Combating Counterfeiting & Brand Infringements Part 2 I NISSMAT

What this session covered

The second episode in the series on combating counterfeiting and brand infringement takes the form of a host in conversation with a single guest, a retired senior police officer with long practical experience of brand-protection work. The session opened with the distinction between criminal and civil law as it applies to counterfeiting. The speaker explained that criminal liability requires intention on the part of the infringer and involves harm that is public as well as private, whereas a civil wrong may be unintentional and the harm is normally private; in criminal matters the prosecution is brought by the state through the police, while a civil claim may be brought by any aggrieved party.

Much of the discussion was procedural. The speaker traced the criminal route step by step: the complaint at the police station, the role of private brand-protection investigation agencies engaged by manufacturers, the general diary entry, the first information report and its onward transmission to the area magistrate, seizure of infringing goods with the required documentation, and the statutory time-limits for filing a charge sheet. He noted that information about impending raids sometimes leaks to infringers, and recounted anonymised cases: one in which seized-worthy stock was thrown into a drain to defeat a raid and later recovered, and another in which only two duplicate bedsheets remained on a dealer's shelf after a leak, yet this was sufficient to secure a conviction. On the civil side he described remedies under trademark law, including injunctions and stay orders, the court's appointment of a local commissioner to check further production, seize infringing stock and take the infringer's accounts, and the pursuit of damages, which he characterised as a lengthy process requiring a capable lawyer.

The closing portion touched on the economic scale of the problem, with the speaker citing fast-moving consumer goods such as hair oils, creams, shampoos, footwear and razor blades as heavily counterfeited categories, and the host noting that diversion of genuine goods between territories causes tax losses to government even where the product itself is authentic. The final exchange concerned the difficulty of pursuing a complaint where a manufacturer's logo has never been registered, since establishing ownership of the mark before the police and the courts becomes problematic. The host indicated that detailed case studies would follow in later episodes.

Key points raised

• The speaker distinguished criminal from civil liability in counterfeiting: criminal law requires intention and harm to the public as well as the individual, while civil wrongs may be unintentional with harm that is normally private.
• The criminal process was traced from the complaint and general diary entry at the police station, through the first information report and seizure of goods, to the charge sheet and trial, with the speaker stressing that procedural lapses can be fatal to a case.
• The speaker said information about raids sometimes leaks to infringers, and recounted a case in which only two duplicate bedsheets remained on a dealer's shelf yet were sufficient to secure a conviction.
• Civil remedies under trademark law were described, including injunctions, stay orders and the court-appointed local commissioner empowered to check further production, seize infringing stock and take the infringer's accounts; recovery of damages was described as a long process.
• Fast-moving consumer goods were cited as heavily counterfeited, and the diversion of genuine goods between territories was noted as causing tax losses to government.
• The session closed on the difficulty of filing a first information report where the manufacturer's logo has not been registered, since ownership of the mark is hard to establish.