The Indian judiciary, led by the Delhi High Court, is pioneering new legal mechanisms that grant brand owners unprecedented power to combat online counterfeiting, marking a significant departure from traditional enforcement approaches used globally.
The latest example came in a recent ruling favouring YMI Ghar Soaps Private Limited, where the Delhi High Court granted what legal experts call a dynamic injunction. The personal care brand, which generates INR 49.11 crores annually through direct-to-consumer sales, faced systematic counterfeiting with infringers selling products under names like “Ghor Soap” while manipulating stock-keeping units to create false authenticity.
The court’s order requires major platforms including Amazon, Flipkart, and Meesho to act within 48 hours of receiving takedown requests from the brand owner or provide written justification for refusing. This forward-looking remedy allows companies to request removal of future infringements without repeated court filings. The plaintiff was represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Chander M. Lall, briefed by Subhash Bhutoria and Anuja Negi of LAW SB.
“Dynamic injunctions are reshaping platform liability by moving operators from passive ‘safe harbour’ to active ‘co-custodian’ of IP rights,” said Rahul Hingmire, managing partner at Vis Legis Law Practice. “This shift raises compliance costs, tightens monitoring standards, and forces rethinking of ad-based models.”
The transformation addresses persistent problems with sophisticated counterfeiting operations that exploit platform algorithms and advertising systems. “This is yet another instance of keyword misuse—where digital platforms like Google and Amazon are monetising brand owners’ trademarks by selling them as advertising keywords to third parties, including unauthorized users. For brand owners, this practice poses a serious challenge, enabling others to unfairly capitalize on their reputation and goodwill,” said Mohit Lahoty, partner at ThinkLaw.
The Ghar Soaps ruling builds on similar precedents, including enhanced “dynamic++” orders granted to Reliance and Jio brands that empower these companies to request takedowns across any platform without repeated court interventions.
“As expected, these platforms remain largely uncooperative and routinely invoke the safe harbour provisions under Section 79 of the IT Act, rendering brand enforcement efforts both ineffective and unnecessarily time-consuming,” Lahoty adds.
These pioneering remedies extend beyond traditional takedown relief, empowering rights holders to proactively police evolving listings without repeated court involvement—signaling a new era of adaptive enforcement tailored to India’s digital commerce boom, projected to reach $350 billion by 2030.
The ruling comes amid widespread consumer exposure to fakes. A 2022 European Union Intellectual Property Helpdesk report found that 38 percent of Indian consumers had purchased counterfeit products online, with Snapdeal, Amazon, and Flipkart the most frequently cited marketplaces.
A 2024 joint CRISIL and ASPA report found that fake goods most often hit apparel (31%), FMCG (28%), and automotives (25%), followed by pharmaceuticals (20%), consumer durables (17%), and agrochemicals (16%). The spread across critical sectors underscores why courts are moving aggressively.
India ahead of U.S, E.U in digital brand protection
India’s approach to intermediary liability and enforcement is more proactive than the EU or US systems, which remain reactive and rely on platform knowledge of infringement.
The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), in force since February 2024, continues the safe-harbor concept from the e-Commerce Directive, meaning intermediaries (platforms, hosting services, etc.) are generally not liable for third-party content unless they have actual knowledge and don’t act upon notification. The DSA does not require platforms to monitor or block content proactively but does enforce more robust notice-and-action and transparency requirements about illegal activities. Enforcement remains layered and primarily depends on user or authority notifications, not on mandated continuous monitoring or takedown.
In the US, the DMCA is designed for copyright issues and does not directly cover trademark infringement. Instead, liability for platforms is defined by secondary/contributory infringement principles established in the courts, primarily through cases like Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories and Tiffany v. eBay, which require actual or constructive knowledge and material contribution before imposing liability. Thus, enforcement happens only when a platform knows of specific infringements, and ongoing, blanket monitoring isn’t mandated.
Indian courts, especially in recent copyright and trademark cases, have begun granting dynamic injunctions—orders that allow rightsholders to block not just listed infringing URLs but also new, future attempts to circumvent blocks. Intermediaries must comply with takedown requests or lose safe-harbor immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act, but enforcement sometimes goes further, requiring proactive, continuous measures to curb repeat infringement.
Rising Costs, Shrinking Margins
The shift carries profound implications for platform economics. “What was once a notice-and-takedown regime has become a continuous operational duty, altering both profitability and strategic positioning of digital platforms in India,” explains Hingmire.
“The co-custodian role changes this balance,” said Isheta T Batra, founder of TrailBlazer Advocates. “Companies are now required to anticipate infringements, track patterns, and implement preventive measures. This requires larger compliance teams, more advanced technological monitoring, and regular legal oversight.”
Experts warn that dynamic injunctions impose heavy infrastructural demands on e-commerce platforms, necessitating investments in AI-based content monitoring and expanded legal/compliance teams. While Amazon, Flipkart, and Reliance-owned platforms have scaled these requirements, smaller players face disproportionate burdens—risking market consolidation.
“Platforms must now invest heavily in expensive AI systems and large human moderation teams to comply,” said Dr. Sudhir Raja Ravindran, attorney-at-law at Altacit Global. “This substantial operational cost erodes profitability and creates a significant barrier to entry for smaller players.”
Access and Democratization
Trademark filings reflect India’s tightening enforcement climate. Nearly 90 percent of trademark applications in 2023 were submitted by Indian residents, showing domestic businesses are eager to leverage courts for brand protection. But access remains unequal.
“Large players such as Amazon, Jio, and Paytm are already benefiting from dynamic injunctions, but SMEs struggle due to prohibitive litigation costs and lack of access,” Hingmire observed.
Batra warned of potential market consolidation: “There is a real risk that enforcement evolution could consolidate protection in the hands of a few deep-pocketed players, making the marketplace less diverse, not more.”
“The test for India’s e-commerce ecosystem is simple,” Batra concluded. “Will brand protection be a tool of market dominance, or a platform for fair competition?”
Counterfeiting on Indian e-commerce platforms has surged alarmingly, underscoring the urgency behind judicial interventions like dynamic injunctions. The Consumer Affairs Ministry logged over 17,500 complaints about fake and duplicate goods from 2022 through mid-2025, including 7,221 cases in the first half of this year alone, up sharply from 3,133 in 2022. States like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Delhi, Rajasthan, and Karnataka reported the highest volumes.
The surge has prompted enforcement actions beyond the judiciary. The Bureau of Indian Standards also conducted 22 raids in 2024–25, seizing counterfeit goods from warehouses. Meanwhile, platforms are bound under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, to authenticate goods and curb unfair practices.
The forthcoming Digital India Act aims to codify and expand judicial innovations like dynamic injunctions into a comprehensive statutory framework, strengthening platform accountability in India’s digital ecosystem. The Act proposes to classify intermediaries by risk profile, mandating tailored compliance obligations for e-commerce platforms, social media, and emerging AI-driven services.
By empowering regulators such as MeitY to designate offenses including counterfeiting and misleading advertisements punishable under law, the Act seeks to close existing enforcement gaps. Importantly, it envisions mandatory proactive measures for platforms—ranging from advanced AI-enabled monitoring to robust grievance redressal mechanisms—thereby institutionalizing the courts’ proactive stance in a scalable, technology-enabled manner.
“AI-based monitoring may bridge practical gaps, but meaningful impact requires legislative clarity and stronger institutional capacity before India can set a global precedent,” warns Hingmire.
