First-copy products have become increasingly popular in recent years, especially in the fashion and luxury goods industry. These products are essentially replicas of branded products that are sold at a fraction of the cost of the original products. While some argue that first-copy products allow consumers to enjoy luxury goods at a lower price, others argue that they infringe upon the intellectual property rights of the original brand owners.

This research paper aims to explore the pros and cons of intellectual property protection for first-copy products. The paper will begin by defining first-copy products and providing examples of their prevalence in the market. The paper will examine the ethical and legal issues that surround the creation and selling of first copies of things and will go through the difficulties associated with upholding intellectual property rules in the e-commerce era.

The research paper will conclude by summarising the study's major conclusions and providing policymakers, brand owners, and consumers with advice. The paper's overall goal is to add to the continuing discussion on the topic of first-copy products and intellectual property protection by offering a thorough study of this issue.

Introduction
The world economy, innovation, and creativity are significantly impacted by first-copy products and their legality. First-copy items are counterfeit goods that violate the intellectual property rights of original producers, and their growth has become a significant problem for businesses and governments all over the world. First-copy items can harm legal enterprises' income and profitability, hinder innovation and creativity, and weaken customer trust and market confidence.

Yet, there are also arguments in favour of a more liberal approach to first-copy items, which can increase customer choice and affordability as well as promote entrepreneurship and competition. The main objective of the research paper on First Copy Products and Intellectual Property Protection is to analyse the benefits and drawbacks of Intellectual Property Protection for First Copy Products.3

In the absence of strong intellectual property protection laws, what are the economic and moral consequences of producing and using first copies of products, and what are the potential advantages of improving intellectual property rights enforcement to stop their spread? Strengthening intellectual property rights enforcement would have both positive and negative effects on the production and consumption of first-copy products.

Strengthening intellectual property rights regulation will indeed limit the supply of first-copy products, thereby promoting creativity and innovation, safeguarding the rights of original creators and users, and contributing to the overall economic growth of a country. Nevertheless, it might also result in greater costs and less access to affordable goods. So, it is important to carefully consider the potential advantages and disadvantages of intellectual property protection legislation to strike the right balance between protecting intellectual property rights and promoting the general welfare.

The following are a few potential gaps that could be investigated and discussed in the paper:

• Lack of knowledge of the concept of first-copy products:
  This area has a lot of room for improvement, yet there are some major gaps. A precise definition of first-copy products is required, along with an explanation of how they differ from original products or counterfeit goods.
   
• Insufficient legal protection for intellectual property: Insufficient legal protection for intellectual property is another issue in some nations. It may become harder for original producers to compete if first-copy products are produced and sold in greater quantities.
• Customer behaviour: When it comes to buying first-copy products, it is important to comprehend consumer behaviour. Some customers might not be aware that they are purchasing a first-copy product or they might decide to buy it since it is reasonably priced.
• Economic impact: Another issue that needs further research is how first-copy items affect the original manufacturers and the industry's overall economies. For instance, the creation and selling of first-copy products may result in a loss of sales for original producers and a decrease in investment in research and development.
• Ethics and morality: The creation and distribution of counterfeit goods raise moral and ethical concerns about intellectual property theft and the use of underpaid labour in some nations.

By exploring these gaps, the paper can provide a comprehensive understanding of the issues related to first-copy products and intellectual property protection.4

The concept of Intellectual Property Protection (IPP) in India
Intellectual Property Protection (IPP) refers to the legal rights granted to protect the creations of the human mind. The concept of IPP has become increasingly significant in India over the years. The Indian government has taken several steps to safeguard and encourage intellectual property in the country.

Patents, trademarks, copyrights, and designs are the main types of intellectual property protected in India. These rights are granted to intellectual property creators to prevent others from utilizing, selling, or disseminating their creations without their express consent.

The Indian government has established some institutions and regulatory bodies to enforce intellectual property rights in the country.

Some international agreements and treaties relating to intellectual property have also been implemented by India, including the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). All members of TRIPS are required to uphold a minimal degree of intellectual property protection.

In India, the idea of intellectual property protection is changing, and the government is acting to tighten the rules and enhance the enforcement procedures to safeguard the works of the human mind.

The emergence of First Copy Products in India
First Copy Products, often referred to as "duplicate" or "replica" products, are goods that are designed to look the same as authentic branded products but are offered for sale at a markedly reduced cost. First-copy products have become more and more popular in India in recent years, especially in the fashion and technology sectors.

In India, some examples of original copies of products include:

• Lack of knowledge of the concept of first-copy products:
  This area has a lot of room for improvement, yet there are some major gaps. A precise definition of first-copy products is required, along with an explanation of how they differ from original products or counterfeit goods.
   
• Insufficient legal protection for intellectual property:
  Insufficient legal protection for intellectual property is another issue in some nations. It may become harder for original producers to compete if first-copy products are produced and sold in greater quantities.
   
• Customer behaviour:
  When it comes to buying first-copy products, it is important to comprehend consumer behaviour. Some customers might not be aware that they are purchasing a first-copy product or they might decide to buy it since it is reasonably priced.
   
• Economic impact:
  Another issue that needs further research is how first-copy items affect the original manufacturers and the industry's overall economies. For instance, the creation and selling of first-copy products may result in a loss of sales for original producers and a decrease in investment in research and development.
   
• Ethics and morality:
  The creation and distribution of counterfeit goods raise moral and ethical concerns about intellectual property theft and the use of underpaid labour in some nations.

First-copy product manufacturing and sales may provide consumers with less expensive substitutes for pricey branded goods, but they also have some drawbacks. It damages the reputation of the original brand, generates less money for research and development, and over time, may even lead to job losses.

There are many sites online in India which are selling 1st copy products of well know brands for much cheaper prices. Also selling of such products violates the right and damages the reputation of the original producers.

Pros of Intellectual Property Protection for First Copy Products:

1. Safeguarding the rights of original brand owners:
   Intellectual property protection assures that the creators of the original brands have the sole right to use their trademarks, patents, or copyrights, preventing unauthorised use or financial gain from their works. Creators and innovators are legally protected by intellectual property laws from unauthorised use, copying, and dissemination of their original creations. This legal protection aids in ensuring that innovators and creators can profit from their work and get paid fairly for their contributions. Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Leo Burnett (India) Pvt. Ltd 1, in this case, the plaintiff, Star India, had created a promotional video for a television show and had obtained copyright protection for the same. The defendant, Leo Burnett, had copied the video and used it in a promotional campaign for a different product. The court held that the defendant had infringed Star India's copyright and ordered it to pay damages to the plaintiff. The court noted that copyright protection provides legal protection to creators and inventors against unauthorized use of their works
    
2. Promoting innovation:
   By giving creators a financial incentive to invest in the study and development of new goods and technologies, intellectual property protection promotes innovation. The encouragement to devote time, money, and resources to the creation of innovative goods, technology, and creative works is provided by intellectual property protection. Intellectual property laws promote innovation and creativity, which can result in improvements in science, technology, and the arts by giving innovators and inventors exclusive rights. In the legal dispute between Roche Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. and B. Braun Medical (India) Pvt. Ltd.2, the plaintiff Roche Products had created a cutting-edge test for the diagnosis of a genetic condition and had secured a patent for it. B. Braun Medical, the defendant, created a comparable test and put it on the market. The defendant was ordered to stop selling the infringing product after the court ruled that it had violated Roche's patent. The court also highlighted that by giving inventors exclusive rights to their ideas, the patent system promotes innovation and creativity.
    
3. Encouraging fair competition:
   By restricting people from making money off of someone else's inventions, intellectual property protection fosters fair competition and can provide the owner of the original brand an advantage over competitors. Original creations are protected by intellectual property laws to prevent unfair commercial use by others. Without this safeguard, creators and inventors wouldn't be able to take legal action against anyone who uses their unique creations for profit without their consent or payment.
    
4. Generating jobs:
   By encouraging businesses to spend on research and development, which can result in the production of new goods and services, intellectual property protection can create jobs.
    
5. Increases the value of the intellectual property:
   Protecting intellectual property gives authors and inventors exclusive rights that can be licenced or sold for a profit, increasing the value of creative works. Establishing new markets and sectors, can encourage more invention and creativity and boost economic growth.

In general, intellectual property protection is necessary for guaranteeing that artists and innovators can be fairly compensated for their work and plays a crucial role in fostering innovation, creativity, and economic prosperity.

Cons of Intellectual Property Protection for First Copy Products:

• Higher prices for customers:
  Consumer prices may increase as a result of intellectual property protection since original brand owners may charge more for their goods because of their exclusive rights to do so. Another potential drawback of intellectual property protection is that it can increase the cost of accessing and using intellectual property. For example, patent licensing fees can be expensive, which can make it difficult for smaller businesses or individuals to access or use the patented technology.
  
  Copyright infringement lawsuits can also be costly, which can deter individuals or companies from using or sharing copyrighted material. Ericsson AB v. Competition Commission of India 3, in this case, the Delhi High Court held that Ericsson's patent licensing fees for its standard-essential patents (SEPs) were excessive and violated India's competition laws. The court held that high licensing fees can create barriers to entry for smaller companies and limit competition, leading to higher prices and reduced innovation.
   
• Restricted access to products:
  Intellectual property protection may restrict the availability of particular goods since some customers may not be able to afford the exorbitant prices demanded by the original brand owners. One of the main arguments against intellectual property protection is that it can restrict access to knowledge and technology. By granting exclusive rights to creators and inventors, intellectual property laws can prevent others from accessing or using their ideas without permission. This can create barriers to innovation and limit the availability of important information or technology.
  
  The Indian Supreme Court maintained the restrictions of the Indian Patent Act that restricted the patentability of incremental developments in medicines in the case of Novartis AG v. Union of India 4. The court concluded that granting patents for small improvements would make it impossible for generic drug manufacturers to create and market cost-effective medications, so limiting access to healthcare.
   
• Blocking innovation:
  The cost of getting patents or trademarks can make it difficult for new ventures and ideas to enter the market. As a result, intellectual property protection can stifle innovation.
   
• Negative environmental impact:
  Companies who are more concerned with preserving their intellectual property than developing sustainable processes or goods may have a negative environmental impact as a result of intellectual property protection.
   
• Limits the ability of individuals to exercise their rights:
  Intellectual property laws can also limit the ability of individuals to exercise their rights. For example, copyright laws can restrict the use of copyrighted material even if it is for educational or non-commercial purposes. Patent laws can prevent individuals from using or improving upon patented inventions, even if they have the skills and knowledge to do so. The Supreme Court of India ruled in R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Pictures 5 that copyright laws cannot be used to restrict the fair use of protected works. The court said that copyright restrictions shouldn't be applied to restrict free speech or deny the public access to crucial information.

Intellectual property protection is nonetheless a crucial instrument for encouraging innovation, creativity, and economic progress despite these possible downsides. To deploy intellectual property protection in a way that benefits society as a whole, officials must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of doing so.

The legality of First Copy Products
Selling counterfeit products is an offence, and an FIR can be lodged for doing so. Not only this, the said company can recover the number of damages and goodwill. In India, the production and sale of first-copy products are considered to be a violation of intellectual property rights and are therefore illegal.

Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers 6
Facts of the Case:
According to Titan Industries Ltd., Ramkumar Jewellers was selling timepieces that were visually identical to Titan's watches, except for the logo. Titan Industries Ltd. claimed that it was unlawful to produce and sell such watches because it violated their intellectual property rights. Ramkumar Jewellers, on the other hand, claimed that there were variances in the movement, the type of material utilised, and the cost that prevented their watches from being completely comparable to Titan's watches.

Judgement:
The court prohibited Ramkumar Jewellers from selling any first-copy timepieces and ordered them to pay Titan Industries Ltd. damages. The court noted that many buyers might not be able to afford the authentic timepieces and are instead persuaded to purchase the first copied watches. The court additionally noted that the manufacture and selling of such watches harm the original brand's reputation, lower its income and profits, and decreases its investment in Research and Development.

Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Pawan Kumar 7 In this case, Louis Vuitton claimed Pawan Kumar was selling bags that were visually identical to Louis Vuitton's bags, with the emblem being the only difference. Louis Vuitton claimed that it was unlawful to produce and sell these bags because they violated their intellectual property rights. Pawan Kumar, however, noted that due to variations in the type of cloth used and the cost, their bags were not exact replicas of Louis Vuitton's bags.

The court ruled in favour of Louis Vuitton, stating that the production and sale of first-copy bags infringed on the intellectual property rights of the original creator. The court ordered Pawan Kumar to pay damages to Louis Vuitton and restrained them from selling any first-copy bags.

Fashion and copyright: Where inspiration becomes plagiarism
As we can see in the above images many sites copy the designs of celebrity designers and sell very similar or the same outfits in the market. Is it legal to do so?overall impression of the design and the risk of misunderstanding the original product are crucial considerations in finding infringement, it is vital to remember that even minor adjustments to the copied design could not be sufficient to prevent infringement. Therefore, it is always advisable to respect the intellectual property rights of designers and obtain the necessary permissions and licenses before producing and selling any fashion items.

Status of IPR in India:
In 2007, the World Bank conducted a study of 140 nations about their Knowledge Economy Index (KEI) on the basis of their knowledge-based initiatives, regulatory frameworks, economic incentives, institutional frameworks, and technology for communication and information (ICT) infrastructure. India didn't meet the aforementioned criteria, which caused it to rank 101st. 8

The fundamental cause of India's IPR participation gap is a lack of knowledge about IPR and its advantages among young people, academics, researchers, businessmen, and traders. Even Micro, Small and Medium Businesses (MSME), which account for almost 80% of all manufacturing sector employment, 40% of total value creation, and 35% of total exports, are missing in IPR edge. Owing to the aforementioned factors, no multinational Indian business was among the top 100 global patent applicants between 2003 and 2012.9

The impact of First Copy Products on the Indian economy
Depending on your point of view, First Copy Products' influence on the Indian economy could be favourable or detrimental.

On the plus side, those who are involved in the manufacturing and marketing of First Copy Goods may be able to find employment prospects. Customers who might not be able to buy the original products can obtain affordable substitutes for high-end luxury goods thanks to this market, which can also bring in money for manufacturers and merchants.

On the other hand, the creation and selling of First Copy Goods may have negative economic implications, particularly for the product's original designers and producers. Reduced research and development spending, revenue loss, job loss, and damage to the reputation and brand image of the original producers can all result from this. In the long run, this may result in less innovation and slower industry growth. Moreover, the creation and distribution of First Copy Goods can boost organised crime and counterfeiting activities, which could have detrimental legal and societal repercussions.

The impact of the first copy product on intellectual property protection
Intellectual property protection has been significantly impacted by the rise of first copy products, especially in the fields of trademark, copyright, and patent law. First copy products are frequently exactly the same as the original products or very similar to them, but they are created and distributed without the owners of the intellectual property rights' consent. The owners of the intellectual property rights suffer a loss of income and reputation as a result, and customers may suffer if they inadvertently buy subpar or dangerous goods.

Production and sale of first-copy products have the potential to confuse consumers and dilute trademarks, according to trademark law. Consumers who buy early copies can mistakenly feel they are getting the genuine article and be unaware that the quality or safety standards have been compromised. This may diminish the trademark's value and damage the trademark owner's reputation.

The creation and selling of first-copy products may violate an owner's exclusive right to reproduce and distribute their original work, according to copyright law. Without the owner of the copyright's consent, the selling of products that are first copies can lead to lost profits and a reduction in the incentives for authors to invest in the production of new works.12

In the case of Adidas AG v. P. Kapur & Ors 10 case, the plaintiff Adidas AG claimed that the defendants were passing off their products as Adidas's products by selling shoes that were either identical to or strikingly similar to Adidas's shoes. The defendants' activities, which the court determined to be trademark infringement and passing off, had confused consumers. The defendants were also told to pay the plaintiff's legal fees after the court found that Adidas's copyrighted designs had been copied by the defendants. This case demonstrates the impact of first-copy products on intellectual property protection in India and the need for the enforcement of intellectual property laws to protect the rights of intellectual property owners.

How did branded companies get their start, why are they so inexpensive, and what is the con going on? 11:
A person supplying to Bihar by bringing such copy products from Delhi and Kolkata told that there are two types of copy products of branded companies – First Copy and Second Copy. Sujit: Dude also do you see Rahul? He purchased new Nike shoes and a Gucci shirt and trousers yesterday. He said that the entire $33,000 had been spent. He also purchased a Samsung Neo LED Smart TV on Sunday. Tell me one thing: where does he get the cash each week to buy such pricey, pricey brands? Even yet, that is not his pay!

Rohit: Aaah okay as well Sujit! How do you fit within his words? He continues to toss in this manner. The original brand's products are plentiful; they exist. Most products are either first or second copies. If not for $33,000, he would not have spent even $3,000 on Gucci or Nike clothing! The dialogue between Sujit and Rohit that we have just shared with you is meant to inform people about both First Copy and Second Copy items that are marketed under the names of well-known brands. Most likely, you've also heard of them. If you haven't heard, we're notifying you now that it's fully funded.

What are copy products?
Many people like to wear apparel from well-known labels, yet their costs are prohibitive. Some individuals are not able to purchase branded goods in this circumstance. Hence, this is when the copy products game starts.

Big companies or major brand goods are very well-liked. Big-name superstars like Amitabh Bachchan, Virat Kohli, and Shahrukh support these businesses. They appeal to all sections because of this. Yet, because they are pricey, many on tight budgets cannot afford to purchase them. Thus, these low-cost goods are intended to resemble premium ones. Copy items are just that. Those from lower-middle-class backgrounds and those on a tight budget can also readily purchase these goods.

Social media and First Copy Product
Instagram has led to the creation of a fake world. It almost seems like an alternate universe when one opens Instagram. The biggest worry for any sane user should be the blatant duping which goes around on the platform. This scamming is aided and promoted by no less than the very influencers whom youngsters idolise. Indian youngsters are at a turning point. Everyone wants to wear name brand clothing, accessories, and shoes these days.

They lack the resources to purchase genuine goods. But, there is a simple solution to this issue. The youth today have access to items that appear to be from well-known brands thanks to the widespread availability of "first copy" products from virtually all popular brands. Instagram influencers are not alone in scamming people. Big pages, with hundreds of thousands of followers, often end up promising no less than the latest variants of Counterfeit products

Tiffany & Co. versus eBay 13, where Tiffany sued eBay for allowing the sale of counterfeit Tiffany products on their platform. The case was filed in 2004 and went on for several years before being settled out of court in 2010, with eBay agreeing to pay $58.6 million to Tiffany. In Titan Company vs. Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors (2017) 14 Titan Company, a watch and jewellery maker, sued Snapdeal, an e-commerce platform, for selling counterfeit Titan products.

The court ruled in favour of Titan and ordered Snapdeal to pay damages. These cases demonstrate the legal repercussions that social media platforms can face for selling first-copy products or counterfeit goods. These platforms need to have measures in place to prevent the sale of such products and protect the intellectual property rights of brands.

Legal Remedies For First Copy Products 15:
India has no specific Act which specifically deals with the counterfeiting of products. However, the Intellectual Property Law in India envisages provisions which prohibit Counterfeiting as counterfeiting is directly linked with the IPR rights of the aggrieved brand/individual. As counterfeiting affects the business directly, it is advisable to initiate criminal action to enable police to conduct raids and seize the counterfeited products. The seizure of counterfeit products would help the aggrieved individual/brand to maintain its goodwill/ reputation and prevent further loss of revenue.

Remedies under the Copyright Act, 1957
In the event of a copyright violation, the Copyright Act, of 1957 provides for both civil and criminal sanctions. Literary, dramatic, musical, and creative works, computer programmes, movies, and sound recordings all have copyright protection. If a work with copyright is sold illegally, the party that was wronged may file a criminal complaint against the seller for the fake work. Infringement or aiding in the infringement of a copyright in a work is a crime under Section 63 of the Copyright Act of 1957 16, and the associated fine and prison sentence range from six months to three years.

Remedies under the Trademark Act, 1999
In case of trademark infringement, a registered proprietor has a choice to initiate criminal action against the infringer. Section 104 of the Trademark Act, 1999 17 provides that a person who sells, lets for hire, exposes for sale, or hires or has in his possession for sale, goods or things, or provides or hires services, to which false trademark or false trade description is applied shall be punished for a term between 6 months to three years and shall also be liable to pay fine.

here are several lacunae in the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) laws that make it easy for first-copy products to be sold.

These include:

• Poor enforcement mechanisms: There may be weak enforcement methods for IPR laws in many nations, notably developing nations where many first copies of things are manufactured and sold. This could make it simpler for counterfeiters to create and market early copies of things without worrying about getting caught.
• Low penalties: IPR rules may have limited sanctions for violations, which may not be enough to prohibit counterfeiters from peddling first-copy goods. IPR rules generally have gaps like this, which makes it easier for counterfeiters to make and market initial copies of things. The sale of first-copy items can be thwarted and the intellectual property rights of original brand owners can be safeguarded by addressing these issues with stronger enforcement measures, more resources, and improved awareness.

Potential solutions:

1. Improve enforcement mechanisms:
   Weak enforcement of intellectual property protection laws is one of the main obstacles to preventing the sale of first-copy products in India. To decrease the selling of first-copy products, enforcement mechanisms could be strengthened by adding to the staff and resources of law enforcement organisations as well as by streamlining the legal system.
    
2. Raise consumer awareness and education:
   One of the main factors driving the market's expansion in India is customers' lack of knowledge about the consequences of purchasing first-copy products. Educating consumers about the drawbacks of purchasing the first copies of things through education campaigns and educational initiatives may assist to lower the demand for these goods.
    
3. Create a strong legal system:
   A strong legal system that imposes suitable fines and punishments for the creation and selling of first-copy products can act as a deterrent. The current legal system in India for protecting intellectual property might be reinforced and amended to include harsher fines and penalties for the selling of first-copy products.
    
4. Promote innovation:
   First-copy products' accessibility discourages owners of original brands from coming up with new ideas and making R&D investments. Promoting original items and lowering the need for first-copy products could be accomplished by promoting creativity through incentives like tax breaks or government subsidies.
    
5. Increased penalties for infringement:
   Increasing the penalties for infringing on intellectual property rights can act as a stronger deterrent for those who engage in the production and sale of first-copy products.

By implementing these measures, it is possible to improve intellectual property protection and reduce the impact of first-copy products on original creators and innovators.

Possible solutions to address the issue of first-copy product

• Enhancing intellectual property rules:
  Governments can make current intellectual property laws stronger to better protect first-generation innovators and creators while discouraging the creation and sale of knockoff goods.
   
• Enhancing consumer awareness:
  Consumers' awareness of the negative effects of buying the first copies of products and the advantages of assisting original inventors and innovators can help decrease the market for counterfeit goods.
   
• Strengthening enforcement:
  To stop the manufacture and sale of counterfeit goods, governments might devote more resources to the enforcement of intellectual property laws. This may entail tighter border controls and more online marketplace monitoring.
   
• Offering incentives:
  Governments might offer financial rewards to businesses that make investments in Research and development and the production of fresh, cutting-edge products. This can help reduce the demand for first-copy products and encourage originality.

Conclusion:
The future of first copy products and intellectual property protection The market for first-copy items has expanded dramatically over the past few years, which has presented a serious issue for original brand owners and the enforcement of intellectual property rules. The creation and selling of first-copy products have both advantages and disadvantages, but it is impossible to overlook how this affects creativity, consumer welfare, and the economy.

The lack of strict punishments and fines for the manufacture and sale of first-copy products, as well as inadequate enforcement methods, customer ignorance, and other weaknesses in India's intellectual property protection laws have made it easier for counterfeiters to operate. However, potential solutions can help decrease the sale of first-copy products and safeguard the rights of original brand owners.

These include boosting enforcement mechanisms, raising awareness and educating the public, creating a strong legal framework, encouraging innovation, working with international organisations, and promoting ethical business practices. First copy products and intellectual property protection are complicated issues that call for a diverse strategy that takes into account legal, social, economic, and cultural considerations.

References:

1. Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Leo Burnett (India) Pvt. Ltd., (2012 (50) PTC 486 (Bom) (India)
2. Roche Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. and B. Braun Medical (India) Pvt. Ltd.(MANU/DE/0789/2009) (India)
3. Ericsson AB v. Competition Commission of India, (2016) 232 DLT 137 (India)
4. Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 1 (India)
5. R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Pictures, AIR 1978 SC 1613 (India)
6.  Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del) (India)
7. Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Pawan Kumar
8. ET Bureau: India ranked second last in Intellectual Property Index, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com 2015-02-04/news/58795926_1_ip-environment-gipc-intellectual property-index (accessed on 4 February 2015)
9. Lalit Jaipura, Bhupendra Singh, Introduction to Intellectual Property Rights and their Importance in Indian Context, Vol 22, January 2017, pp 32-41, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 39 - 40, (2011)
10. 10 Adidas AG v. P. Kapur & Ors, (CS(OS) 318/2011) (India)
11. NEWSNCR, https://www.newsncr.com/personal-finance/explained-what-is-the-fund-of-the-first-copy-of-branded companies-how-are-they-so-cheap-what-is-the-scam-behind-it/ (17/03/2023)
12.  Saurav Rawat, Ghanshyam Singh, Analysis Of Consumer Buying Behaviour Of Counterfeiting Footwear Products: Empirical Investigation From Uttarakhand, Vol. 9, IJCRT, 3-4 & 6, (2021)
13. Tiffany & Co. versus eBay, 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (USA)
14. Titan Company vs. Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., SCC (Del) 10124. (India)
15. SS Rana & co , https://ssrana.in/litigation/ip-litigation/legal-action-against-fake-goods/ (29/03/2023)
16. The Copyright Act, 1957, § 63, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
17. Trademark Act, 1999, § 104, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).

Other References:

1. www.commerce.nic.in/trade/international_trade_ip_trips1.asp (accessed on 23 December 2014)
2. https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2105793.pdf
3. https://ipindia.gov.in
4. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/lawpedia/intellectual-property-right-47005/