Online fashion counterfeiting in India has evolved from a problem of imitation into a problem of scale, speed, and systemic abuse of digital infrastructure. Counterfeiters today do not merely copy trademarks; they replicate entire brand ecosystems product imagery, packaging, pricing psychology, and online presentation while remaining structurally elusive. The result is a form of infringement that regenerates faster than traditional legal remedies can respond.
Indian courts, particularly the Delhi High Court, have increasingly recognized that conventional injunctions tied to identified defendants are ill-suited to this reality. The judicial evolution from John Doe (Ashok Kumar) orders dynamic or rolling injunctions marks a significant doctrinal shift one that is especially consequential for the fashion and luxury sectors, where trade dress, brand perception, and exclusivity are core commercial assets.
Online Fashion Counterfeiting as a Continuous Commercial Enterprise
Unlike traditional trademark infringement, fashion counterfeiting online is rarely static. A typical enforcement scenario involves dozens of infringing listings appearing simultaneously across marketplaces, often using identical images sourced from the brand’s official website. When removed, these listings reappear under new seller identities, frequently within 24-72 hours, sometimes across entirely different platforms.
Courts have acknowledged this pattern in multiple cases, observing that online infringers operate in a “hydra-headed” manner, where removal of one node results in the immediate emergence of several others. This recognition is crucial, because it reframes infringement not as a series of discrete acts, but as a continuing wrong requiring continuing relief.
John Doe Orders: Judicial Acceptance of Anonymity in Infringement
The foundation for modern online enforcement in India lies in John Doe orders, first developed to combat piracy and later extended to trademark infringement. In Taj Television Ltd. v. Rajan Mandal [1], the Delhi High Court recognised that plaintiffs cannot be denied relief merely because infringers deliberately conceal their identities.
In fashion counterfeiting disputes, courts have applied this reasoning to anonymous marketplace sellers, social media storefronts, and unknown website operators. More recently, in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Mr. Abhay Kumar [2], the Court reaffirmed that where infringement is evident and ongoing, the absence of precise defendant identification cannot defeat injunctive relief.
However, while John Doe orders expanded the scope of enforceability, they remained procedurally limited. Each new infringing website or listing often required additional court intervention, creating delays that counterfeiters exploited strategically.
Dynamic Injunctions: Adapting Relief to Adaptive Infringement
Dynamic injunctions represent a judicial response to this procedural gap. The concept was crystallized in online piracy jurisprudence, most notably in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to [3], where the Delhi High Court permitted injunctions to be extended to mirror and redirect websites without requiring fresh suits.
This reasoning has since migrated into trademark law. Courts have accepted that where infringement is:
- repetitive,
- commercially motivated, and
- technologically evasive,
static injunctions are inadequate. In fashion counterfeiting cases, this has enabled brand owners to seek orders that apply not only to identified infringing URLs or sellers, but also to future manifestations of the same infringing activity.
The doctrinal justification is clear: procedural formalism cannot be allowed to legitimize infringement by attrition.
Establishing the Case for Dynamic Injunctions
Courts have considered the following factors:
- Continuity of infringement - Persistence of infringing activity despite prior takedowns, cease-and-desist notices, or existing court orders, indicating a continuing wrong rather than isolated infringement.
- Functional identity of infringing manifestations - Successor listings, websites, or seller accounts that replicate the same trademarks, trade dress, product imagery, packaging, or overall online presentation, evidencing a common source or enterprise.
- Intentional evasiveness and technological circumvention - Use of rotating seller identities, mirror or redirect websites, anonymised or offshore hosting, or other mechanisms designed to defeat enforcement and evade identification.
- Commercial scale and organised activity - High-volume listings, uniform or strategic pricing patterns, and coordinated distribution models suggesting a structured commercial operation rather than sporadic misconduct.
- Procedural necessity and effectiveness of relief - Circumstances were insisting on fresh proceedings for each iteration would render injunctive relief ineffective, justifying procedural flexibility to preserve substantive trademark and trade-dress rights.
Trade Dress, Visual Identity, and Fashion-Specific Harm
Fashion cases often involve more than word marks. Counterfeiters replicate product shapes, colour schemes, packaging, and overall “look and feel,” giving rise to classic passing-off claims. Indian courts have long recognized trade dress protection, as seen in Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care [4] and ITC Ltd. v. Britannia Industries [5].
Dynamic injunctions are particularly well-suited to trade dress disputes because they allow courts to address consumer deception holistically, rather than forcing brand owners to prove confusion anew for every cloned listing.
Importantly, courts have also accepted that fashion counterfeiting causes irreparable reputational harm. In L’Oréal S.A. v. Mr. Munir [6], the Delhi High Court noted that counterfeit luxury goods dilute brand exclusivity and permanently erode goodwill harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages.
Intermediary Responsibility and Platform-Level Enforcement
Dynamic injunctions also intersect with the evolving role of intermediaries. While Indian law preserves safe-harbour protections, courts have increasingly distinguished between passive intermediaries and platforms that enable repeat infringement.
In Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj [7], the Delhi High Court [held that active participation by online platforms through branding, logistics, or seller optimization can attract higher enforcement obligations. This reasoning has informed later orders directing platforms to act against repeat infringers rather than merely removing individual listings.
For fashion brands, this represents a shift from transactional takedowns to ecosystem-level enforcement, where courts recognize that platform architecture itself can facilitate infringement.
Procedural Safeguards and Due Process in Dynamic Injunctions
Concerns regarding over-breadth and due process have inevitably accompanied the rise of dynamic injunctions, particularly where relief extends to future defendants or unidentified intermediaries. Indian courts, however, have shown increasing sensitivity to these issues and have developed internal safeguards to prevent indiscriminate enforcement.
Extensions of dynamic relief are conditioned on clear visual, trademark, or trade-dress identity between the original infringing material and its successor manifestations. Courts have also resisted automatic private enforcement, instead requiring court-supervised extensions based on fresh evidence. Importantly, relief has been confined to the same underlying commercial enterprise, rather than mere similarity or coincidence.
Procedural balance is further maintained by preserving the right of affected defendants or intermediaries to seek modification, clarification, or recall of orders. These safeguards ensure that dynamic injunctions function as calibrated judicial tools rather than blunt instruments, aligning enforcement efficiency with principles of natural justice
Comparative Perspective
Internationally, courts face similar challenges. UK courts have permitted site-blocking and extended injunctions against unidentified operators, notably in Cartier International AG v. British Sky Broadcasting [8]. EU jurisprudence has likewise endorsed intermediary-directed injunctions under the E-Commerce Directive framework.
In contrast, the United States relies heavily on private enforcement through marketplace brand-protection programmes, with courts granting broad injunctions but less frequently supervising rolling enforcement.
India’s approach is distinctive in that courts themselves are crafting procedural enforcement tools, positioning Indian jurisprudence as increasingly responsive to digital fashion counterfeiting.
Court-Ready Enforcement Framework for Fashion Brands
Based on prevailing jurisprudence, fashion brands seeking John Doe and dynamic injunctions should approach enforcement as a structured litigation exercise, not a reactive filing.
Before filing
- Identify repeat patterns: same images, pricing anomalies, seller behaviour
- Capture timestamped screenshots and URLs
- Conduct at least one test purchase where feasible
- Document prior takedown attempts and recurrence timelines
At the first hearing
- Frame infringement as systemic, not isolated
- Quantify the problem (number of listings, platforms, recurrence window)
- Demonstrate India-specific targeting (INR pricing, delivery promises)
- Seek John Doe relief with liberty to approach court for dynamic extension
For dynamic injunctions
- Show post-order persistence of infringement
- Map mirror websites or successor listings
- Request court-approved mechanisms for notifying platforms/ISPs
- Ensure relief is proportionate to withstand due-process scrutiny
Courts have consistently rewarded precision, restraint, and credibility.
Conclusion
The shift from John Doe orders to dynamic injunctions reflects a fundamental judicial insight: online fashion counterfeiting is not episodic misconduct, but a continuously regenerating commercial enterprise.
For fashion brands operating in India, enforcement can no longer be static or reactive. Dynamic injunctions when supported by evidence and deployed strategically transform trademark rights into living protections, capable of responding to infringement at the speed at which it occurs.
Viewed in this light, dynamic injunctions reflect an emerging Indian model of digital intellectual property enforcement one that balances access, due process, and commercial reality without requiring statutory overhaul. By adapting procedural tools to contemporary modes of infringement, courts have ensured that substantive trademark and trade-dress rights remain effective in digital marketplaces.
In 2026, effective fashion brand protection will be defined not merely by registration portfolios, but by enforcement architecture.
Authors:
Mohit Porwal, Associate Partner
Vidhi Agrawal, Associate
References:
- Taj Television Ltd. v. Rajan Mandal, 2003 (27) PTC 205 (Del).
- Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Mr. Abhay Kumar, 2014 (57) PTC 495 (Del).
- UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.to, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002.
- Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care, 2003 (27) PTC 478 (Del).
- ITC Ltd. v. Britannia Industries Ltd., 2016 (65) PTC 418 (Del).
- L’Oréal S.A. v. Mr. Munir, 2013 (53) PTC 1 (Del).
- Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj, 2018 (76) PTC 193 (Del).
- Cartier International AG v. British Sky Broadcasting Ltd., [2016] EWCA Civ 658.
Disclaimer:
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.