Author: Parth Sharma, Faculty of Law, Delhi University

Over the last decade, social media platforms have grown into marketplaces that their creators never fully anticipated. Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, and Facebook Marketplace now facilitate the sale of both genuine and counterfeit luxury goods, making fake Louis Vuitton and Gucci products far more visible than before. Counterfeiting is no longer confined to hidden markets but has become a widespread online issue. This paper examines how effectively India’s legal framework, including the Trade Marks Act, Copyright Act, Designs Act, Information Technology Act, and consumer protection laws, addresses this challenge. It argues that the laws are broadly adequate, but enforcement remains weak due to anonymous sellers, encrypted platforms, and fragmented jurisdiction. Drawing on statutory provisions, judicial decisions from India and abroad, and institutional reports, the paper identifies these gaps and proposes practical reforms.

Keywords

counterfeiting, luxury goods, social media, trademarks, intellectual property, e-commerce, influencers, consumer protection.

Luxury brands sell more than products. They sell stories built around craftsmanship, exclusivity, and years of carefully cultivated reputation. The appeal of a Chanel handbag or a pair of Christian Louboutin heels lies as much in that identity as in the product itself. Intellectual property law helps preserve this value. Trademarks protect a brand’s goodwill, copyright safeguards original artistic features, and design registration secures the visual appearance of products. For many years, these legal protections proved reasonably effective.

The rise of social media has changed this landscape. Platforms that were once meant for sharing ideas and connecting people have become major marketplaces, giving counterfeiters unprecedented access to consumers. Unlike a seller operating from a crowded street market, someone selling fake luxury goods on Instagram can reach thousands of buyers within hours, promote products through influencers, complete transactions through private messages, and disappear before enforcement action can catch up. The speed and scale of this form of counterfeiting present challenges that traditional enforcement mechanisms were never designed to handle.

This paper examines how India’s legal framework responds to counterfeit luxury goods sold through social media. It analyses the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Copyright Act, 1957, Designs Act, 2000, Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, against the realities of online counterfeiting. Drawing on Indian and international judicial decisions, it identifies three continuing weaknesses: intermediary liability, influencer regulation, and cross-border enforcement, all of which remain inadequately addressed under the current legal framework.

Existing scholarship has examined counterfeiting in the fashion industry from several perspectives. Raustiala and Sprigman argue that imitation can sometimes encourage innovation by driving trends forward, while recognising that trademark counterfeiting is fundamentally different because it infringes legal rights and misleads consumers. Scafidi likewise highlights the importance of authenticity in luxury markets, explaining that trademarks allow consumers to identify a product’s source and enable brands to derive commercial value from their reputation and identity.

Reports published by the OECD and EUIPO point to a steady increase in counterfeit trade through online platforms, attributing many enforcement difficulties to anonymous sellers and the ease of cross border transactions. WIPO has also observed that the growth of digital commerce has made it increasingly difficult to apply the traditionally territorial nature of intellectual property law, particularly when online platforms enable transactions that routinely cross national borders. However, most existing research focuses on conventional e-commerce platforms such as Amazon and Flipkart. Far less attention has been given to social media marketplaces and the growing role of influencers in promoting and facilitating the sale of counterfeit luxury goods. This paper seeks to address that gap.

The Social Media Counterfeiting Problem

What makes social media counterfeiting different from its offline counterpart is that trust and persuasion are built into the sales process itself. A seller on Instagram does far more than display a product. They create an online persona, maintain a carefully curated aesthetic, and often collaborate with influencers whose followers readily trust their recommendations. As a result, the deception extends beyond the counterfeit product and becomes part of the entire purchasing experience, making it very different from buying a fake watch from a roadside stall.

Counterfeit sellers have also become increasingly adept at avoiding detection. Fake accounts, private groups, invite only Telegram channels, coded captions, and purchase links hidden in profile biographies have become common tactics. Even after accounts are removed, many return within days under new identities. The period between a counterfeit listing appearing online and its eventual removal often lasts long enough for dozens of transactions to take place.

The involvement of influencers creates an additional legal challenge. The American Apparel and Footwear Association has documented the rise of “dupe influencers” who promote imitation luxury goods, sometimes displaying them alongside genuine products in ways that blur the distinction. In legal terms, a dupe is different from a counterfeit because it imitates the style of a luxury product while using its own branding, whereas a counterfeit reproduces trademarks or logos to mislead consumers about authenticity. For the average follower, however, that distinction is often far from obvious. The United States Federal Trade Commission requires influencers to disclose paid commercial relationships, yet its guidance does not directly address situations where the promoted product itself infringes intellectual property rights.

The controversy involving influencers Kylan and Izzy Darnell illustrates this problem. Their widely viewed Christmas haul video appeared to feature counterfeit luxury items alongside genuine ones. Kylan Darnell acknowledged that some of the products were not authentic. The incident prompted wider debate about influencer responsibility, the growing normalisation of counterfeit luxury goods among younger audiences, and whether existing disclosure rules are equipped to deal with this type of online promotion.

A. Trade Marks Act, 199

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 forms the foundation of legal action against counterfeit goods in India. Section 28 grants the registered proprietor the exclusive right to use a trademark and seek remedies against infringement. Section 29 protects against the use of identical or deceptively similar marks that are likely to confuse consumers, which is the very harm caused by counterfeit luxury goods. Section 104 further provides criminal penalties, including imprisonment, for falsifying trademarks or dealing in goods bearing false marks. Alongside these statutory remedies, the common law action of passing off continues to protect businesses whose goodwill has been misrepresented, even where a registered trademark is not directly copied.

B. Copyright Act, 1957

Luxury brands rely on more than trademarks to protect their identity. Original artistic works such as logos, signature patterns, packaging, and promotional photographs are also protected under copyright law. Section 63 of the Copyright Act criminalises the knowing infringement of copyright and prescribes fines as well as imprisonment for unauthorised reproduction. In practice, counterfeiting disputes frequently involve both trademark and copyright claims because convincing replicas usually copy not only the brand name but also its artistic expression.

C. Designs Act, 2000

The Designs Act, 2000 protects the visual appearance of products, including their shape, configuration, and ornamentation, provided the design is original and registered. This protection is especially valuable in the luxury fashion industry, where a product’s distinctive appearance often contributes significantly to its commercial appeal. A registered design gives the rights holder an additional remedy when counterfeiters imitate the product’s visual features without necessarily reproducing its trademark.

D. Information Technology Act, 2000

Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is central to addressing online counterfeiting. It grants social media platforms and other intermediaries safe harbour protection from liability for third party content, provided they comply with due diligence obligations and respond appropriately to notices of infringement. The protection is conditional rather than absolute. Platforms that knowingly facilitate unlawful activity or fail to act after receiving proper notice may lose this immunity. In practice, however, the law leaves important questions unanswered because it does not clearly define what amounts to adequate notice or sufficient due diligence. The enormous volume of user generated content also makes continuous monitoring difficult.

E. Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 and Criminal Law

The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 require online marketplace entities to disclose seller information and exercise reasonable due diligence. These requirements make it easier for consumers to identify sellers and seek legal remedies. Criminal liability is further reinforced by provisions of the Indian Penal Code, now largely incorporated into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which punish the application of false trademarks and the sale of goods bearing counterfeit marks.

F. International Framework

India’s domestic legal framework is complemented by international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention. The TRIPS Agreement establishes minimum standards for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Paris Convention facilitates the recognition and protection of trademark rights across jurisdictions. These international instruments are particularly significant in combating social media counterfeiting because counterfeit goods are often manufactured, marketed, and delivered across national borders, making domestic enforcement alone insufficient.

A. Indian Courts

Among Indian decisions, Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj is the most relevant to online counterfeiting. The Delhi High Court held that an online marketplace which actively advertises products, promotes sellers, and facilitates transactions cannot claim the safe harbour available to a passive intermediary. The reasoning is particularly relevant to social media platforms such as Instagram, which do more than merely host content. Their algorithms amplify listings, they generate revenue through advertising, and they provide the digital infrastructure that enables commercial transactions. Whether these activities make social media platforms sufficiently “active” to lose the protection of Section 79 remains an issue that Indian courts have not yet addressed directly.

In Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir Bhatia, the Supreme Court held that injunctions should ordinarily be granted once a prima facie case of trademark infringement is established. The principle has practical significance because counterfeit sellers can quickly create new accounts and resume operations after a listing or profile has been removed. Similarly, Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals laid down a multi factor test for determining deceptive similarity by considering factors such as the nature of the goods, the class of consumers, and the mode of purchase. These principles continue to guide courts in assessing whether counterfeit products are likely to mislead consumers. In Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, the Supreme Court further recognised that goodwill is a valuable commercial asset deserving legal protection. This decision reinforces the law of passing off, which luxury brands frequently rely upon when trademark infringement alone does not fully capture the damage caused.

B. International Courts

The decision of the United States Second Circuit in Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc. remains one of the leading authorities on intermediary liability in online counterfeiting cases. The Court held that a platform’s general awareness of counterfeit activity is not enough to establish liability. Liability arises only where the platform has specific knowledge of infringing listings and fails to act. Since eBay maintained an effective notice and takedown mechanism, it was not held responsible. The case demonstrates the legal value of robust notice and takedown systems, although eBay’s structured marketplace differs considerably from the algorithm driven and influencer based environment of platforms such as Instagram and TikTok.

Another significant decision is Christian Louboutin SA v. Yves Saint Laurent America, where the Second Circuit recognised that Louboutin’s distinctive red sole could function as a trademark after acquiring secondary meaning among consumers. The judgment illustrates the broad scope of trademark protection in the luxury industry and explains why counterfeit sellers often reproduce even highly distinctive design features to create an impression of authenticity. In the United Kingdom, Cartier International AG v. British Sky Broadcasting confirmed that courts may require internet service providers to block access to websites selling counterfeit goods. The decision reflects a willingness to impose positive obligations on intermediaries instead of limiting their role to passive immunity from liability.

Three structural weaknesses continue to undermine the effectiveness of the legal framework in tackling social media counterfeiting.

The first is that the framework is largely reactive. Trademark infringement suits, passing off actions, and criminal proceedings all depend on the infringement having already taken place and being detected. On social media, however, counterfeit sellers can reach thousands of consumers and complete numerous transactions before a brand even discovers the offending listing. While the law provides remedies after the fact, it offers very few tools to prevent such activity at the outset.

The second weakness lies in the intermediary liability regime under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. The safe harbour provision was originally designed for platforms that merely host third party content. Social media platforms operate very differently. They use algorithms to increase the visibility of content, generate advertising revenue from commercial accounts, and offer features that actively support online transactions. Although the Nakul Bajaj decision recognised the importance of distinguishing active and passive intermediaries, Indian law still does not provide clear standards for determining when a platform’s commercial involvement is sufficient to deprive it of safe harbour protection. Until legislation or judicial decisions provide greater clarity, platforms are likely to continue claiming neutrality while benefiting from the commercial activity taking place on their services.

The third weakness concerns the almost complete absence of a clear regulatory framework for influencers. Companies such as Amazon and Nike have initiated legal proceedings against influencers who directed consumers towards counterfeit luxury goods through concealed affiliate links. However, these cases represent private enforcement rather than a broader regulatory approach. India has no equivalent to the United States Federal Trade Commission’s influencer disclosure framework, and even the FTC’s guidance does not specifically deal with situations where an influencer promotes products that infringe intellectual property rights. Although influencers who knowingly promote counterfeit goods may face trademark or consumer fraud claims, the applicable legal standards remain uncertain and enforcement continues to be inconsistent.

The shortcomings identified above do not require a complete restructuring of the law. Instead, they call for carefully targeted reforms that address the realities of social media commerce.

The most significant reform would be mandatory seller verification across social media platforms. Requiring commercial sellers to verify their identity and provide reliable contact information before listing products would substantially reduce the anonymity that currently frustrates enforcement efforts. Social media companies already conduct identity verification for advertising and monetisation services, making a similar requirement for commercial accounts both practical and technically achievable.

The intermediary liability framework also requires greater clarity. Safe harbour under Section 79 should depend not only on responding to infringement notices but also on the reasonable use of proactive detection technologies, particularly AI based image recognition systems capable of identifying listings that reproduce well known luxury trademarks. Major social media companies already possess the technical resources to deploy such systems and should not be able to avoid responsibility by choosing not to use them.

India should also introduce a dedicated regulatory framework governing influencers. While the United States Federal Trade Commission has issued guidance on disclosure of paid commercial relationships, India currently lacks comparable rules. Any future framework should require clear disclosure of commercial partnerships, specifically address the promotion of replica and imitation goods, and establish a well defined liability standard for influencers who knowingly assist in the marketing of counterfeit products. Technological measures can strengthen these reforms. Blockchain based authentication systems, which several luxury brands are already exploring, would allow consumers to verify product authenticity independently before making a purchase.

Finally, because social media counterfeiting frequently operates across national borders, stronger international cooperation is essential. Building on the existing TRIPS framework, bilateral and multilateral enforcement arrangements should include mechanisms specifically designed for social media platforms, such as coordinated takedown procedures, shared databases of repeat infringers, and more efficient mutual legal assistance processes for investigating and prosecuting sellers operating in multiple jurisdictions.

The challenge posed by counterfeit luxury goods on social media is ultimately one of scale and speed. India’s existing legal framework, comprising the Trade Marks Act, the Copyright Act, the Designs Act, the Information Technology Act, and consumer protection regulations, provides a strong substantive basis for addressing the problem. Indian and foreign courts have consistently recognised the need to protect brand identity, impose responsibilities on active intermediaries, and hold counterfeit sellers accountable. The weakness therefore lies not in the law itself, but in the way it is enforced.

Enforcement continues to fall behind because anonymous sellers exploit encrypted platforms, safe harbour provisions often protect platforms that play an active commercial role in online transactions, and influencers continue to operate within an uncertain regulatory space that neither trademark law nor consumer protection law addresses with sufficient clarity. Addressing these shortcomings will require legislative reform, continued judicial development, and greater accountability on the part of social media platforms that extends beyond responding to takedown requests after the damage has already been done.

The luxury industry depends on consumer confidence in authenticity. That confidence begins to weaken when social media makes counterfeit goods appear ordinary, when genuine and fake products are presented together without meaningful consequences, or when influencers profit from promoting imitation products with little regulatory oversight. A strong legal framework is only the first step. Its real value depends on whether it can be enforced with the same speed, reach, and adaptability that now define the online counterfeit marketplace.

• Annie Palmer, Amazon Sues Influencers for Allegedly Marketing Counterfeits, CNBC (Nov. 12, 2020), https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/12/amazon-sues-influencers-for-allegedly-marketing-counterfeits.html.

• Cartier Int’l AG v. British Sky Broad. Ltd., [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch).

• Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holdings, Inc., 696 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2012).

• Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010).

• Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65.

• Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharm. Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73.

• Midas Hygiene Indus. (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90.

• Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights arts. 41–61, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860, §§ 482, 486, No. 45 of 1860, India Code (provisions substantially reenacted in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

• Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, r. 5, G.S.R. 209(E), India Code.

• Miranda Siwak, TikTok Star Kylan Darnell Says She Got “Some Real Things and Some Fake Things” in Christmas Haul, Yahoo News (Dec. 29, 2024), https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tiktok-star-kylan-days-141212508.html.

• Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Staff Reminds Influencers and Brands to Clearly Disclose Relationships (Apr. 19, 2017), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/04/ftc-staff-reminds-influencers-brands-clearly-disclose-relationship.

• Trade Marks Act, 1999, §§ 28–29, No. 47 of 1999, India Code.

• DLA Piper, When Does Inspiration Cross the Line of Imitation? Understanding Lookalikes, Dupes and Counterfeits (Nov. 19, 2025), https://www.dlapiper.com/en-us/insights/publications/2025/11/a-practical-approach-to-dealing-with-lookalikes/when-does-inspiration-cross-the-line-of-illegal-imitation.

• Am. Apparel & Footwear Ass’n, Dupe Influencers: The Concerning Trend of Promoting Counterfeit Apparel, Footwear, and Accessories on Social Media (2021), https://www.aafaglobal.org/AAFA/Get_Involved/Brand_Protection/Dupe_Influencers.aspx

• World Intell. Prop. Org., Intellectual Property in a Data-Driven World, WIPO Mag., https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/intellectual-property-in-a-data-driven-world-40958

• Org. for Econ. Co-operation & Dev. & Eur. Union Intell. Prop. Off., Trends in Trade in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods 15 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9f533-en.

• Kal Raustiala & Christopher Sprigman, The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design, 92 Va. L. Rev. 1687, 1692 (2006).