Counterfeiting can be legally characterized as the act of replicating or imitating a product or brand, intentionally executed with the purpose of deceiving others. In local marketplaces, individuals engage in the sale of replicated merchandise bearing resemblance to prominent brands, wherein minor disparities exist while maintaining substantial similarity to the genuine articles with regards to patterns, designs, and color schemes.

Counterfeit goods mainly target clothing, watches, shoes, handbags, and jewelry. Prominent brands like H&M, Gucci, Hermes, Nike, Puma, Adidas, Louis Vuitton, and Cartier face frequent infringement. Vendors in various markets entice customers by selling replicas known as “exact copies” or “first copies” of these brands. Online platforms further facilitate easy browsing and purchasing of counterfeit products, delivered directly to buyers’ homes.

Intellectual property rights encompass the legal entitlements utilized to safeguard the novelty of ideas (including their expression) and to shield one’s intellectual creations from acts of misappropriation or wrongful enrichment.

Within the purview of the fashion sector, the foundation of this industry resides in branding and reputation, wherein renowned names such as GUCCI, Louis Vuitton, and the like, carry an air of significance and admiration rarely paralleled by other industries.

In addition to trademarks and branding, the intellectual property portfolios of fashion industry stakeholders encompass designs, industrial designs, as well as copyright protection.

GUCCIO GUCCI SPA v. Intiyaz Sheikh
The Plaintiff, global luxury giant Gucci, obtained an ex-parte relief from the Tis Hazari District Court in Delhi. The Court granted a restraining order against the Defendant, a local manufacturer, prohibiting the unauthorized use of Gucci’s renowned logo on their products.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the Defendant from infringing upon its trademark and copyright rights in relation to socks of inferior quality that were being sold under the GUCCI brand. Upon discovering that the Defendant was unlawfully producing socks using the Plaintiff’s registered trademark and logo, the Plaintiff not only sought a permanent injunction but also applied for an ad-interim injunction.

Additionally, the Plaintiff requested the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a raid at the Defendant’s premises.

The Court not only granted a permanent injunction in favor of Gucci but also ordered the Defendant to pay damages in the amount of INR 200,000 and costs of INR 166,000.