The Comparative Analysis Between IPR And Consumer Protection Laws In India

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Consumer Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:15:09.647285+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:05:58.092+00:00

THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN IPR AND

CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS IN INDIA

Naina Viswaraj, H.H Maharaja's Govt. Law College, Ernakulam

ABSTRACT

The intellectual property rights are one of the key stones of the consumer protection laws in India or elsewhere. Having effective intellectual property rights would ensure good quality and standard for a particular product. Hence, it is essential for the proprietors to secure the intellectual property rights of a product by not letting anyone to misuse it. This alleged process of misusing the intellectual property rights of a product by any unlicensed proprietors after replicating the exact design and other unique identification characteristics that the other product possess is termed as counterfeiting. Counterfeiting can be both detrimental to the consumers and proprietors alike. The consumer who purchases a counterfeited product is being deceived by this substituted product instead of the original one can suffer damages as a result of the use of this product.

The main factor which serves as a link between the consumer protection act and the intellectual property rights is the protection of consumers, notwithstanding the fact that IPR laws are imbibed mostly for the protection of the proprietors, however the main aim of it is to aid the consumers in making an informed decision about a product preventing them falling prey to the spurious products manufactured in the same name. This paper will primarily entail the consequent remedies offered to a consumer after he/she receives a counterfeited product.

There were fewer remedied available before to a consumer in case of damages caused as a result of the use of counterfeited products, even after having extensive provisions pertaining to counterfeiting under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the consumers were often left remediless and the proprietors were the only one to walk away with the compensation. Therefore, this paper will trace the path of evolution of the laws which did not recognize consumers as essential complainants to the laws which recognize consumers as a complainant entitled to the remedies. The new consumer protection act of 2019 protects the consumers who are victims of counterfeiting of products; a detailed overview of all the new provisions incorporated in the new act would be specified in this paper.

There are several methods adopted by India and even internationally to prevent the practice of counterfeiting thereby letting the consumers free from any bogus products manufactured in the same name,

such techniques are espoused in the research paper after which sufficient suggestions for improvement of the said schemes are also mentioned. Literature review Consumers and their rights are the most important aspects and this is the link that serves between both IPR and consumer protection laws. The article ‘Interfaces and synergies between Intellectual property rights and consumer protection laws in India: An analysis’ by Amit Singh, Thripura V published on journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 20 July 2015, PP 201- 209consists of a plethora of information pertaining to the nexus between consumer protection and IPR laws. A lot of information pertaining to the topic such as the different components of IPR and how those components are linked to the consumer protection laws etc are mentioned in this article.

The researcher has formed the outline of the topic using this article however there is no mention of the status in India after the new consumer protection act came in force which was ventured upon by the researcher and that has been subsequently inculcated in the research paper. The first point to be considered was that of the infringement of the rights of the consumers, counterfeiting is a deception technique and a subsequent violation of right against exploitation of a consumer. The article ‘Deception as an antitrust violation’ Harvard Law Review, Vol. 125, No. 5 (MARCH 2012), pp. 1235-1255, enumerates on how deception of consumers can amount to a violation of the anti-trust principle of consumers.

It contains a streak of examples which elucidates on how deception is a violation of a consumer’s right to safety; this article describes this context after co-relating the anti-counterfeiting practices in the US. The researcher has however used this to co-relate this content with the scenario in India by coming to the conclusion that in India, such an act amounts to a violation of right against exploitation of consumers which is a guaranteed right to the consumers.

When consumers are persuaded by the proprietors to purchase a product, there is a sort of trust and understanding that is established between the consumer and the proprietor, in this unequivocal contract, no third party can interfere in order to take advantage of the trust so created, there is a pivotal role that consumers play in bringing a harmonious purchase mechanism, therefore, it is safe to say that consumers are bestowed with both duties and rights. The journal article ‘The trustworthy brand: effects of conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness on consumer judgments’ by Brett A. S. Martin and Carolyn A. Strong Marketing Letters Vol. 27, No. 3 (September 2016), pp. 473-485. This article states the different persuasion tactics that are used to persuade a consumer in believing that a particular brand can be superior to the other brands and how it

affects the decision making process of the consumers that is the reason why most of them falls prey to counterfeiting. The researcher has taken the concept of vigilantism of proprietors from this particular article. This article does not provide for the solutions that the proprietors can undertake in order to prevent deception of consumers. There are severe after effects that the consumers may encounter after they are deceived, even though the brands try to re-establish its position, now this is an unfortunate occurrence when neither of the parties is at fault. The article ‘The Impact of Counterfeiting on Genuine-Item Consumers' Brand Relationships’ by Suraj Commuri Journal of Marketing Vol. 73, No. 3 (May, 2009), pp. 86-98. This article provides for the strategies and measures undertaken by the consumers when their favourite brand is counterfeited.

The article describes the tendency of a consumer to repel itself from a particular brand. The researcher has prepared a case study after deriving the concept from this article. This article contains numerous interviews of different consumers in different age-groups and also attempts to provide for an analysis on how likely a consumer are to fall prey for counterfeiting. The researcher has provided for the ways in which a consumer can be vigilant enough to understand that a particular product is counterfeited so that they do not repel themselves from highly trusted brands. An important point that the researcher is trying to establish here is that this exercise would help the consumers in getting an idea as to how to distinguish an original brand product being faulty and a counterfeited faulty product.

There has always been a question pertaining to the international standards followed to prevent the consumers from being the victims of counterfeiting. The article ‘Human Rights and Rights in Intellectual Property - Fixing the Framework for a Better Tomorrow. ’ By Hetvi Trivedi (2020) PL (IPR) April 88 focuses on the facets of infringement of rights of one’s creative and cultural rights of the proprietors and right to health of the consumers which is in turn a component of human rights. The author has meticulously detailed the essential need for protection of both the proprietors and consumers and has mentioned several international efforts undertaken to curb the practice of counterfeiting. The researcher has briefly stated the anti-counterfeiting techniques that are internationally acclaimed which are widely used to prevent the consumers from deception of the products they purchase.

However, this article does not cover the remedy available to consumers specifically in case of counterfeiting; it focuses mainly the remedies available to the proprietors of the original products and the guidelines to prevent the said practice. The researcher specifically talks about the remedies a consumer can avail in case of such misconduct.

The article ‘Access to Knowledge in India’ Vol. 23, Issue 1 (2011), pp. 87-98 23 Nat'l L. Sch. India Rev. 87 (2011-2012) by Lea Shaver. This article predominantly focuses on the importance of right to health of consumers and its protection. Counterfeiting and the like acts is a serious violation of right to health of the consumers. It mainly emphasises on the patent rights of pharmaceutical products and how the non-compliance can cause serious consequences. This article attempts to balance the cultural rights of a proprietor and the right to health of a consumer. The researcher has made an attempt to scrutinize the existing framework pertaining to pharmaceutical products and its copyrights infringement from the article.

Right to health can not only be co-related with pharmaceutical products so an attempt is made by the researcher to co-relate the concept with other products other than pharmaceuticals as well. The article ‘Counterfeiting, enforcement and social welfare’ by Ming-Fang Tsai and Jiunn- Rong Chiou published in the Journal of Economics Vol. 107, No. 1 (September 2012) – this article follows a different approach pertaining to the nexus between consumer protection laws and the intellectual property rights, it primarily emphasises the view that stringent laws and practice to counterfeiting can also be detrimental to the welfare and that it does not necessarily abolish this practice as a whole. This article is a perfect example of reading between the lines of the existing practice that prevails and not assuming that everything is perfect from the outside.

The researcher has incorporated the author’s insightful thoughts on how the current system of anti-counterfeiting practices work globally and how it cannot be effective all the time, however the researcher has furthered the interpretation of the author by bringing in the concept of consumer vigilantism and how that can help a consumer to be saved from any damages that he/she might suffer after the use of a certain product. The article ‘Social Media and IPR Issue’ (2019) 9 GJLDP (April) 119 by Niharika Behl- This article traces the path of social media becoming an effective tool in spreading deceptive information and it being the primary platform wherein products with fake trademark are sold.

This article consists of several case laws that can explain the system that prevailed before the commencement of the current act pertaining to the remedies of consumers in case they are subject to any such deception. The researcher has referred to several case laws mentioned in this article to explain the concept of deception of consumers. However, the author does not venture upon the current provisions pertaining to the remedy for consumers after the new act was introduced in India. The researched tried to address this lacuna in the paper by taking a look at the current sections pertaining to product liability and the formulation of the CCPA.

The article ‘Block chain ‘Witness’: A New Evidence Model in Consumer Disputes’ 7 IJCLP (2019) 24 by Matej Michalko. This article entails the reasons for the surge in counterfeiting in China. This article enumerates the cumbersome process the consumers have to undergo for a complaint of counterfeit to be registered online and the evolution of the new act to aid the consumers in this process by the use of block chain technology. The researcher has incorporated the exclusive feature of the new act mentioned in this article. The researcher has used this information to create a comparative analysis between the present systems in India.The article

‘IMPOSING IP COMPLIANCE: TRENDS IN THE USTR SPECIAL 301 REPORTS FOR

INDIA AND CHINA FROM 2000-2008’ by Nadia Lambek. This article predominantly focuses on the UTSR report which shows the surge in counterfeiting case in both India and China. The researcher has incorporated this information to study the comparative analysis between the countries. There are different kinds of spurious products- Pass-off product- when the alphabetical or numeral arrangement is changed with regard to the product, Colgatt instead of Colgate. Counterfeited product- same trade dress, same appearance but a different product. Research methodology The researcher has adopted primary and secondary methods of research. The main research methodology is doctrinal. Several research papers, articles, journals; statutes were reviewed in order to provide a concrete understanding for the topic.

Comparative analysis was also done in in order to provide for a comparative approach between India and other countries. Research questions

1) What remedies are offered to consumers when they suffer damages as a result of the

infringement of intellectual property rights of the proprietors?

2) What are the efforts taken in India in order to prevent the practice of IPR infringement

which in turn leads to consumer dissatisfaction?

3) How can consumer vigilantism save the consumers from deception and subsequent

damages that arise?

4) Do the other countries have stringent laws pertaining to IPR infringement and consumer

remedy? Introduction Trade mark is the one component that is linked to the consumers and proprietors. Trade mark is a unique identification component that is associated with a particular product. This can be misused and the consumers are often tricked into buying products that appear to be the original product. Other than the local manufacturers, the import of these counterfeited drugs also plays a significant role in increasing the sale of counterfeited products in the country. The trade related aspects of the counterfeited goods are covered under the TRIPS agreement which validates the trade and services of goods. One of the main reasons for increased counterfeiting of products is also the relaxed trade restrictions which enable the free movement of goods.

Examples of this could be when the consumers are deceived of a particular packaging of the product- Colgate Palmolive V Anchor beauty care ltd1- The trade dress of the products Anchor and Colgate were extremely similar causing confusion as to the original product. This can also be termed as one of the deception tactics of consumers. Rights of consumers which are being infringed as a result of the offence of counterfeiting-

1) Right to health-when a counterfeited product is being used by a consumer, this product

with unnamed ingredients and combination is going to inflict serious harm on the consumers. For example, when the counterfeited Kylie cosmetics product was used, consumers suffered consequences in the form of swollen lips because of the presence of gasoline in the product.

2) Right to safety- When there is a spurious product in place of the actual product, there

is a risk to the safety of the consumers. The usage of the product may or may not be 1Colgate Palmolive V Anchor beauty care ltd, 1998 (1) SCC 720 (India)

harmful but the fact that the consumers safety are not taken with requisite consideration essentially violates their right to safety.

3) Right against exploitation- when false advertisements pertaining to a product is termed

as one of deception tactics, then false products which are being imitated by unregistered manufacturers can also be termed as a deception strategy and this is indeed a violation of a consumer’s right against being exploited.

4) Right to be informed- A consumer has every right to be informed of the quality of

product and all the other particulars pertaining to the same. When this is not done and the consumers are purchasing a product without being aware of the quality of the product then there is an infringement of the right to be informed as well. 2 Situation prior to the amendment of 2019 Before the 2019 act came into force, the position of remedy for consumers was not even discussed by the court only the remedy for the owners was discussed; it was presumed that only they are the ones who suffer damages pertaining to the brand name and reputation. In the case of Laxmikant V Chethanbhat3 it was held that an ordinary remedy in a case of copyright infringement and sale of counterfeited products was a definite ex-parte injunction and the seizure of the remaining goods. The question of right of consumers to seek remedy was not even raised.

Some years later the question of rights of the consumers was discussed but did not necessarily provide a positive outlook for the question of consumer protection. In the case of Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy4, 2008 the question of rights of consumers arose in case of a trademark violation but the court did not take a very lenient view pertaining to this. The court stated that the consumers will have to establish proof that they were ‘specifically targeted’ by the defendants to take an action against them, a passive website containing an advertisement of a counterfeited product is not sufficient enough to take 2FAKES, COUNTERFEITS, LOOK-ALIKES AND SPURIOUS IN BRANDS, SHODHGANGA,(10th October 2020, 09:00 am) , https://shodhganga. inflibnet. ac. in/bitstream/10603/226211/4/ch-2.

pdf 3Laxmikant V Chethanbhat, 2002 (24) PTC 1 (SC) (India) 4Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy, CS (OS) 894/2008 (High Court of Delhi, 23rd November 2009) (India).

action against them. Indirectly it could be inferred that the onus of proving that a product was counterfeited lies on the consumers. There were attempts made by some other statutes to address the rights of customers when they incur damages-

1) The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954- When it comes to counterfeiting of

food products the FSSAI takes care of the quality of the product and it is their responsibility to make sure that the food it fit for consumption. So in case there is any non-compliance to this rule and as a result of it there is ‘grievous injury’ or harm inflicted on the customer as a result of the consumption of these food products, they will be charged under section 320 of the IPC.5 The problem with this section is that there is no provision which largely talks about the safety of consumers other than when there is any ‘grievous’ injury or death caused to that person. There is no remedy available to the consumer other than when there is anything life threatening happens to them.

2) According to the 2008 amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 19406 any product

of SFFC (Spurious/falsely labelled/falsified/counterfeited) nature which has caused harm in the form of death of the consumers, then the manufacturers will be sentenced with an imprisonment of not less than ten years or more along with a fine which is three times the amount of the drugs procured by the authorities. Again the fact that the remedy or an action shall be undertaken only after the extreme happens is not an adequate preventive measure.7However this situation has still not been addressed in the new consumer protection act, because even if there is no significant inflicted upon the consumer, the right to safety of the consumers is still risked and adequate repercussion mechanism is supposed to be undertaken. Position after the Consumer Protection Act of 2019-

1) CCPA (Central consumer protection authority) was formulated in the year 2019, this

5Section 16 Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954, INDIA KANOON, (11th October 2020, 11:05 am) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151999671/ 6Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 7A N Khan, R.K Khar, Current scenario of spurious and substandard medicines in India, Indian Pharma J SCI 2015; 77 (1):2-7 (11th October 2020, 11:32 am) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4355878/

authority keeps checks and balances of the consumers’ needs and has stringent provisions with respect to the penalisation of the offenders leading to even a jail term. The establishment of CCPA has played a significant role in the consumer protection generally.As part of several changes made in the new act, the prevention of consumers from the practice of counterfeiting was also recognised.

2) Disclosure of the information of the sellers on all the online platforms in order to

prevent the deception of consumers.

3) Shifting the onus to the companies for not selling the consumers counterfeited products.

The companies who are engaged in such a process will be penalised. The Banyan tree case almost implies that the onus of proving this was on the consumers, now the situation is different.

4) Product liability was introduced after the amendment of the new protection act of 2019.

Section 83 of the Consumer protection Act 2019 talks about product liability. Product liability is invoked when a manufacturer produces a faulty product and the liability will also extend to the sellers if he/she was aware of the fact that the product sold is counterfeited. Even though product liability does not mention anything about the counterfeited products specifically it can be assumed that those products will also fall under the purview of product liability. The fact that the manufacturer has used deception tactics in order to trick them into buying a product makes the manufacturer liable. 8 Scope of Product liability in the near future - It ensures that the consumers are compensated of the damages that he/she inflicts due to the usage of the product. i. e.

, a person who suffers damages after using a particular counterfeited product, mistaking it to be the original product would be compensated according to the injuries or the harm that has been caused after the use of that product. Suppose a customer uses a product called ‘colgatt’ mistaking it for ‘Colgate’ and suffers the consequences in the form of bleeding gums, the compensation would be in the form of the medical expenses that could be covered for the injury caused. Before the 2019 amendment, it would have been only the cost of the toothpaste that the consumer would be compensated with. 8Consumer Protection Act, 2019, s 83, Bill No 144, Acts of Parliament 2019, (India).

5) The NGO’s and other social groups can approach the consumer forum seeking relief as

a result of suffering any damages. An important fact to be taken note of here is that ‘food’ has been included in the purview of the new consumer protection act of 2019. Therefore, it can be interpreted that all the new developments concerning the act are applicable to food also. Hence, the provisions of the food and safety act mentioned before now has a wider scope and the damages can be claimed by a consumer when the consumers use counterfeited food product not only when they suffer ‘grievous’ injuries. Consumer vigilantism as a measure to curb counterfeiting-

1) Consumers should be aware of their right against exploitation.

2) Consumers in rural areas are prone to buying counterfeited products; therefore, it is

important for them to understand that no original product will be sold below the actual MRP of the original product.

3) When a purchase is made via online, never proceed with it if there is no seller’s

information provided.

4) In case of damages suffered by the consumer, he/she can avail the protection under

product liability wherein the manufacturer will be liable and if the seller was also aware of it he/she will also have to compensate for the damages caused to the consumer. New measures to curb counterfeiting of products The first and foremost important step adopted by several e-commerce websites is the disclosure of the details of the sellers. This will help the consumers in ensuring that the products are of the same quality and trademark as they have expected. Other than the remedy of tracking down of counterfeiters and subjecting them to punishments, there was a remarkable effort taken by the Indian government to reduce the instances of this practice. It is a pivotal fact that the reason for this copyright infringement is recognition, recognition and popularity is what serves as a primary source of motivation for the purchase of a product.

The harming of the consumers would not even be even involuntary and

unintentional. In furtherance to this thought, the ‘make in India’ initiative was made which was one of the major efforts undertaken by the government to curb counterfeiting of products. The main motto of the make in India campaign is to promote innovation, enhance skill development, protect intellectual property and facilitate investment. It encourages the entrepreneurs to create their own products without infringing the copyright of the proprietors thereby protecting the consumers. Even if the counterfeited products are harmless and there is no direct damage suffered by them, usage of those products is still a risk to the safety of the consumers. This initiative encourages the new entrepreneurs to launch their own independent products.

The easiest way to curb a problem is by going into the root of it, the ideal way to tackle a problem is by eliminating all of the root cause associated with, which is what can be considered from the initiative of ‘make in India’. However, this initiative did not live to see the day, the excessive number of new young entrepreneurs along with the immense popularity of the other brands and their lack of expertise with the new systems has significantly contributed to the failure of this model, while the essential purpose of consumer protection was served, there was a significant lack of motivation to continue this initiative owing to its loss in income and the country’s overall GDP declining. 9 Comparative analysis with other countries

USA

US follow a very vigilant system to ensure that there is no counterfeiting of product. The US department of Homeland in the year 2019 released an action plan aimed at tracking down the counterfeited goods. It is no secret that no country is immune from counterfeiting but in US, the system for combating counterfeiting is strong. The fake goods are seized at the border and the importers are made to pay the damages.The ICSE tracked down several counterfeited products. Even though the TRIPS agreement regulates the movement of counterfeited products across borders, there is always a high chance of these products getting away and entering the market, US has a very efficient system which prevents such goods entering the market.10 Other than that, an

9 M. Suresh Babu, why make in India has failed?, (11th October 2020, 03:09 pm)

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/why-make-in-india-has-failed/article30601269.ece 10 Peter N Fowler, Storage and disposal of forfeited infringing goods: The US experience, (11th October 2020, 10:00 pm) https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/infringing-goods-peter_0.pdf

important feature of consumer protection act in the US is that the culprits would be penalised even when there is no harm inflicted to the consumers. For example, in the case of Bevacizumab case11 the offenders had toundergo a house arrest along with probation for five years. Whereas, in India the situation is different in order to invoke an actual case, there should be substantial damage done to the consumers like grievous hurt or death. China- China has the one of the highest number of online counterfeiting cases in the world, there were several strategies and measures undertaken to curb the practice throughout the years. Since, the procedure undertaken to bring the counterfeiters to the light was extremely convoluted there was a new act passed in the year 2019 i. e.

, E-Commerce Law of the People's Republic of China’ officially came into force, complementing China's Cyber security Law and Consumer Rights Protection Law to make the procedure less cumbersome enabling them to preserve the evidence of such acts by block chain technology. 12 What is block chain technology? Block chain technology is the tracing down of the entire procedure of a product from its inception to the time when it reaches the consumer. It a ledger containing all the specific details pertaining to a product like the details of the manufacturer, to the seller. This can be convenient for the consumers since it can help to identify the stages and would be easier to find the culprit who has induced the process of counterfeiting.

Initiative in India- Along with the Niti Aayog, India has recognised the need for having block chain technology in preventing the practice of counterfeiting of medicines. However, the initiative is yet to be brought forth and materialised. This strategy can ensure that the consumers will be protected 11 Tim Ken Mackey, Raphael E Cuomo, After counterfeit Avastin- What have we learned and what can be done? Nature reviews clinical oncology. (11th October 2020, 05:00 pm). https://www. researchgate. net/publication/273062069_After_counterfeit_AvastinR_- _What_have_we_learned_and_what_can_be_done 12Nadia Lambek, ‘IMPOSING IP COMPLIANCE: TRENDS IN THE USTR SPECIAL 301 REPORTS FOR INDIA AND CHINA FROM 2000-2008’ (11th October 2020, 11:30 pm). https://www. cavalluzzo.

com/resources/publications/publication/imposing-ip-compliance-trends-in-the-ustrspecial-301-reports-for-india-and-china-from-2000-2008

against all the damages that they can possibly suffer. This can be a huge success if implemented correctly and can reduce the instances of counterfeiting or pass-offs. France France follows an interesting regime for the protection of consumers. Unlike the other countries, the customers in France are given choices as to their action against the counterfeiters. There are three main remedies for consumers here are as followsa) Right to retrieve the amount after a defective product is purchased. b) Right to ask for reducing the price of the product purchased. c) Right to claim damages The additional option available to a consumer enables him/her to provide for adequate choice of remedies depending on the damages that they have incurred.

13 A replication of this procedure in India can actually help the consumers to avail the remedies based on their choices without spending a lot of time behind the remedies. Conclusion From the observations made from all the literature reviewed and other analysis it is evident that consumers in India are still in dire need of improvement in terms of the prevention of anticounterfeiting strategies. The consumers are exploited and their rights are curbed and since the passage of the new consumer protection act, there are new found remedies which are applicable to the consumers. Even though, product liability is mentioned in the statute, there is no special mention of counterfeited products specifically. However, this liberty can be assumed by the consumers for claiming the damages.

The other countries are far more established and ahead of us when it comes to implementing anti-counterfeiting strategies. Initiatives such as ‘make in India’ can protect the intellectual property rights but still it would not create a difference with respect to the status of consumers.

13 The law commission and the Scottish law commission, Consultation paper no 188, 2008

Suggestions India lacks a concrete system to trace counterfeiters and take action immediately. The sale of these goods via online also makes it difficult for them to trace their identities, however mandatory disclosure of details of the sellers are supposed to be undertaken as per the new act which should be carried out effectively with very little room for mistakes. This clearly is not being followed which can be proved from the survey conducted. The original proprietor should seek to identify every possible way that their products are identified and then make adequate efforts to ensure that their products are not counterfeited because once the original owner finds such activity he/she can send notice take down such products immediately. Finally, due diligence from the part of consumers could be expected and they should purchase the product after careful consideration of the same.

There should be a system to track the counterfeiters not just in the e-commerce.

Bibliography Articles and journals

1) ‘Interfaces and synergies between Intellectual property rights and consumer protection

laws in India: An analysis’ by Amit Singh, Thripura V published on journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 20 July 2015, PP 201-209

2) ‘Deception as an antitrust violation’ Harvard Law Review, Vol. 125, No. 5 (MARCH

2012), pp. 1235-1255,

3) ‘The trustworthy brand: effects of conclusion explicitness and persuasion awareness on

consumer judgments’ by Brett A. S. Martin and Carolyn A. Strong Marketing Letters Vol. 27, No. 3 (September 2016), pp. 473-485.

4) ‘The Impact of Counterfeiting on Genuine-Item Consumers' Brand Relationships’ by

SurajCommuri Journal of Marketing Vol. 73, No. 3 (May, 2009), pp. 86-98.

5) ‘Human Rights and Rights in Intellectual Property - Fixing the Framework for a Better

Tomorrow.’ By HetviTrivedi (2020) PL (IPR) April 88

6) ‘Access to Knowledge in India’ Vol. 23, Issue 1 (2011), pp. 87-98 23 Nat'l L. Sch. India

Rev. 87 (2011-2012) by Lea Shaver.

7) ‘Counterfeiting, enforcement and social welfare’ by Ming-Fang Tsai and Jiunn-

RongChiou published in the Journal of Economics Vol. 107, No. 1 (September 2012)

8) ‘Social Media and IPR Issue’ (2019) 9 GJLDP (April) 119 by NiharikaBehl-

9) ‘Block chain ‘Witness’: A New Evidence Model in Consumer Disputes’ 7 IJCLP (2019)

24 by MatejMichalko.

10) ‘IMPOSING IP COMPLIANCE: TRENDS IN THE USTR SPECIAL 301 REPORTS

FOR INDIA AND CHINA FROM 2000-2008’ by Nadia Lambek.

11) Colgate Palmolive V Anchor beauty care ltd, 1998 (1) SCC 720 (India)

Online sources

12) FAKES, COUNTERFEITS, LOOK-ALIKES AND SPURIOUS IN BRANDS,

SHODHGANGA,

(10th October 2020, 09:00 am) , https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/226211/4/ch-2.pdf

13) A N Khan, R.K Khar, Current scenario of spurious and substandard medicines in India,

Indian Pharma J SCI 2015; 77 (1):2-7 (11th October 2020, 11:32 am) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4355878/

14) M. Suresh Babu, why make in India has failed? , (11th October 2020, 03:09 pm)

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/why-make-in-india-hasfailed/article30601269.ece

15) Peter N Fowler, Storage and disposal of forfeited infringing goods: The US experience,

(11th October 2020, 10:00 pm) https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/infringinggoods-peter_0.pdf

16) Tim Ken Mackey, Raphael E Cuomo, After counterfeit Avastin- What have we learned

and what can be done? Nature reviews clinical oncology. (11th October 2020, 05:00 pm).https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273062069_After_counterfeit_Avastin R_-_What_have_we_learned_and_what_can_be_done

17) Nadia Lambek, ‘IMPOSING IP COMPLIANCE: TRENDS IN THE USTR SPECIAL

301 REPORTS FOR INDIA AND CHINA FROM 2000-2008’ (11th October 2020,

11:30 pm). https://www.cavalluzzo.com/resources/publications/publication/imposingip- compliance-trends-in-the-ustr-special-301-reports-for-india-and-china-from-2000-

CASE LAWS

1) Colgate Palmolive V Anchor beauty care ltd, 1998 (1) SCC 720 (India).

2) Laxmikant V Chethanbhat, 2002 (24) PTC 1 (SC) (India).

3) Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy, CS (OS) 894/2008 (High

Court of Delhi, 23rd November 2009) (India). Statutes

1) Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

3) Prevention of food adulteration Act, 1954.

Law commission reports The law commission and the Scottish law commission, Consultation paper no 188, 2008