Inside India’s IP Market: a Guide 2026 – Protecting brand value in the dupe economy: legal and strategic tools in the Indian market
Introduction
The Indian consumer market is experiencing a troubling intersection of aspiration, affordability and influence. What once existed discreetly in local markets has now entered the mainstream realm with unsettling legitimacy. This phenomenon is widely known as the ‘dupe culture’. Counterfeits that were previously dismissed as replicas or knockoffs are now wrapped in the glamourised vocabulary of ‘dupes’, ‘inspired-by’ or ‘budget alternatives’. Despite this linguistic makeover, the reality remains the same.
While such branding may momentarily appeal to price-conscious consumers, the long-term cost is borne by the original brands. These products blatantly appropriate the distinctive elements of popular brands and exploit their goodwill and reputation for commercial gain. What is particularly disturbing is the growing social tolerance for such conduct.
This trend has become socially acceptable, which poses multifaceted challenges for brand owners. Mostly because the line between harmless inspiration and actionable infringement has increasingly blurred in India’s fast-evolving marketplace.
E-commerce platforms, social media and AI-driven engines allow dupe products to spread at an unprecedented and alarming rate. A lip gloss dupe, a handbag dupe or even a perfume dupe can go viral overnight and reach millions of consumers before a brand can even detect infringement. The low barrier to entry, anonymous sellers and a fragmented supply chain are some of the major causes that contribute to this fertile ground for imitation. When this crosses paths with aspirational but price-conscious consumers, who do not perceive this imitation as unethical but as a smart substitute, it becomes threatening to the original brand’s identity.
The desire to mirror a premium lifestyle, the thrill of accessing a close-enough version and a growing normalisation due to online validation, together contribute to the consumer psychology behind this rise. Now, the majority of the consumers are not sprinting towards luxury products but are becoming disconcertingly comfortable with what they call smart substitutes. While counterfeits deceive, dupes often position themselves as ‘inspired by’ rather than ‘identical to’ products. This distinction allows sellers to exploit buyers through a grey zone where infringement may exist without obvious misrepresentation.
For brand owners, this environment poses a deeply complex and evolving threat. Protecting brand value now requires more than anti-counterfeiting measures. It requires an integrated strategy combining multiple IP protection tools and keeping up with consumer needs. Registering trademarks, copyrights and designs along with proactive steps towards custom recordals, digital monitoring and robust enforcement, are essential components of holistic brand protection.
This article explores the legal frameworks, enforcement tools and strategic approaches that brand owners in India can deploy to protect brand value in an era dominated by dupes and social media virality.
Understanding the imitation game: counterfeits, dupes and everything in between
Counterfeits
Counterfeiting is the sale of consumer goods that are not genuine but are designed and branded to look identical to the authentic products in order to deceive consumers into believing that they are authentic. Counterfeiting also includes affixing the trademark or logo of a well-known consumer brand to a product, even though the product is not actually made or authorised by that brand.
Indian courts have consistently applied trademark law to restrain such acts because counterfeiting directly infringes registered marks and causes significant commercial and reputational harm to brand owners. In Louis Vuitton Malletier v Atul Jaggi and Louis Vuitton Malletier v Iqbal Singh and Ors, the suits were premised on the plaintiff being proprietor of the registered trademark ‘LOUIS VUITTON’ in respect of accessories and variety of leather goods. Additionally, the mark ‘LOUIS VUITTON’ and the initials of Louis Vuitton, namely ‘LV’, represented in an intertwined manner were used by the plaintiff since 1890 and ‘Toile Monogram’ since 1896, so the said marks had acquired a world-wide reputation.
In the case of Louis Vuitton Malletier v Atul Jaggi, the plaintiff complained that the defendants had indulged in trademark infringement in similar kinds of goods that were using the ‘LOUIS VUITTON’ brand or mark including the ‘LV’ logo and the ‘Toile Monogram’ pattern. These claims were supported by photographs of the counterfeit items purchased by the plaintiff’s representative from the defendant’s outlet. The Delhi High Court appointed the local commissioner to seize the infringing goods and granted injunctions against the sale of counterfeit luxury goods. Similarly, in the case of Louis Vuitton Malletier v Iqbal Singh and Ors, the Delhi High Court appointed the local commissioners to seize the infringing goods, wherein they found nine wallets bearing the plaintiff’s mark: LOUIS VUITTON/ LV. In this case as well, the court granted injunctions against the sale of counterfeit luxury goods. Cases of this nature generally involve clear forms of infringement in which the marks, products and representations are substantially similar or identical.
Dupes
Dupes occupy a more ambiguous position within the spectrum of product imitation. Dupes are designed to look like authentic products, but they are not exact replicas and may differ in some ways. They may replicate the general look, feel or functional attributes of a branded product without reproducing the trademark itself. Such products often depend on similarity in trade dress, visual presentation or overall aesthetic impression rather than explicit copying of a registered mark. While the term ‘dupe’ has not been acknowledged by the statute or the Indian judiciary, the courts have begun to take actions against this nuance. In the case of Burberry Limited v M/s Petrol Perfumes & Ors, the plaintiff challenged the defendants’ use of the marks ‘MY PETROL’ and ‘MR. PETROL’ for perfumes, alleging that they were designed to imitate Burberry’s renowned fragrances sold under the marks ‘MY BURBERRY’ and ‘MR. BURBERRY’. Despite the defendant’s registrations for the marks, the Delhi High Court observed that the use of ‘MR. PETROL’ was with the intention to deceive consumers and ride on Burberry’s goodwill. Further, the Court held the adoption to be mala fide and that it amounted to passing off. This case aligns closely with modern dupe scenarios, in which the imitation targets a product’s aesthetics rather than the trademark.
Grey areas in jurisprudence
Courts are increasingly required to determine when inspiration becomes passing off and how much similarity in shape, colour, packaging or user experience may mislead consumers. The evolution of jurisprudence in this area will depend heavily on proactive actions by brand owners, as this would help courts to develop clearer tests for similarity in an increasingly digital marketplace.
From physical markets to digital platforms: the evolution of counterfeiting
India’s early battles with imitation were concentrated in popular street markets such as Palika Bazaar in Delhi, Manish Market in Mumbai and Burma Bazaar in Chennai. These markets became hubs for low-cost replicas and counterfeit goods.
As consumer behaviour evolved and commerce shifted online, imitation entered a new and far more complex arena, the digital marketplace. Today, platforms such as Instagram, WhatsApp groups, telegram channels and e-commerce have become fertile ground for dupes and inspired-by products. Promotions through social media play a very big role in normalising budget alternatives, which often blur the line between inspiration and infringement. Algorithms further accelerate this trend by pushing ‘dupe recommendations’ directly to users based on search patterns and engagement.
Unlike traditional physical markets, the digital ecosystem enables scale, anonymity and near-instant nationwide reach. This makes detection and enforcement significantly more challenging. What was once confined to a few bustling bazaars has now transformed into a 24/7 digital market. This new economy of imitation requires brand owners to rethink their strategies to safeguard their brand value
Statutory tools against dupes and counterfeits
India’s legal framework for addressing counterfeits and dupe culture is anchored in multiple statutes. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 protects trademarks against infringement, passing off and misleading use, and provides both civil and criminal remedies. The Designs Act, 2000 safeguards registered product designs and allows action against visual imitation (ie, design piracy). The Copyright Act, 1957 protects original artistic works such as labels and packaging, and enables enforcement against copying of such copyrights. The Customs Act, 1962, read with the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, allows rights holders to block infringing goods at the border through customs recordal. Further, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 addresses misleading representations and advertisements of dupe products. Additionally, Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) guidelines regulate misleading advertising and influencer promotions.
Beyond names and logos: protecting the unconventional trademarks
Dupe culture largely thrives on replicating the overall ‘look and feel’ of a brand, without directly copying its name or logo. Thus, the protection of unconventional trademarks has become a critical strategy for preserving brand value. Dupes rarely imitate conventional intellectual property such as registered word marks or logos. Instead, they seek to ride upon the aspects which trigger brand recognition in the consumer’s mind. This is where unconventional trademarks assume increased significance.
Unconventional marks include non-traditional brand identifiers such as colours, shapes, textures, sounds and smells. Over time, these elements acquire distinctiveness through consistent and exclusive use and become powerful indicators of origin. The distinctive ‘Tiffany Blue’ used on Tiffany & Co.’s packaging and branding is an example of how a single colour, through consistent and long-standing use, can come to function as a source identifier and be closely associated with a particular brand in the minds of consumers. Similarly, the contour shape of the Coca-Cola bottle or the tactile texture of luxury packaging illustrate how sensory branding creates strong consumer associations beyond words or logos.
From an anti-dupe perspective, unconventional trademarks are particularly effective because they are difficult to replicate without crossing the line into infringement. While a dupe may avoid using a brand name, copying a distinctive colour scheme, product shape or sensory experience can still mislead consumers and dilute brand equity. Protecting such elements allows brand owners to target imitation that exploits association rather than direct confusion.
India’s jurisprudence is fast evolving to recognise and protect unconventional trademarks. Several such marks have already secured registration, including the red colour sole (Pantone No. 18-1663 TP) registered by Christian Louboutin, the pink colour mark (Pantone No. FC 2779; C 0, M 94, Y 23, K 0; R 238, G 47, B 121) by NYKAA- Fsn E-commerce Ventures Private Limited, the shape mark for Britannia’s Little Hearts biscuit and the shape mark for Ferrero Rocher’s chocolate box.
This jurisprudence has been further expanded with the grant of India’s first smell mark. The applicant, Sumitomo Industries Limited, filed a trademark application for registration of its trademark ‘Floral Fragrance/Smell Reminiscent of Roses as applied to Tyres’ (Applied Mark) bearing application number 5860303 for goods being ‘tyres for vehicles’ in Class 12 before the Trade Marks Registry, Delhi, India. The applicant, in support of its arguments, cited multiple international smell mark registrations. Further, it was also argued that the smell of roses is not related to tyres and therefore, the applied mark is arbitrary and inherently distinctive in nature. Since this case was a first of its kind, an amicus curae was appointed to evaluate the matter. Agreeing with the practice followed internationally, the amicus curae submitted that a smell mark should not be the actual function of the product but should only act as an element of distinctiveness. Thus, in the present case since the applied mark fulfilled this condition, the said mark is capable of being registered as a trademark. A scientific graphical representation prepared by the members of the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad was also submitted by the amicus curae and the same was accompanied by a graphical representation of the applied mark in a seven-dimensional vector form. The Registry, being satisfied that both the deficiencies now stood cleared, accepted the application for advertisement on 24 November 2025. This case is a breakthrough in the realm of Indian IP as it showcases the fact that India is open to revisiting and redefining its interpretations when it comes to determination of what can be and what cannot be trademarked.
Enforcement and injunctions in India
The ability to secure quick and effective injunctions in India is closely tied to the strength of a brand’s registered rights. Courts are far more likely to grant urgent relief when the plaintiff demonstrates clear statutory entitlement through trademarks, designs or copyrights because registration creates a presumption of validity and ownership.
For example, in Guccio Gucci S.P.A. v Intiyaz Sheikh, Gucci obtained an ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction and later a permanent injunction against a local manufacturer using its registered mark ‘GUCCI’ as well as the green and red stripes logo, for selling substandard socks.
Similarly, in Hermès International v Macky Lifestyle, the Delhi High Court recognised the three‑dimensional shape of the Hermès Birkin bag and associated marks as well-known under section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act. This granted a broad protection and injunction against use of these registered marks by the defendant. Recognition as well-known further expands the scope of protection, allowing relief even against uses in unrelated classes where there is a likelihood of consumer confusion.
Further, in Sabyasachi Calcutta LLP v Mr Ankit Keyal Proprietor Asiana Couture & Ors, an Indian fashion designer Sabyasachi Mukherjee, claimed that the defendant used a deceptively similar design to his registered design for ‘Rusheeda’ and ‘New Botanical Lehenga’ and contended that this act amounted to piracy within the meaning of section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000. In this regard, the Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction under section 22(2)(a) of the Designs Act.
Further, John Doe orders are a powerful preventive tool that allows brand owners to take action against anonymous or unidentified infringers. Where counterfeiters hide behind masked identities, courts may grant ex parte injunctions to restrain the unknown defendants. This enables the brand owners to prevent large-scale infringements and dilution of goodwill.
In Rahul Mishra & Anr v John Doe & Anr, the Delhi High Court dealt with a case concerning large-scale online counterfeiting of designer apparel belonging to renowned Indian designer Rahul Mishra. The plaintiff held trademark registrations for ‘RAHUL MISHRA’ in India and internationally, along with copyright for his original artistic works for dress designs. He discovered a website offering exact replicas of his creations at a discounted price. The website copied the look, design, images and trademarks of the plaintiff by sourcing material from the official website. Considering the operators of the website were unidentified, the suit was filed against the John Doe defendants. The court found a strong prima facie case and granted an ex parte ad-interim dynamic John Doe injunction, to restrain the sale of the said counterfeit goods.
Protecting brand value in a dupe-driven market
Protecting brand value in India’s fast-evolving dupe landscape requires a multi-layered strategy that goes far beyond traditional trademark enforcement. The first and most critical step is building a strong and comprehensive IP portfolio. Brand owners should ensure that all key elements of their identity (ie, primary marks, sub-brands, taglines, logos, packaging), and even non-traditional identifiers such as shapes, colours, sounds and trade dress, are properly registered. Trademark protection should be complemented with copyright registration for artworks, labels and graphics, as well as design registration for distinctive product shapes and ornamentation. Together, these measures create a robust defensive wall against imitators. Given the cross-border nature of many dupe operations, international filings under the Madrid Protocol provide an additional layer of protection.
The case of Hermès International v Macky Lifestyle is an excellent example, wherein the plaintiff placed on record registrations for the three-dimensional shape mark of the Birkin bag and the trademark ‘HERMÈS’ in over 40 countries. Further, Hermès relied on long-standing global and Indian use of the Birkin bag, its exclusive sale through Hermès boutiques in cities such as Delhi and Mumbai, and its consistent portrayal as a luxury icon in leading international and Indian fashion publications. The plaintiff further highlighted substantial investments in advertising and promotion. The Court, applying sections 11(6) and 11(7) of the Trade Marks Act, accepted that such consistent use, long-standing reputation and enforcement actions had resulted in widespread public recognition of the Birkin bag. It held that the three-dimensional shape had transcended mere product design and acquired source-identifying significance. This warranted the Birkin Bag shape mark’s declaration as a well-known trademark, along with the HERMÈS word and stylised marks.
A recent and significant reinforcement of this approach is also seen in Bulgari S.P.A. v Prerna Rajpal Trading as the Amaris Flagship Store. The court granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Bulgari and restrained the defendant from manufacturing and selling jewellery that closely replicated Bulgari’s iconic SERPENTI designs. Importantly, the court recognised that infringement was not limited to the use of identical word marks, but extended to copying of the overall look, ornamentation, stone placement and distinctive artistic expression of Bulgari’s jewellery. Relying on trademark registrations, copyright and international reputation, the court held that such imitation amounted to trademark and copyright infringement and passing off. The decision highlights that Indian courts are willing to protect luxury brands against dupes that imitate even design elements.
Dupes do not tend to imitate the brand name itself. Instead, they copy the overall look and feel of a product. This includes its shape, packaging, colour palette, textures and visual appeal. These elements are often what consumers associate most strongly with a brand. Brand owners must therefore look beyond conventional forms of intellectual property protection.
This approach is reflected in Louis Vuitton v Malik, the plaintiff contended that ‘Epi’ leather is a distinctive, textured leather design first launched by Louis Vuitton in 1985, used across handbags, luggage and office accessories. Louis Vuitton claimed that this texture pattern had become a source identifier due to continuous and exclusive use over decades. The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim ex parte injunction to restrain Indian retailers from selling imitative products that copied the Epi texture.
Another critical form of protection is trade dress, which safeguards the overall visual impression of a product and its packaging. This is often what dupes seek to replicate to ride on the goodwill of established brands. Brand owners can therefore strengthen protection through a strategic and layered registration approach.
However, an important but often overlooked limitation on copyright protection arises under section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. In simple terms, if a design is capable of registration under the Designs Act, 2000 but is not registered, copyright protection ends once the product is reproduced more than 50 times through an industrial process, by the owner or with their licence. For instance, a brand may create a distinctive product shape or surface pattern and rely on copyright to protect it. However, once that product is mass-manufactured and crosses the 50-unit threshold, copyright protection automatically falls away if the design has not been registered. In a context where commercial success often means large-scale production, if one fails to secure design registration, it can leave valuable product exposed in the market without protection.
Along with the layered IP protection, strong internal governance is equally essential. Brand owners should incorporate IP-use restrictions into agreements with manufacturers, distributors, influencers and retailers to prevent misuse at the source.
Given that dupe culture thrives online, continuous digital monitoring has become critical. Brands must employ AI-driven tools to track product lookalikes across e-commerce platforms, social media, WhatsApp and telegram channels. Further, robust notices and takedown processes may significantly reduce the visibility of infringing listings. Monitoring influencer endorsements is also vital. As viral ‘dupe recommendations’ drive consumer demand, such misleading promotions can be challenged under ASCI guidelines and consumer protection laws.
Enforcement remains a cornerstone of brand protection. Civil actions, particularly suits seeking injunctions can be effective in halting counterfeit activity. Importantly, measures on a registry level including oppositions and rectifications help to prevent deceptively similar marks from entering the register. Border enforcement is another powerful tool. Custom recordals under the 2007 Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Rules allow authorities to seize infringing consignments even before they reach the Indian market.
At the same time, effective anti-dupe enforcement requires active management of the social media ecosystem. Brands should issue notices to influencers who promote dupes and collaborate with platforms to remove infringing content.
Technology can further strengthen brand protection. Authentication measures such as QR codes, NFC chips, secure holograms, track-and-trace systems and tamper-evident packaging help consumers verify genuine products.
Finally, consumer education is an indispensable part of brand protection. Campaigns highlighting the safety risks, poor quality and ethical concerns associated with dupes help shift consumer perception. This is especially important in categories such as cosmetics and personal care, where unregulated dupes may pose serious health risks.
Meeting consumer demand is another important step in protecting brand value. Interestingly, many luxury brands are now introducing ‘mini’ or smaller versions of their products. This makes them more accessible and affordable while encouraging consumers to purchase the original rather than a dupe. For example, Chanel and Dior have launched miniature versions of their perfumes and cosmetic products. This strategy not only drives legitimate sales but also reduces the appeal of counterfeit alternatives.
Conclusion
The rise of dupes reflects a deeper shift in consumer behaviour and digital commerce, not merely a legal loophole. As imitation becomes normalised and rapidly amplified online, brand value faces erosion long before infringement is formally recognised. In this environment, brand protection cannot remain reactive or fragmented. It must be deliberate, layered and forward looking. Indian law already offers powerful tools across trademarks, designs, copyright, customs and consumer protection. The real challenge lies in using these tools strategically and in time. Brands that invest in comprehensive IP portfolios, digital vigilance and consumer engagement will be best positioned to protect not just their products, but the trust and identity that define them.
