Counterfeit Goods And Penal Provisions
🧾 COUNTERFEIT GOODS
📌 What are Counterfeit Goods?
Counterfeit goods are fake or unauthorized replicas of real products. These goods are manufactured and sold with the intent to mislead consumers into believing that they are genuine. Counterfeiting typically involves:
Trademarks (fake brand logos)
Copyrighted products (pirated media/software)
Patents/designs (infringed technical designs)
Packaging and labeling mimicking original brands
⚠️ Common Examples of Counterfeit Goods
Fake luxury goods (clothes, bags, watches)
Counterfeit medicines and cosmetics
Pirated software or DVDs
Fake auto parts
Adulterated food items
🏛️ Legal Framework and Penal Provisions in India
📘 1. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 482: Punishes using a false trademark.
Section 483: Counterfeiting a trademark (punishable with imprisonment up to 2 years and/or fine).
Section 486: Selling goods with a counterfeit trademark.
Section 420: Cheating (applies in many counterfeiting cases).
📘 2. Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 103: Punishment for applying false trademarks or selling counterfeit products — imprisonment up to 3 years and fine up to ₹2 lakhs.
Section 104: Penalty for selling goods to which false trademark is applied.
Section 105: Enhanced penalty for repeat offenders.
📘 3. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
For counterfeit medicines — stricter penalties including life imprisonment (Section 27).
📘 4. Customs Act, 1962
Seizure of imported counterfeit goods at borders (Section 111(d)).
📘 5. Copyright Act, 1957
Piracy of literary, artistic, or software works (Section 63): Punishable up to 3 years and fine.
⚖️ DETAILED CASE LAWS ON COUNTERFEIT GOODS
Here are six detailed cases from Indian and international jurisprudence involving counterfeit goods.
⚖️ Case 1: Rolex SA v. Alex Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 2009)
📌 Background:
Rolex, a world-renowned watch brand, sued an Indian company for manufacturing and selling counterfeit watches using the “Rolex” mark.
🔍 Issue:
Violation of trademark rights and passing off.
🧾 Judgment:
The court ruled in favor of Rolex. A permanent injunction was granted against the defendants, along with damages of ₹5 lakhs.
🧠 Importance:
Set a strong precedent for trademark protection.
Reinforced that luxury brands are entitled to strong protection against counterfeiters in India.
⚖️ Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. MM Shah (Supreme Court of India, 1984)
📌 Background:
This case involved counterfeit drugs being sold in the market, leading to harmful health effects.
🧾 Judgment:
The Supreme Court emphasized the gravity of selling counterfeit medicine and upheld the conviction.
⚖️ Penalty:
The accused received imprisonment, and the court stressed the need for strict penal measures in such cases.
🧠 Importance:
Reiterated that counterfeit drugs endanger life, deserving harsh punishment.
Brought attention to public health risks posed by counterfeiting.
⚖️ Case 3: Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc. (Supreme Court, 2004)
📌 Background:
Allergan, a pharmaceutical company, sued an Indian company for passing off and trademark infringement of the drug "Ocuflox."
🔍 Issue:
Trademark rights of a foreign company not marketing in India vs. an Indian company using the same name.
🧾 Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Allergan, stating that a foreign company with global reputation has a right to protect its mark in India, even if it’s not yet marketing the product in India.
🧠 Importance:
Strengthened international brand protection.
Gave priority to reputation and global goodwill over territorial presence.
⚖️ Case 4: Cadbury India Limited v. Neeraj Food Products (Delhi HC, 2007)
📌 Background:
Cadbury sued Neeraj Food Products for selling chocolates with similar packaging and color scheme as Cadbury’s "Gems."
🧾 Judgment:
Court found that Neeraj was trying to pass off its products as Cadbury’s. A permanent injunction was granted, and the defendant was restrained from using similar packaging.
🧠 Importance:
Highlighted counterfeiting through trade dress and packaging.
Reinforced protection for non-textual brand identity elements like color and layout.
⚖️ Case 5: Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Atul Jaggi & Ors. (Delhi HC, 2017)
📌 Background:
Louis Vuitton discovered that fake handbags and accessories using their monogram were being sold in Delhi markets.
🧾 Judgment:
Court held the defendants guilty of selling counterfeit products, awarded ₹20 lakhs in damages, and passed an injunction.
🧠 Importance:
Sent a strong message to counterfeiters in the fashion industry.
Emphasized luxury brand enforcement in Indian markets.
⚖️ Case 6: Microsoft Corp. v. Deepak Raval (Delhi HC, 2006)
📌 Background:
Microsoft sued a company for selling pirated (counterfeit) software under Microsoft’s name.
🧾 Judgment:
The court granted damages and ordered destruction of the pirated software CDs.
🧠 Importance:
Demonstrated protection under the Copyright Act.
Marked importance of software licensing and anti-piracy enforcement.
📚 Summary Table of Legal Remedies
| Law/Act | Provision | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Sec 482-486, Sec 420 | Up to 2 years imprisonment + fine |
| Trade Marks Act, 1999 | Sec 103-105 | Up to 3 years imprisonment + ₹2 lakh fine |
| Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 | Sec 27 | Life imprisonment for counterfeit drugs |
| Copyright Act, 1957 | Sec 63 | 6 months to 3 years imprisonment + fine |
| Customs Act, 1962 | Sec 111(d), Sec 113 | Confiscation of goods, fine, prosecution |
🧠 Conclusion
Counterfeiting is a serious economic, legal, and public health issue.
India has robust legal provisions, but enforcement and awareness remain key challenges.
Courts have consistently favored brand owners and consumer protection, especially in cases of luxury goods, medicines, and software.
With increasing globalization and e-commerce, combating counterfeits requires strong inter-agency cooperation, technology use (e.g., digital tracking), and international collaboration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments