Combating Counterfeit on E-Commerce Platforms: A Rights-Holder’s Strategy

Introduction : The move from traditional retail stores to online retail has also seen the shift of counterfeit trade in the same way. Counterfeit items have taken on a new lease of life on the internet, appearing for sale next to genuine products on platforms including Amazon, Flipkart, Meesho, and other international online shops like AliExpress and Shein, often misguiding the consumer until their product arrives. Back in 2025, Amazon’s Truthful Shopping Experience Report indicated that they destroyed over 15 million counterfeit or unbranded items in one year alone. The report also states that Amazon’s Counterfeit Crimes Unit has prosecuted more than 32,000 offenders across 14 countries since 2020.

This level of infringement impacts brand owners in India and jurisdictions alike. Hence, anti-counterfeiting for brand owners has shifted from an occasional, litigation-based effort to a comprehensive compliance exercise. The purpose of this blog is to provide Indian and international brand owners with techniques to stop counterfeit sales, whether it is through notice and takedown, brand registration, or customs enforcement, by comparing and contrasting legal and market frameworks, reviewing the latest cases of Indian courts concerning manufacturers’ liability in the marketplace, and giving guidance to brand owners on the step-by-step response.

Legal Provisions

The Indian legal framework addressing counterfeits on e-commerce marketplaces comprises trademark, information technology, consumer protection, customs, and copyright laws, which, together with developing international regulations, offer a robust set of provisions to tackle counterfeits in the digital marketplace.

In the first place, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Sections 29, 102-104 and 135) lays down a civil and criminal remedy framework for the enforcement of trademark infringement, passing off, and other kinds. At the same time, the Information Technology Act, 2000, with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, protects the intermediaries by giving them the ‘safe harbour’ condition, provided that the marketplace acts diligently in relation to the delisting of the infringing content after the receipt of a ‘notice’ from the complainant.

In addition, according to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, the marketplace is obliged to verify the details and to keep records in relation to the sellers, etc. Moreover, in case of violation of any provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (Section 11), which is being used in conjunction with the IPR Enforcement Rules, 2007, the Customs authorities have the power to suspend or stop clearance of the infringing goods at the borders. Furthermore, the Copyright Act, 1957 provides protection in the cases of counterfeiters producing packaging, labels, or photographs of the goods.

Legal Analysis

A- The Shifting Contours of Intermediary Liability

The starting point for any Indian analysis of marketplace liability is Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj, where Delhi High Court held that “a service provider which goes beyond performing a passive and merely enabling role by dealing in identification of sellers, promoting, warehousing and payment collection stands to lose the protection of safe harbour provided under section 79 read with sub-section (12) of section 78 of the IT Act, 2000” and lays down exhaustive tests for determining the same. However, as highlighted by subsequent appellate decisions, marketplace safe harbours in India are now being carved out with increasing precision, in Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court unanimously set aside the single judge’s decision finding Amazon to be infringing upon Amway’s trademark by virtue of facilitating sales by third parties on its marketplace, holding that “facilitation of sale by another person cannot be considered as infringement” and finding Amazon’s passive role in the transaction process insufficient to overcome its safe harbour protections.

In addition, in June 2025, considering trademark infringement claims brought against it by Puma, a similar approach was adopted by a Division Bench in its decision in Puma Trading Ltd v. IndiaMART. While acknowledging that “use of a word mark in a drop-down category filter could not be considered as infringement” and “no active involvement of IndiaMART in the alleged infringement” was present, the Court found that the “onus of ensuring that the mark was not being used in an infringing manner lay on the seller” and therefore declined to find liability against IndiaMART.

As the above cases indicate, while the Indian courts are careful to distinguish between marketplaces which only facilitate sales and those which take a more active role in the selection process, the former still bear significant responsibility when a trademark infringement takes place on their platforms. As such, in February 2025, the Delhi High Court ordered Amazon to pay damages of Rs. 339.25 Crore to the proprietor of the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademark in respect of the counterfeits sold on its marketplace, in what is set to become India’s largest ever trademark damages award.

B- Brand Registry and Platform Self-Help Tools

At present, large marketplaces have their own exclusive systems in place to protect customers’ brands, and such systems effectively complement or at times replace notification and removal procedures. For example, Amazon’s Brand Registry gives trademark owners access to new tools for reporting violations, as well as the ability to restrict listings proactively including through Brand Catalog Lock and a tool to assess the likelihood of counterfeiting by analyzing new listings coming in. If a brand exhibits high accuracy while reporting violations, it can be admitted into Project Zero where the company will have a right to delete the worried-about listings independently, while the Transparency initiative relies on unique codes assigned to particular items sold through Amazon’s fulfillment services. In India, both Flipkart and Meesho have similar but rather underdeveloped programs to protect brands and verify sellers. To enroll into these programs, one has to own an active trademark (compared to any third-party reporting), however, the process is still very time-consuming despite being less R&D-consuming than law proceedings against each violation.

C- Notice and Takedown in Practice

The notice and takedown mechanism is the crux of trademark enforcement on e-commerce platforms in India. Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 mandates that the intermediary shall expeditiously remove or disable access to the information upon receipt of a complaint from the complainant along with evidence of infringement, within thirty-six hours of such receipt. Compliance with such obligations is a pre-condition to claim the safe harbour immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

In practice, trademark owners file complaints along with evidence of infringement, upon which the e-commerce platforms are bound to remove listings of infringing goods. The courts have also consistently directed the intermediary to preserve evidence, disclose the identity of repeat offenders and co-operate in the identification of repeat offenders, thus making it a crucial mechanism for efficient enforcement of trademarks in India.

D- Recent Enforcement Campaigns

The e-commerce industry is witnessing a surge in trademark enforcement activity due to online marketplaces deploying various strategies such as automated scanning, AI, and specific brand protection programs to identify and eliminate fake product listings. Brand owners are using marketplace reporting tools to safeguard their trademarks. In parallel, Indian courts are also taking a firm stand by granting ex-parte injunctions and issuing directions to remove or delist infringing listings of counterfeit goods and in some cases directing disclosure of identity of the sellers by the online marketplace intermediaries.

Together, it is indeed an interesting development reflecting greater coordination between the marketplace platforms, brand owners and the judiciary in India to tackle the growing problem of counterfeit goods sales online.

Relevant Case Laws

Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors., (2018) 253 D.L.T. 728 (Delhi High Court):

This landmark judgment, which first articulated the notions of active and passive intermediaries in India, was pronounced by the Court, wherein it noted that a marketplace performing “functions of identifying sellers and storing goods and publicizing the listings” is no longer “passive,” thus may possibly “not qualify for immunity under Section 79." All subsequent judgments in connection with the liability of a marketplace in India, including the ones mentioned above, again refer to this definition to calculate whether online marketplaces fall under the category of passive intermediaries, thereby making use of Section 79.

Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2020 SCC Online Del 454, (Delhi High Court, Division Bench):

The Division Bench reversed the previous single-judge ruling against Amazon, stating that even if the platform has only acted as an intermediary, it is entitled to safe harbour protection provided that there is no evidence of active contribution in trademark infringement. Additionally, they reiterated the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights as mentioned in Section 30 of the Trademark Act of 1999, whereby trademark rights cease to exist after the first sale of genuine products.

Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies, Inc. & Ors. 2025 INSC 1190 (Delhi High Court): The Delhi High Court awarded approximately ₹339.25 crore as compensation to the people suing Amazon companies for the sale of counterfeit Beverly Hills Polo Club items and stated that safe harbour protection cannot be claimed when the intermediary knows about the infringement but does not act in time.

Practical Implications

For owners of brands, adjusted principles of intermediary liability may mean that the litigation against platforms alone cannot be considered the main course of action because the success of this approach is contingent on e-commerce owners' well-documented test purchases, timely usage of platform-based protection tools, and launching litigation only in cases of recurrent infringers and platforms violating due diligence.

For e-commerce platforms themselves, the verification of sellers, KYC record-keeping, and rapid response to the received notices have been established as minimum requirements for verifying compliance. It is indicative that negligence in satisfying these demands incurs high levels of liability, as illustrated in the ruling of the case of Lifestyle Equities. For consumers, counterfeit items raise problems that go beyond intellectual property. For instance, in the case of electrical goods, cosmetic products, and pharmaceuticals, the safety of the product might be even more important than its legality because if the good was manufactured improperly, then it can endanger consumers' health and life. It is noteworthy that the introduced issue also impacts the level of interim relief which is provided by Indian courts.

Step-by-step Anti-Counterfeit Strategy for Rights Holders

1. IP Portfolio audit and Registration: Enhance your intellectual property protection by registering and safeguarding the trademarks and other parallel intellectual property, as well as participating in programs aimed at protecting your brand in marketplaces, which will help you benefit from quicker notifying and enforcement of infringements.

2. Monitor and Gather Evidence: Where a suspicious listing is identified, be diligent in monitoring the online marketplaces for potentially infringing listings and collecting evidence thereof.

3. Use of Notice-and-Takedown Mechanisms: Follow the notice and takedown procedure stipulated in the IT Rules of 2021 by filing complaints in relation to any infringing listings found on the platform.

4. Seek Judicial Remedies: In case the infringement continues despite one’s complaints or involves repeat offenders, seek punitive measures against violators of law by applying to the court for an injunction against the intermediary responsible for the listing, as well as requesting for the names and details of the seller.

5. Invoke Customs and Criminal Enforcement: Seek help from the Customs and enforce the applicable provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to curb counterfeiting through the Customs’s proactive measures against the importation of fake goods.

6. Maintain Long-Term Enforcement: Track repeat infringers, coordinate cross-border enforcement where necessary, and pursue damages and other legal remedies against persistent offenders.

Conclusion

The problem of counterfeit goods on e-commerce marketplaces continues to bother the owners of trademarks, who have to combine legal, technological, and commercial solutions in response to the problem. Although the law in India grants intermediaries safe harbour protection, there are conditions attached to this immunity, which include obeying the rules of due diligence, meaning taking appropriate actions in the shortest possible time when infringing content has been identified. Moreover, platforms are now encouraged to support the rights holders with their notice-and-take-down mechanism as well as seller verification and monitoring methods.

Considering this, we may conclude that an effective anti-counterfeiting strategy involves a proactive way to solve the problem, combining registration of the trademark and the use of brand protection tools, monitoring the situation constantly, and taking legal actions through the mechanisms provided by the platforms.

Author: Aaradhya Soni, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Endnotes / References

1. Trade Marks Act, 1999, ss. 29, 102-104, 135 (India).

2. Information Technology Act, 2000, s. 79 (India).

3. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, r. 3(1)(d).

4. Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.

5. Customs Act, 1962, s. 11.

6. Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007.

7. Copyright Act, 1957.

8. Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12215.

9. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 454.

10. Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies, Inc. & Ors., 2025 INSC 1190.

11. Puma SE v. IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd. (Delhi High Court, Division Bench, June 2025).