their designs from commercial imitation for an extended period.

The Designs Act also imposes limitations: a design must be entirely original to qualify for protection, and designs containing obscene or scandalous matter are prohibited. Upon infringement, a designer can seek injunctions and damages under the Act. The Designs Act is therefore one of the most important legal safeguards available to designers.

C. The Trademarks Act, 1999

The Trademarks Act is one of the broadest and most commonly used statutes in fashion law. It is crucial because it protects brands from knock-offs and deceptive practices. Trademarks protect brand identity through logos, distinctive packaging, and brand names. A trademark is defined as a mark that distinguishes the goods or services of one brand from another, and may include any shape or colour that acts as a distinguishing factor.

For example, the red and green stripe motif distinguishes Gucci from other brands, and the red sole is a distinguishing, identifying feature of Christian Louboutin footwear. One of the Act’s key provisions is its protection against “passing off.” Under Section 27, unregistered trademarks are also protected, creating a legal safeguard for small and emerging businesses to protect their brand identity, and allowing designers to enforce their rights through injunctions or damages. The Trademarks Act is therefore one of the most essential safeguards for brands and creators seeking to protect and preserve their identity.

D. The Patents Act, 1970

The Patents Act is the primary legal safeguard for innovations and new manufacturing processes. It defines a patent as a new product or process that involves an inventive step and is capable of industrial application. Under Section 2(1)(j), an invention must satisfy the requirements of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. Section 48 is one of the Act’s most important provisions, guaranteeing the rights of patentees: it gives the innovator a legal right to prevent others from making, using, or importing the patented innovation in India. The Patents Act thus gives innovators a legal safeguard for their innovations and manufacturing processes, protecting technological innovation within the fashion industry.

Judicial Responses to Fashion Counterfeiting in India

The evolution of fashion law in India has been shaped by several key judgments interpreting these legislative frameworks, through which courts have sought to protect brand identity and safeguard designers against counterfeiting. Among these, Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj stands out for its contribution to combating fashion counterfeiting in India.

Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj

Facts

• Christian Louboutin, a renowned luxury footwear brand, filed suit against Darveys.com, an online luxury shopping platform owned by Nakul Bajaj.
• The plaintiff alleged that the website used its trademarks and images without authorization while facilitating the sale of products, misleading consumers and damaging brand value.
• The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant’s website featured the complete “Christian Louboutin” product catalogue and claimed that the products sold were 100% authentic.

Legal Issues

The primary question before the Court was whether Darveys.com qualified as a passive intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Court also had to determine whether the unauthorized use of the trademarks amounted to trademark infringement.

Judgement

The Delhi High Court held that Darveys.com was not a passive intermediary under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, because it actively advertised products and provided quality assurances. The Court noted that the website used the plaintiff’s trademarks to attract customers, and emphasized that e-commerce platforms actively participating in transactions cannot evade liability by claiming intermediary status. The Court directed the defendant to comply with due diligence requirements, disclose seller details, and ensure that counterfeit products were not sold on the platform.

Legal Principle Established

The decision affirmed the strong protection afforded to trademarks under Indian law and demonstrated the judiciary’s willingness to grant relief against counterfeiters. It also confirmed that online marketplaces selling counterfeit products may face injunctions and substantial financial consequences.

Bridging the Gap Between Legal Protection and Practical Enforcement

Despite India’s intellectual property laws, implementation continues to be a challenge. The growth of small-scale retail and e-commerce has contributed to the spread of counterfeit goods, and addressing this requires stronger regulatory measures and greater consumer awareness. This section examines the framework’s strengths, its enforcement challenges, and possible paths forward.

A. The Strengths of India’s Anti-Counterfeiting Framework

India’s anti-counterfeiting framework is multifaceted, relying on overlapping statutes that aim to ensure accountability and foster an environment where creativity and innovation can thrive. It provides for both civil remedies and criminal enforcement, supporting stringent action against counterfeiting. India also maintains consumer transparency, with industry accountability strictly enforced by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), which actively penalizes deceptive marketing and false brand claims. The Trademarks Act, Designs Act, and Geographical Indications Act together work to protect the rights and identity of brands and designers.

B. Enforcement Challenges in Combating Fashion Counterfeiting

The rise of fast fashion and social media has dramatically changed the landscape of fashion law in India. Fast fashion sellers often offer replicas and dupes of expensive, luxury fashion apparel at a small fraction of the original price. Local retailers and small brands frequently imitate popular brands by copying their trademarks with slight alterations or misspellings — for instance, dupes of “Gucci” sold locally as “Guccy.” The anonymity of online transactions and the ease of creating new accounts further widen the implementation gap. Even though robust legal frameworks exist to combat counterfeiting, enforcement at the ground level remains a persistent issue.

C. The Way Forward

Combating fashion counterfeiting requires sustained effort from government, private stakeholders, and consumers alike. Online platforms must take stronger steps to verify sellers and prevent the sale of counterfeit goods or knock-offs — a concern that extends to social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook, which are frequently used to sell close dupes of luxury brands at low prices. Consumers also have an important role to play: they must remain alert to counterfeit goods and report suspicious sellers and platforms. Through better enforcement and increased awareness, the fashion industry can be better protected from the growing threat of counterfeiting.

Conclusion

Counterfeiting is a global issue that affects not only brands and designers but also poses a significant risk to consumer safety. It undermines consumer rights as well as the interests of brands and designers: counterfeit goods reduce the incentive for innovation, devalue original designs, and threaten designers’ livelihoods. India’s intellectual property laws seek to address this challenge through multiple legal frameworks and accountability mechanisms, but continue to face enforcement and implementation gaps stemming from large-scale, bulk imitation. The overarching goal must be to protect the creativity of designers and brands from the damaging effects of counterfeiting. As the luxury brand Chanel has stated in an interview, fighting counterfeiting means protecting not just brand image but also creativity, craftsmanship, product quality, and consumer safety.

This attributed statement could not be independently verified in the course of this review; the author should confirm and cite its original source before publication, or remove it.

Reference(S):

Cases

Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors., CS (COMM) 344/2018 (Delhi High Court, Nov. 2, 2018).

Statutes and Treaties

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, art. 51, Apr. 15, 1994, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.

Copyright Act, 1957 (India), s. 2(c).

Copyright Act, 1957 (India), s. 14.

Copyright Act, 1957 (India), s. 15(2).

Copyright Act, 1957 (India), s. 22.

Designs Act, 2000 (India), s. 2(d).

Designs Act, 2000 (India), s. 4.

Designs Act, 2000 (India), s. 4(d).

Designs Act, 2000 (India), s. 11.

Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (India), s. 2(1)(e).

Patents Act, 1970 (India), s. 2(1)(j).

Patents Act, 1970 (India), s. 48.

Books and Articles

India Brand Equity Foundation, Indian Textiles and Apparel Industry Analysis, IBEF (2026), https://www.ibef.org/industry/indian-textiles-and-apparel-industry-analysis-presentation (last visited June 7, 2026).

Press Information Bureau, Press Release, PIB, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2208051 (last visited June 7, 2026).

Joanna Large, The Consumption of Counterfeit Fashion 9 (Palgrave Macmillan 2019).

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Counterfeiting, Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/counterfeiting (last visited June 7, 2026).

[1] India Brand Equity Foundation, Indian Textiles and Apparel Industry Analysis, IBEF, https://www.ibef.org/industry/indian-textiles-and-apparel- industry-analysis-presentation⁠ (last visited June 7, 2026)

² Press Information Bureau, Press Release, PIB, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2208051&reg=6&lang=1⁠ (last visited June 7, 2026)

3 Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (India), s2(1)(e)

4 Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights art.51, Apr 15, 1994, 1869 U.N.T.S 299

⁵ Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Counterfeiting, Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/counterfeiting⁠(last visited June 7, 2026)

⁶ Joanna Large, The Consumption of Counterfeit Fashion 9 (Palgrave Macmillan 2019)

7 Copyrights Act, 1957 (India) s2(c)

⁸ Copyrights Act, 1957 (India) s14

⁹ Copyrights Act, 1957 (India) s22

¹⁰ Copyrights Act, 1957 (India)s. 15(2)

¹¹Designs Act, 2000 (India) s. 2(d)

¹² Designs Act, 2000 (India) s. 10

¹³ Designs Act, 2000 (India) s. 4

¹⁴ Designs Act, 2000 (India) s. 4(d)

¹⁵ Patents Act, 1972 (India) s.2(1)(j)

¹⁶ Patents Act, 1972 (India) s. 48

¹⁷ Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors., CS (COMM) 344/2018 (Delhi High Court Nov.2, 2018)