Counterfeiting And IP Law: A Global Perspective On Legal Frameworks, Enforcement Mechanisms, And Emerging Challenges

Posted On - 19 February, 2026 • By - Shambhavi Sharma

Introduction

Counterfeiting is one of the most widespread and dangerous forms of intellectual property infringement. Unlike other cases of copyright and/or patent infringement, for instance, counterfeiting is often organized and global. Counterfeiting occurs in a variety of industries such as the pharmaceutical sector, the luxury sector, the electronics sector, the automobile parts sector, and the consumer products sector. Moreover, the threat to economic welfare, the threat to public health and safety are only some of the concerns that have been brought about by this kind of intellectual property infringement.

Legally speaking, counterfeiting is a special case in the field of IP law. This is because a single act of counterfeiting can lead to the violation of more than one IP right, the most common being trademarks, followed by copyrights, designs, and geographical indications. Therefore, the measures that are taken to address the issue of counterfeiting tend to fall on the intersecting lines of civil remedies, criminal measures, customs administration, and international trading laws. This discussion on counterfeiting and IP law will take a specific focus on the interpretation of the global IP law framework.

Understanding Counterfeiting as an IP Law Violation

Trademarks are most closely associated with counterfeiting, and in particular the unauthorized use on an identical or similar trademark for products which are not discriminable from the actual products. Yet contemporary counterfeiting also encompasses the use of multiple IP frameworks.

At the conceptual level, counterfeiting usually includes:

  • Deliberate imitation of branded goods,
  • Intention to deceive consumers,
  • Commercial scale production or distribution,
  • Loss of goodwill and brand value.

Courts around the world differentiate counterfeiting from passing and infringement with regard to intentions, scope, and degree of deception. Such differentiation is crucial, as it affects the degree of punishment being severe.

The international scope of counterfeiting has required multilateral cooperation. International IP treaties are the framework for international enforcement.

The TRIPS Agreement (1995) requires that a common minimum level of IP protection and enforcement be adopted among WTO members. Articles 51 to 60 focus particularly on border protection, where members are obliged to confer a ban on releasing counterfeits on their customs services.

The Paris Convention enhances the protection afforded to trademarks, mandating that each state must ensure appropriate legal remedies exist within its legal system to protect effectively against unfair competition, which may take the form of counterfeiting.”

Further, the WIPO-negotiated agreements facilitate the modernization of high-level standards, albeit with limited enforcability within the remit of each member state’s jurisdiction.

India

The issue of counterfeit in India is regulated by the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The offence is described under Section 29, while Sections 103 and 104 establish criminal liability for using deceptive marks and for dealing in counterfeit goods. The relief for such violations is mainly by way of injunction, damage, account of profits, and delivery-up.

Counterfeiting may also raise potential liability under:

  • The Copyright Act, 1957 (for labels, packaging, artistic works),
  • The Customs Act, 1962, through IP rights rules of enforcement,
  • The Indian Penal Code, in cases related to fraud and cheating.

The Indian judiciary has been tough and has often handed down ex-parte injunctions and appointed local commissioners to confiscate the contraband copies.

United States

In the United States, counterfeiting is fought with both civil and criminal legislation. For civil counterfeiting or trademark infringement, the Lanham Act offers relief, with treble damages where there is intent. For large-scale counterfeiting, there is tough federal legislation with stiff punishment.

The role played by the United States Customs and Border Protection in taking proactive steps to seize counterfeits reflects a strong border enforcement model.

European Union

The EU has adopted a harmonized framework through regulations on the enforcement of trademarks and customs action. The Regulation on the European Union Trademark and the Customs Enforcement Regulation facilitate the concurrent seizure and destruction of counterfeit products.

European Courts focus more on the element of proportionality, taking into account the systemic damage being created by counterfeiting practices. Injunctions regarding online marketplaces and intermediary liability are also becoming more prevalent.

Counterfeiting in the Digital Economy

E-commerce has brought a drastic change to counterfeiting. Platforms, social networks, and encrypted messaging applications make it easy for counterfeits to reach worldwide consumers without much of a presence on the ground.

Legal problems arising in the digital environment include:

  • Anonymously sold sellers
  • Jurisdictional
  • Intermediary
  • Counterfeit or unauthorized copies

Courts around the world are inching towards a notice-and-action model, but disputes remain regarding the scope of proactive obligations of platforms to act on their knowledge of violations.

Counterfeiting is associated with other money-laundering and/or taxation evasion. In view of this, criminalization has been employed to curb such operations.

Criminal enforcement usually deals with the following:

  • Intent to deceive,
  • Volume of counterfeit items,
  • Risk to public health or safety.

The problem of counterfeit medications has also gained significant attention, considering it might lead to deaths. This calls for global coordination among enforcement agencies, although there is still a challenge in prosecuting offenders.

Function of Customs Authorities and Border Controls

Customs enforcement represents an important front line in combating counterfeiting. IP owners can register their IP with customs, which helps to seize likely counterfeit goods entering a country through ports.

Successful border control requires the following:

  • Sharing information between rights holders and the relevant authorities,
  • Training of customs officials,
  • Courts with swift adjudication

Even with advancements, there are times when counterfeiters use transhipment routes and free trade zones to conceal their illicit activities.

Remedies and Judicial Tools of Enforcement

Courts around the world have widened the toolkit that may be used by rights owners. These rights include:

  • Ex parte injunctions,
  • Anton Piller orders (search and seizure),
  • John Doe orders against unknown infringers,
  • Asset freezing and account blocking.

Injunctions imposed on intermediaries and logistic companies indicate a transition from individual seller enforcement to ecosystem enforcement.

Lessons Learned and Policy Considerations

Experience gained across different legal systems shows that there are lessons to be derived concerning how to effectively

  • Both civil and criminal actions have to run concurrently.
  • Border controls alone are necessary but inadequate.
  • Accountability on the platform is very important in the modern age.
  • Legal enforcement can be aided by consumer awareness.

A fragmented response enables a counterfeit network to rapidly change and adapt. There is a need for collaborative and multi-agency efforts.

Conclusion

Counterfeiting is a challenge that goes beyond the usual scope of IP enforcement. Although international instruments give a harmonized structure, effective deterrence requires well-structured national laws, a responsive judiciary, and international collaboration. As technology advances and international trade grows, IP law needs to remain dynamic, combining civil, penal, and regulatory approaches.

An international outlook emphasizes that, in addition to being an IP crime, counterfeit goods are an issue of economic and public interest. This requires a consistent level of engagement from governments, the judicial system, businesses, and consumers.