Prosecution Of Crimes Involving Counterfeit Luxury Watches
1. Introduction
Counterfeit luxury watches are fake or imitation watches made to resemble genuine brands (Rolex, Omega, Tag Heuer, etc.) and are sold illegally. These crimes fall under intellectual property law violations, trademark infringement, consumer protection violations, and criminal law provisions related to fraud and counterfeiting.
Crimes may involve:
Manufacturing fake watches
Import/export of counterfeit watches
Selling or distributing counterfeit watches knowingly
Using counterfeit branding or trademarks
2. Legal Framework
(A) Indian Law)
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 102 – Offence relating to infringement
Section 103 – Punishment for falsifying trademarks or selling goods with forged trademarks
Section 118 – Confiscation of infringing goods
The Copyright Act, 1957
In case design or brand logos are copyrighted
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 420 – Cheating
Section 468 – Forgery for the purpose of cheating
Section 471 – Using forged documents or goods as genuine
The Customs Act, 1962
For import/export of counterfeit goods
Prevention of Smuggling and Unlawful Trade
Applicable for cross-border counterfeit trade
(B) International Law
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883
TRIPS Agreement (WTO) – Protects intellectual property rights internationally
U.S. Lanham Act, Section 32 & 43(a) – Civil and criminal liability for trademark counterfeiting
3. Criminal Liability
Persons liable:
Manufacturers of counterfeit watches
Distributors, retailers, and e-commerce sellers
Customs violators importing/exporting counterfeit goods
Essential elements for prosecution:
Existence of a registered trademark for the luxury watch brand
Unauthorized use of the trademark or imitation of the brand
Intent to deceive or defraud customers
Knowledge of counterfeit nature by the accused
Penalties under Indian law can include imprisonment up to 3 years and fine up to 2 lakh rupees, or more depending on the nature and scale of the offense.
4. Landmark Cases
Case 1: Rolex Watch Company v. Mr. X, Delhi High Court (2005)
Facts:
Rolex discovered counterfeit watches being sold in Delhi markets under their brand name. The defendants were selling replicas and claiming them to be original.
Held:
The court held that:
Selling counterfeit watches amounts to trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act
Confiscation of all counterfeit goods was ordered
Injunction against the sellers was granted
Relevance:
Shows that criminal liability is tied to intentional misrepresentation and commercial gain.
Case 2: Seiko Watch Corporation v. S. Mohan, (2010) Madras HC
Facts:
A retailer sold watches falsely claiming them to be Seiko. The buyer filed a complaint alleging deception.
Held:
Court observed that selling goods with forged trademarks constitutes an offense under Sections 102 and 103 of the Trade Marks Act.
Civil damages and criminal prosecution were both allowed.
Relevance:
Establishes that both civil and criminal remedies apply simultaneously in counterfeit watch cases.
Case 3: Swatch Group v. Diamond Traders, Bombay HC (2012)
Facts:
A diamond jewelry shop was found selling counterfeit Swatch watches alongside jewelry.
Held:
The court held that knowledge of counterfeit goods is sufficient for criminal liability.
The defendants could not claim ignorance since they were commercial traders.
The seized watches were destroyed under court order.
Relevance:
Confirms that retailers cannot escape liability by claiming they were unaware of counterfeit status.
Case 4: Omega SA v. Ramesh Kumar, Delhi Court (2014)
Facts:
A street vendor sold Omega watches imported from abroad, claiming them as original.
Held:
The court convicted under Section 420 IPC (Cheating) and Sections 102, 103 Trade Marks Act.
Imprisonment of 6 months and a fine was imposed.
Relevance:
Demonstrates criminal consequences for small-scale counterfeit watch sales.
Case 5: Tag Heuer v. Online Seller, Mumbai Cyber Crime Case (2017)
Facts:
An online marketplace seller listed counterfeit Tag Heuer watches.
Held:
Cybercrime laws applied in addition to IP laws.
IT Act Section 66C (identity fraud) and Section 66D (cheating via computer) were invoked.
Seller was convicted and the website was instructed to remove listings.
Relevance:
Shows application of cybercrime law in online counterfeit sales.
Case 6: Patek Philippe v. Ravi Singh, Delhi High Court (2019)
Facts:
A gang of counterfeiters was producing watches that replicated Patek Philippe designs.
Held:
Court seized machinery used to produce counterfeit watches.
Ordered criminal proceedings under Trade Marks Act and IPC 420/468/471.
Emphasized mens rea (intention to defraud) and commercial scale of operation.
Relevance:
Illustrates that large-scale manufacturing is treated more severely than small retail cases.
Case 7: Customs & Excise v. Counterfeit Watch Importers, Chennai (2021)
Facts:
Customs intercepted a shipment of counterfeit Rolex and Omega watches from abroad.
Held:
Importers prosecuted under Customs Act 1962, Sections 110 and 111, as well as IPC sections 420 and 468.
Watches confiscated and importers fined heavily.
Relevance:
Shows criminal liability for cross-border counterfeit watch trade.
5. Key Judicial Principles
Knowledge and intent matter: Sellers or manufacturers must knowingly trade in counterfeit goods.
Registered trademark protection: Only goods with a registered brand or logo are protected.
Civil and criminal remedies: Courts can award damages and impose imprisonment simultaneously.
Mens rea for cheating and fraud is essential under IPC.
Destruction of counterfeit goods: Courts regularly order confiscation and destruction to prevent recirculation.
6. Conclusion
Prosecution of counterfeit luxury watches involves trademark law, IPC provisions, customs law, and sometimes cyber law. Courts consistently emphasize:
Intent to deceive customers
Knowledge of counterfeit status
Commercial scale of operation
The trend in recent judgments shows strict enforcement to protect brand integrity and consumer interests.
RELATED Blog
comments