The Palika Bazaar of the Metaverse: Is the Trade Marks Act, 1999 Equipped to Regulate Digital Counterfeits?

Introduction

Counterfeiting in the physical world is often identifiable through sensory cues. As you go through the crowded, underground lanes of the Palika Bazaar of New Delhi, a fake Nike sneaker gives itself away in its irregular stitching, the characteristic odor of cheap synthetic rubber, or slightly off-centered logo. However, the rise of immersive digital platforms and virtual commerce has shifted counterfeiting concerns into digital environments, where the traditional indications of a fake are gone.

When it comes to digital counterfeits in the metaverse, which is progressively emerging as a multi-billion-dollar ecosystem in fashion and digital commerce, it is not a bad copy but a highly sophisticated digital replica. It is a pixel-perfect recreation of a limited-edition virtual wearable often marketed through NFT infrastructure, sometimes commanding premium prices, that perfectly fits your avatar and is being sold on blockchain-enabled virtual environments such as Decentraland or distributed through centralized avatar ecosystems such as Roblox. With global luxury houses such as Gucci and Indian retail giants such as Reliance rushing to virtual storefronts, this raises an emerging problem of authentication and source identification: Can a Trademark Act, 1999 in a digital form prevent a digital clone in the 21st century ?

The first of the real and inherent issues that rights holders will face in India is statutory in nature. Trademark law is based on the Nice Classification system that enables the organization of goods and services into particular buckets. Fashion brands in the past have registered their identity under Class 25 which pertains to physical clothing and footwear. But in the metaverse you are not wearing leather you are wearing software.

This has compelled brands to reconsider their trademark registration strategies. The reason behind this is that virtual products do not belong to the same category as that of their equivalents in the physical world. Recent iterations of the Nice Classification now expressly recognize downloadable digital files authenticated by non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and virtual goods, which brands should learn to navigate in order to secure protection for virtual assets within appropriate trademark classes.

As an example, Class 9 has now become particularly important, since it specifically covers downloadable digital files authenticated by non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and downloadable virtual clothing. Brands that in the past only had registration under Class 25 may now face potential vulnerability, as counterfeiters may attempt to argue that they are offering software-based virtual assets rather than physical footwear, thereby exploiting classification gaps.

In addition to goods, service-related classes have also become more relevant. Class 35 has become relevant for online retail services involving virtual goods and downloadable digital assets. Class 41 is used to protect "branded experiences" including offering online virtual guided tours, virtual fashion shows or metaverse-based entertainment. In addition, the technical aspect of the virtual world, such as blockchain authentication services, software infrastructure, and technological services supporting NFTs or virtual ecosystems, are covered by Class 42.

The Hermès v. Rothschild litigation marked a significant turning point in the global legal environment, now often discussed through the lens of MetaBirkins and the broader shift toward conceptual similarity and overall commercial impression.

In a case involving a US jury, the jury found that in the specific commercial context of MetaBirkin NFTs, the digital representations of fur-covered bags infringed Hermès' trademark rights and were not shielded by First Amendment defenses. The decision signaled that trademark rights can meaningfully extend into virtual commercial environments even where no physical form of products is present.

Indian trademark jurisprudence has gradually emphasized conceptual similarity and overall commercial impression of a mark, rather than relying solely on side-by-side visual comparison.

In a variety of trademark cases, Indian courts have gone beyond literal comparison and taken into account overall commercial impression and consumer confusion. This is especially true in the case of electronic property where a copyist can escape literal copying and yet can replicate a commercial identity of an established brand.

This especially applies to the metaverse because it transforms the side-by-side nitpicking legal test to the general impression and conceptual association of a mark. A virtual product online which creates the likelihood of association or confusion and a virtual product does not necessarily require the use of an actual logo, may amount to infringement of trademarks (though subject to meeting the statutory requirements as established by Section 29).

Similar considerations of judicial willingness to safeguard commercially valuable personal identifiers and well-known names against unauthorized commercial exploitation were reflected in the case of Ratan Tata v. Rajat Srivastava.

Decentralised Digital Markets: Enforcement Challenges.

The enforcement of Trademark is an experience. An Ashok Kumar order (the Indian equivalent of a John Doe injunction) is obtained by the brand, the local police go to a physical warehouse and the fake stock is seized. This is offset in the decentralized metaverse. A smart contract can neither be raided, nor can direct seizure and enforcement against blockchain-based assets be performed in a substantially easier manner, especially where wallets are pseudonymous and of a cross-border nature.

This has increased dependence on dynamic injunctions and platform-based enforcement systems, especially in those cases where the digital infringement is rapidly changing.

Indian jurisdictions have been willing to grant broad and adaptive relief in digital infringement cases, including dynamic injunctions which allow rights holders to seek relief against repeat infringing materials, rogue URLs, and repeat mirror listing in the future.

The court does not demand pursuing a phantom wallet-holder, but rather directs platforms, marketplaces, or virtual ecosystems like OpenSea, Roblox, or other hosting intermediaries to delist, disable access to, or remove infringing digital assets or listings associated with those assets.

This considerably diminishes the business presence and availability of virtual counterfeits since they are designed to be invisible in the virtual world. Reforms in Digital India Act and the debate on the intermediary liability suggests a transition to rapid platform responsiveness to unlawful synthetic, deceitful, or infringing digital content.

Safeguarding Brand Identity in Virtual Markets.

A brand needs to shift towards a model which combines law and technological tools in order to be legally defensible

AI-Driven Surveillance: Now leading Indian brands scan virtual worlds using visual AI tools to detect unauthorized virtual counterfeits in real time.

Evidence of Digital Use: Under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, continued registration might be at risk of challenge on non-use grounds. Brands which enter into the virtual markets can require provisional application across the relevant registered classes backed with digital records and good-faith use of the mark on virtual platforms.

Fighting Identity Dilution: Dilution of identity and conflicts of monetization As the concept of digital doppelgangers and the creation of likenesses by AIs become commercially viable, brands must carefully negotiate digital likeness agreements and exclusivity arrangements to prevent identity dilution and overlapping monetization risks.

These novel risks may be assessed under the contractual and commercial risk frameworks, which look at exclusivity, duration, territorial scope, technological mastery, and overlap of monetization in digital likeness agreements.

Modifying the Strategies of Trademark Protection in the Virtual Markets

In order to see what the present state of affairs is, we need to look at how the principles of 1999 were changed to the realities of digital counterfeits.

Physical to Intangible : The current efforts in enforcing are not solely focused on physical inventories, but also on digital assets, listings, and virtual marketplaces.

Dynamic Replacing Static : Static injunctions against individual offenders are increasingly now supplemented by dynamic injunctions, which help prevent unlisted URLs and platforms in future.

Visual to Conceptual : Indian trademark jurisprudence is now aware that infringement analysis involves much more than literal copying to include conceptual association, overall brand recall, as well as likelihood of confusion.

Safe Harbor to Active Compliance : Although digital platforms remain subject to the safe harbour protections subject to statutory compliance, more active notice-handling and takedown obligations are increasingly becoming central to IP enforcement ecosystems.

Conclusion

The new battlefield in the centuries-old fight against counterfeiting is digital counterfeit. Although the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was written at a time when the trading arena was fundamentally physical, the emergence of virtual markets exposes gaps in interpretation and enforcement which needs to reset enforcement and protection policy.

Further digital regulatory reforms in India could result in more explicit statutory recognition of virtual commerce, virtual authentication systems, and technology-based enforcement systems.

To brand owners venturing into virtual markets, the protections of the trademark can no longer be restricted to the tangible goods. An extended registration and enforcement plan, modified to virtual goods, is emerging as necessary in digital marketplaces and platform-based infringements.

Author: Sneha Madan, 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.

References:

1. Benelux Office for Intellectual Prop., The 12th Edition of the Nice Classification and How to Avoid Delays When Registering Your Trademark, BOIP (Jan. 1, 2023).

2. Rai, Ankita, Blockchain in Digital Marketing That Prioritizes Ecological Responsibility, SSRN (Jan. 1, 2025)

3. Emerging Trademark Disputes in the Metaverse and Virtual Commerce, Bar & Bench (Feb. 9, 2026), https://www.barandbench.com/view-point/emerging-trademark-disputes-in-the-metaverse-and-virtual-commerce

4. Sameena Ameer & Anupriya Yadav, Trademark Protection in The Metaverse and Virtual Worlds Under Indian Law, 12 IJIRT 1901 (2026).

5. Dynamic++: Behind Delhi HC's Innovative Order to Protect Reliance and Jio Brands, ET LegalWorld (July 15, 2025)

6. Global Trends Reflected in the New Edition of the Nice Classification System – What Does It Mean for Those Registering Trade Marks?, Hamlins LLP (Jan. 9, 2023)

7. Junaid Rahman, Regulatory Landscape of Blockchain Assets: Analyzing the Drivers of NFT and Cryptocurrency Regulation, 5 BenchCouncil Trans. Benchmarks Stands. & Evals. 100214 (2025).