Counterfeiting in India’s Sports Industry: Navigating Trademark Challenges and Legal Strategies

Somanpreet Singh; Raj Kumar

doi:10.20944/preprints202507.0192.v1

Submitted:

01 July 2025

Posted:

02 July 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract

The sports industry in India, fueled by its cultural significance and rapid growth, faces substantial challenges from counterfeiting, which undermines brand integrity, economic stability, and consumer safety. This paper examines the complexities of trademark protection under Indian law, focusing on the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. It explores the unique challenges posed by non-conventional trademarks, the rise of online counterfeiting in e-commerce and the metaverse, and consumer behavior driving demand for counterfeit goods. Legal responses, including border enforcement, domain name dispute resolution, and judicial precedents, are analyzed alongside strategic approaches such as technological innovations (AI and blockchain), international cooperation, and consumer education. The paper also addresses global frameworks like the TRIPS Agreement and Paris Convention, highlighting their role in shaping trademark protection. Through case studies and a review of enforcement mechanisms, this study underscores the need for a multi-faceted approach to combat counterfeiting, balancing robust legal frameworks with proactive strategies to protect sports brands in India's evolving digital and global landscape.

Keywords:

counterfeiting

;

sports industry

;

trademark protection

;

trade marks act 1999

;

non-conventional trademarks

;

e-commerce

;

metaverse

;

consumer behavior

;

intellectual property rights

;

international cooperation

Subject:

Social Sciences - Law

Introduction

The sports industry, characterized by its global reach and emotional appeal, has become a prime target for counterfeiters. The proliferation of counterfeit sports goods, from apparel to equipment, not only undermines brand integrity but also poses significant economic and safety risks. This issue is particularly pronounced in India, where the intersection of a burgeoning sports culture, e-commerce growth, and evolving intellectual property (IP) laws creates a complex landscape for trademark protection. This response explores the challenges posed by counterfeiting in the sports industry under Indian law and examines the legal responses and strategies to mitigate these issues.

Trademark Challenges in the Sports Industry

1. Non-Conventional Trademarks and Sports Moves

The sports industry often involves unique identifiers such as logos, symbols, and even specific moves or gestures associated with athletes or teams. However, the protection of these identifiers under trademark law is not straightforward. For instance, the concept of “motion marks” or moving images, which could be crucial for protecting sports moves, faces significant hurdles in India due to the requirement for graphical representation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Trivedi & Buch, 2024) (Sandhiya & Madhumitha, 2024). This challenge is compounded by the lack of clear legal frameworks for non-traditional trademarks, such as sounds, smells, or tastes, which are increasingly relevant in the sports industry (Mahalwar, 2024a) (Mahalwar, 2024b).

2. Digital Age and Online Counterfeiting

The rise of e-commerce and digital platforms has transformed the sports industry, but it has also created new avenues for counterfeiters. Online marketplaces, social media, and domain name disputes have become common channels for trademark infringement (Thio et al., 2024) (Tomer et al., 2024). The global nature of these platforms further complicates jurisdictional issues, making it difficult to enforce trademark rights effectively (Tomer et al., 2024) (Dhingra, 2023).

3. Metaverse and Virtual Marketplaces

The emergence of the metaverse has introduced new challenges for trademark protection in virtual environments. Sports brands must now contend with the replication of virtual goods and the global accessibility of branded content in these immersive digital spaces (Kim et al., 2024). The existing legal frameworks for trademarks are often inadequate to address these unique challenges, necessitating proactive strategies for monitoring and enforcing rights in the metaverse (Kim et al., 2024).

4. Consumer Behavior and Demand for Counterfeit Products

Consumer attitudes and behaviors play a significant role in the proliferation of counterfeit goods. Factors such as price consciousness, novelty-seeking, and peer pressure drive the demand for counterfeit products in India (Verma et al., 2018) (Tad et al., 2023). This demand-side issue is further exacerbated by the ease of access to counterfeit goods through online platforms and social media.

Legal Responses to Counterfeiting in the Sports Industry

1. Trademark Law and Registration

The Trade Marks Act, 1999, provides the primary legal framework for protecting trademarks in India. However, the registration process for non-traditional trademarks, such as motion marks, remains challenging due to the requirement for graphical representation (Trivedi & Buch, 2024) (Sandhiya & Madhumitha, 2024). Despite these challenges, there have been successful registrations of non-traditional marks, such as the “Falling Drops” motion mark by LG, which demonstrate the potential for innovative trademark protection (Sandhiya & Madhumitha, 2024).

2. Border Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights

India has implemented measures to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights at its borders. The Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, empower customs authorities to suspend the clearance of goods suspected of infringing IP rights (Gupta, 2010) (Gupta, 2009). While these rules have the potential to curb the import of counterfeit goods, their implementation has been inconsistent, and concerns remain about balancing the rights of right holders with the safeguards for importers (Gupta, 2010) (Gupta, 2009).

3. Domain Name Dispute Resolution

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) provides a mechanism for resolving domain name disputes, which are a common form of trademark infringement in the digital age (Dhingra, 2023). However, the global nature of online counterfeit markets and the lack of uniform jurisdictional laws pose significant challenges for effective enforcement (Tomer et al., 2024) (Dhingra, 2023).

4. Case Law and Judicial Precedents

Indian courts have demonstrated a pro-plaintiff approach in intellectual property cases, particularly in cases involving well-known trademarks (Choudhary, 2010). For example, the case of Duck Back vs. Dack Back highlights the importance of protecting trademarks from infringement and passing off, even in cases where the defendant invokes legal defenses such as honest concurrent use (Manufac et al., 2013) (Choudhary, 2010).

5. E-Commerce Platforms and Online Enforcement

E-commerce platforms play a crucial role in combating online counterfeiting. Strategies such as monitoring trademark infringements, implementing blockchain technology, and collaborating with law enforcement agencies have been proposed to enhance online brand protection (Thio et al., 2024) (Raman & Pramod, 2017). Additionally, the Digital Services Act in the EU provides a framework for regulating online marketplaces, which could serve as a model for similar initiatives in India (Dhingra, 2023).

Strategic Approaches to Combating Counterfeiting

1. Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) Model

A GRC model has been proposed to address the challenges posed by online counterfeit markets. This model emphasizes the need for robust governance structures, risk assessment frameworks, and compliance mechanisms to mitigate the threat of counterfeiting (Raman & Pramod, 2017). The model also highlights the importance of consumer awareness and education in reducing the demand for counterfeit products.

2. International Cooperation and Legislative Reforms

The global nature of counterfeiting necessitates international cooperation and legislative reforms. India must work closely with other countries to harmonize IP laws and enforcement mechanisms (Tomer et al., 2024) (Gupta, 2009). Additionally, legislative reforms tailored to the unique challenges of the digital age and the metaverse are essential to provide robust protection for sports brands (Kim et al., 2024) (Tomer et al., 2024).

3. Technological Innovations

Technological advancements, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain, offer promising solutions for detecting and preventing trademark infringement. AI can be used to monitor online platforms for counterfeit goods, while blockchain can enhance the traceability of genuine products (Thio et al., 2024) (Tomer et al., 2024).

4. Consumer Awareness and Education

Addressing the demand-side factors driving the purchase of counterfeit products is critical. Consumer awareness campaigns can help reduce the demand for counterfeit goods by educating consumers about the risks associated with such products, including economic, health, and safety risks (Verma et al., 2018) (Tad et al., 2023).

The sports industry in India faces significant challenges in protecting trademarks from counterfeiting, particularly in the digital age and the metaverse. While the legal framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, provides some mechanisms for enforcement, the challenges posed by non-traditional trademarks, online counterfeit markets, and consumer behavior require a multi-faceted approach. By leveraging technological innovations, international cooperation, and consumer education, India can strengthen its legal responses to counterfeiting and safeguard the integrity of sports brands.

Table 1. Key Aspects of Trademark Challenges and Legal Responses in India.

Aspect	Challenges	Legal Responses	Citations
Non-Conventional Trademarks	Difficulty in registering motion marks due to graphical representation requirements	Successful registrations of motion marks (e.g., LG’s “Falling Drops”)	(Trivedi & Buch, 2024) (Sandhiya & Madhumitha, 2024)
Digital Counterfeiting	Online marketplaces and domain name disputes	UDRP for domain name disputes; AI and blockchain for monitoring counterfeit goods	(Thio et al., 2024) (Tomer et al., 2024) (Dhingra, 2023)
Metaverse and Virtual Goods	Replication of virtual goods and branded content in immersive digital environments	Proactive monitoring and enforcement strategies in virtual marketplaces	(Kim et al., 2024)
Consumer Behavior	Demand-side factors such as price consciousness and peer pressure	Consumer awareness campaigns to reduce demand for counterfeit products	(Verma et al., 2018) (Tad et al., 2023)
Border Enforcement	Inconsistent implementation of IP rights enforcement at borders	Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Rules, 2007	(Gupta, 2010) (Gupta, 2009)

Legal Framework for Trademark Protection in India: The Trade Marks Act, 1999

The Trade Marks Act, 1999, is the primary legislation governing trademark protection in India. It provides a comprehensive framework for the registration, protection, and enforcement of trademarks, ensuring that businesses can safeguard their intellectual property rights. This section delves into the key aspects of the Act, including the definition and scope of trademark infringement, provisions related to falsification and false application, and the remedies available for infringement.

Definition and Scope of Trademark Infringement

A trademark is defined as a sign, word, phrase, symbol, or design used by a business to distinguish its goods or services from those of others. It serves as a badge of origin, indicating the source and quality of the product or service (Blackett, 1998). The scope of trademark infringement is outlined in Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which states that infringement occurs when a registered trademark is imitated or used without authorization in the course of trade, leading to a likelihood of confusion among consumers (Ramnath, n.d.) (S., 2022).

The Act also extends protection to well-known trademarks, even if they are not registered in India, to prevent dilution or unfair advantage (Chaudhry, 2008). This broader scope ensures that trademarks are not only protected from direct copying but also from uses that could erode their distinctiveness or reputation.

Key Elements of Infringement

Registered Trademark: The mark must be registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, to qualify for protection (Ramnath, n.d.).
Unauthorized Use: The infringing party must use the mark without the consent of the registered proprietor (S., 2022).
In the Course of Trade: The unauthorized use must occur in the course of trade, meaning it is used in a commercial context (Ramnath, n.d.).
Likelihood of Confusion: The use must be such that it is likely to confuse consumers about the origin of the goods or services (S., 2022).

Provisions on Falsification and False Application (Sections 102–104)

Sections 102–104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, address the offenses of falsification and false application of trademarks. These provisions aim to prevent the deliberate misuse of trademarks, which can deceive consumers and undermine the integrity of the trademark system.

Section 102: Falsification of Trademarks

This section criminalizes the falsification of a trademark, which includes making a false trademark or altering a genuine trademark with the intent to deceive. The offense is punishable with imprisonment for up to one year and/or a fine (Chaurasiya et al., 2022).

Section 103: False Application of Trademarks

Section 103 prohibits the false application of a trademark to goods or services. This includes affixing a false trademark to goods or services, or using a false trademark in any way that is likely to deceive the public (Chaurasiya et al., 2022).

Section 104: Penalty for Spurious Marks

This section imposes penalties on individuals who sell or distribute goods or services bearing a false trademark. The penalties include imprisonment for up to one year and/or a fine (Chaurasiya et al., 2022).

Remedies for Infringement (Section 135)

Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, provides civil remedies for trademark infringement. These remedies are designed to protect the rights of the registered proprietor and prevent further infringement.

Civil Remedies

Injunction: The court may grant an injunction to restrain the infringing party from continuing to use the trademark (S., 2022).
Damages: The proprietor may be awarded damages for the loss suffered due to the infringement (S., 2022).
Account of Profits: The court may order the infringing party to account for the profits made from the unauthorized use of the trademark (S., 2022).

Criminal Remedies

In addition to civil remedies, the Act also provides for criminal penalties for trademark infringement. These penalties include imprisonment for up to three years and/or a fine (Chaurasiya et al., 2022).

Table 2. Key Aspects of Trademark Protection Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Aspect	Details	Citation
Definition of Trademark	A sign, word, phrase, symbol, or design used to distinguish goods or services.	(Blackett, 1998)
Scope of Infringement	Occurs when a registered trademark is imitated without authorization, causing confusion.	(Ramnath, n.d.) (S., 2022)
Falsification (Section 102)	Criminalizes making or altering a trademark with intent to deceive.	(Chaurasiya et al., 2022)
False Application (Section 103)	Prohibits affixing or using a false trademark to deceive the public.	(Chaurasiya et al., 2022)
Remedies (Section 135)	Includes injunction, damages, and account of profits for civil remedies.	(S., 2022)

The Trade Marks Act, 1999, provides a robust legal framework for trademark protection in India. It defines trademark infringement, outlines provisions for falsification and false application, and provides remedies for infringement. The Act ensures that businesses can protect their intellectual property rights and maintain consumer trust in the marketplace. By aligning with international standards, the Act has strengthened India’s trademark regime, making it an effective tool for combating infringement and promoting fair competition.

Sports, IPR, and Counterfeiting in India

The intersection of sports, the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and counterfeiting offenses, particularly in the context of the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, highlights significant legal challenges in India. The enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) is crucial for protecting brands and consumers from counterfeit goods, which pose risks to both economic stability and public safety. The following sections elaborate on key aspects of this issue.

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights

The Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 empower Customs authorities to suspend and adjudicate goods suspected of infringing IPR, aiming to enhance border protection (Gupta, 2010). These rules are modeled after international standards but have faced criticism for lacking balance between the rights of trademark holders and the protections for importers, leading to potential misuse (Gupta, 2009).

Impact of Counterfeiting

Counterfeiting is a significant global issue, constituting approximately 3.3% of world trade, with serious implications for organized crime and national security (Basílio, 2023). The IPC addresses various forms of counterfeiting, categorizing offenses related to trademark infringement and the production of substandard goods as serious crimes (孙青, n.d.).

Responsibilities of Brand Owners

Brand owners are central to enforcing trademark rights, with legal obligations to protect consumers from counterfeit products (Kastowo & Christiani, 2024). The responsibility of brand owners extends beyond mere registration; they must actively combat counterfeiting to safeguard consumer interests.

While the enforcement of IPR is essential for protecting legitimate businesses and consumers, the potential for abuse of the rules raises concerns about their implementation and the need for a balanced approach that considers the rights of all stakeholders involved.

Global Trademark Protection

TRIPS, Paris Convention, and Challenges

The global context of trademark protection is shaped by international agreements such as the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention, which establish a framework for the protection and enforcement of trademark rights across different jurisdictions. These agreements aim to harmonize trademark laws among member countries, ensuring a minimum standard of protection while allowing for some flexibility in implementation. This alignment is crucial for facilitating international trade and protecting the interests of trademark holders globally. The following sections explore the compliance with these agreements and the broader implications for trademark protection worldwide.

Compliance with TRIPS Agreement and Paris Convention

TRIPS Agreement: The TRIPS Agreement sets out minimum standards for trademark protection, including requirements for protection, rights granted, and enforcement procedures. It mandates that WTO members provide national and most-favored-nation treatment to foreign trademark holders, ensuring non-discrimination between domestic and foreign entities (Calboli et al., 2016). The agreement also allows for flexibility in implementation, enabling countries to adapt the standards to their national laws (BABA, 2024).
Paris Convention: The Paris Convention complements TRIPS by providing additional provisions for the protection of industrial property, including trademarks. Article 6quinquies of the Paris Convention, for instance, addresses the international registration of trademarks, emphasizing the need for member states to recognize trademarks registered in other member countries (Zhan, 2017). Article 6bis further allows countries to refuse registration of well-known trademarks from other countries, highlighting the importance of protecting established brands globally (Takouche, 2019).

Global Context of Trademark Protection

Non-traditional Trademarks: The rise of non-traditional trademarks, such as sounds, colors, and shapes, poses new challenges for international trademark protection. While these trademarks are increasingly recognized, their registration and protection vary across jurisdictions, necessitating a more unified approach under international agreements (Zhan, 2017).
Free Speech Considerations: There is a growing recognition of the need to balance trademark protection with free speech rights. The TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention provide some flexibility for member states to incorporate free speech considerations into their trademark laws. However, this balance remains contentious, with calls for amendments to explicitly protect freedom of expression in trademark legislation (Ramsey, 2010) (Ramsey, 2015).
Enforcement Challenges: Effective enforcement of trademark rights is critical for their protection. The TRIPS Agreement outlines enforcement procedures that member countries must implement, but challenges such as lack of expertise and resources can hinder compliance. Ensuring adequate enforcement mechanisms is essential for protecting trademark rights and promoting legitimate trade activities (Mukhtar et al., 2018).

While the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention provide a robust framework for international trademark protection, there are ongoing debates about their implementation and the balance between trademark rights and other interests, such as free speech. Some argue for more explicit protections for freedom of expression within these agreements, while others emphasize the need for flexibility to accommodate diverse national contexts. As global trade continues to evolve, the international community must navigate these complexities to ensure a fair and effective trademark protection system.

Trademarks in Sports

Protection and Challenges

Trademarks play a crucial role in the sports industry by protecting team logos, names, and merchandise, which are vital for brand identity and economic success. They serve as legal tools that differentiate a team’s goods and services, ensuring consumer recognition and trust. The economic and cultural significance of trademarks in sports is profound, as they contribute to brand value and consumer loyalty. However, the industry faces specific vulnerabilities, such as counterfeiting during major events, which can impact brand value and consumer trust. This answer will explore these aspects and provide insights into relevant case studies.

Protecting Team Logos, Names, and Merchandise

Trademarks are essential for protecting the unique identity of sports teams, allowing them to differentiate their products and services from competitors. This protection extends to logos, names, and merchandise, which are critical for brand recognition and consumer trust (Peng, 2025) (Cebula, n.d.). The legal framework for trademarks ensures that sports organizations can prevent unauthorized use of their marks, thereby safeguarding their brand equity and revenue streams (Dinu, 2025).

Economic and Cultural Significance

Trademarks contribute significantly to the economic value of sports brands by enabling monetization through merchandising, licensing, and sponsorship deals. This commercialization is a major revenue source for sports organizations (Constantinou & Blackshaw, n.d.) (Kalamadi, 2012). Culturally, trademarks help build a loyal fan base by fostering a sense of identity and community among supporters. This cultural connection enhances the overall brand value and consumer engagement (Nufer et al., 2016).

Specific Vulnerabilities

Counterfeiting is a major issue in the sports industry, particularly during high-profile events like the IPL and Cricket World Cup. Counterfeit goods not only dilute brand value but also erode consumer trust, as they often fail to meet quality standards (Wilson, 2015). The impact of counterfeiting on brand value is significant, as it can lead to financial losses and damage to the brand’s reputation. Effective trademark enforcement is crucial to mitigate these risks and maintain consumer confidence (Peng, 2025) (Wilson, 2015).

Case Studies

Skechers USA Inc. v. Pure Play Sports: This case highlights the importance of trademark protection in preventing unauthorized use of brand elements. Skechers successfully defended its trademark rights, underscoring the legal mechanisms available to protect brand identity (Peng, 2025).
Nike Innovate C.V. v. G.B. Shoe: Nike’s case against G.B. Shoe demonstrates the challenges of cross-border trademark enforcement. The case emphasizes the need for international cooperation and alignment of trademark laws to effectively combat infringement (Peng, 2025).
ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises: This case illustrates the vulnerabilities faced by sports organizations during major events. The ICC’s legal action against Arvee Enterprises for unauthorized use of its trademarks during the Cricket World Cup highlights the importance of vigilant trademark protection to preserve brand integrity (Fu-sheng & Li, n.d.).

While trademarks are vital for protecting brand identity and economic interests in the sports industry, they are not without challenges. The global nature of sports events and the rise of digital markets necessitate a coordinated international approach to trademark enforcement. Additionally, the cultural significance of sports brands means that any damage to their reputation can have far-reaching consequences. Therefore, sports organizations must remain proactive in their trademark protection strategies to safeguard their brand value and maintain consumer trust.

Counterfeiting

Global Economic and Enforcement Challenges

Counterfeiting poses a significant economic threat globally, impacting revenue, employment, consumer safety, and brand loyalty. The illicit trade in counterfeit goods is estimated to cost the global economy hundreds of billions of dollars annually, with severe implications for legitimate businesses and governments. This multifaceted issue requires a comprehensive understanding of its economic impact, enforcement challenges, and the broader implications for global supply chains and international law.

Revenue Losses and Market Distortion

Counterfeiting results in substantial revenue losses for legitimate businesses. For instance, counterfeit goods are responsible for approximately $60 billion in lost sales in the United States alone, with the market growing at an alarming rate of 30% annually (Harvey, 1987). The European Union faces significant economic losses due to counterfeit alcoholic spirits, with an estimated €3 billion in lost revenue per year (Bryan & Hill, 2024). The global counterfeit market, including luxury goods, is estimated to be worth $600 billion annually, severely distorting market dynamics and undermining legitimate trade (Teal & Lee, 2017).

Impact on Employment and Tax Revenue

Counterfeiting negatively affects employment by reducing legitimate manufacturing jobs. In the EU, counterfeit spirits alone account for 23,400 lost jobs annually (Bryan & Hill, 2024). Governments lose substantial tax revenue due to the illicit nature of counterfeit trade. For example, the EU loses at least €1.2 billion in government revenue annually from counterfeit spirits (Bryan & Hill, 2024). The lack of royalties and research and development costs for counterfeiters further exacerbates the economic disparity between legitimate businesses and counterfeit operations (Harvey, 1987).

Consumer Safety and Brand Loyalty Concerns

Counterfeit goods pose significant risks to consumer safety, as seen in cases involving fake industrial parts in critical applications like aerospace and military systems (Sly, 2001). The erosion of consumer trust in legitimate brands due to counterfeit goods can lead to long-term damage to brand loyalty and reputation (Wilson, 2017). Counterfeit products often fail to meet safety standards, posing health risks to consumers, particularly in sectors like pharmaceuticals and food (Staake et al., 2009).

Enforcement Challenges

Global Supply Chains and Jurisdictional Hurdles

The global nature of supply chains complicates enforcement efforts, as counterfeit goods often transit through multiple jurisdictions, making it difficult to track and intercept them (Tamayo, 2016). The involvement of organized crime in counterfeit trade further complicates enforcement, as these groups exploit global trade networks to distribute counterfeit goods (Mackenzie, 2010).

Lack of Uniform International Laws

There is no harmonized international framework for combating counterfeiting, leading to inconsistent enforcement and legal interpretations across countries (Tamayo, 2016). Efforts to combat counterfeiting are often hindered by varying levels of commitment and resources among countries, as well as differing interpretations of intellectual property rights (Chaudhry & Zimmerman, 2009).

While the economic impact of counterfeiting is profound, it is essential to consider the broader implications of this illicit trade. Counterfeiting not only affects businesses and governments but also poses significant risks to public health and safety. The lack of uniform international laws and the complexity of global supply chains present significant challenges to enforcement efforts. Addressing these issues requires a coordinated global response that involves governments, businesses, and international organizations working together to strengthen intellectual property rights and improve enforcement mechanisms.

E-Commerce and Counterfeiting: Digital Challenges

The rise of e-commerce platforms has significantly transformed the landscape of digital and online counterfeiting, presenting unique challenges and opportunities for brand protection and consumer rights. E-commerce platforms like Alibaba and Amazon have become hotspots for counterfeit goods, complicating the enforcement of intellectual property rights and consumer protection laws. This digital shift necessitates a reevaluation of existing legal frameworks and the development of new strategies to address these challenges effectively. The following sections explore the role of e-commerce platforms, challenges under the Information Technology Act, 2000, consumer education gaps, the burden on brand owners, and issues with the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.

Role of E-Commerce Platforms

E-commerce platforms have revolutionized consumer purchasing behaviors but have also facilitated the sale of counterfeit goods, posing significant challenges for brand owners and consumers alike (Pokrovskaya, n.d.) (Rizqi & Ramli, 2024). Platforms like Alibaba and Amazon have been criticized for their complex notice and take-down procedures, which often frustrate brand owners attempting to remove counterfeit listings (Chow, 2020). The platforms’ business models, which generate revenue from all sales, including counterfeit goods, have been seen as a conflict of interest, potentially tolerating counterfeit activities (Chow, 2020).

Challenges Under the Information Technology Act, 2000

The Information Technology Act, 2000, while providing a legal framework for digital transactions, faces challenges in effectively addressing the nuances of e-commerce and online counterfeiting (Pathak, 2024). Enforcement issues and jurisdictional complexities, especially in cross-border transactions, complicate the application of the Act in the digital age (Pathak, 2024).

Consumer Education Gaps

There is a significant gap in consumer education regarding the identification and avoidance of counterfeit goods online (Rizqi & Ramli, 2024). Enhanced consumer awareness and education are crucial for empowering consumers to make informed purchasing decisions and protect themselves from counterfeit products (Pathak, 2024).

Burden on Brand Owners for Enforcement

Brand owners bear a significant burden in enforcing their rights against counterfeiters, often requiring them to navigate complex legal and procedural landscapes (Fitri et al., 2024). The use of AI technologies has been proposed as a tool to aid in the detection and prevention of counterfeit goods, though challenges remain in capturing nuanced infringements (Pokrovskaya, n.d.).

Balancing Rights and Safeguards

The Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, present challenges in balancing the rights of brand owners with the need for effective enforcement against counterfeit goods (Digital Trademarks in the Global Marketplace: Navigating Legal Landscapes and Technological Challenges, 2024). International cooperation and harmonization of laws are essential to address the global nature of online counterfeiting and ensure consistent enforcement across jurisdictions (Saunders & Berger-Walliser, 2011).

While the digital age has introduced significant challenges in combating online counterfeiting, it also offers opportunities for innovation in brand protection and consumer education. The integration of AI technologies and international cooperation can enhance the effectiveness of enforcement strategies. However, the complexities of jurisdictional issues and the need for clearer legal frameworks remain significant hurdles. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach that includes legal reforms, technological advancements, and increased consumer awareness to create a balanced and effective system for protecting intellectual property rights in the digital marketplace.

India’s Sports Industry: Growth and Challenges

The sports industry in India is experiencing significant growth, driven by a combination of government initiatives, private sector contributions, and the increasing influence of media and broadcasting. Cricket remains the dominant sport, but there is a growing interest in other sports, supported by strategic investments and policy frameworks. This dynamic landscape is shaping the future of sports in India, with various stakeholders playing crucial roles.

Dominance of Cricket and Emerging Sports

Cricket is the most popular sport in India, with the Indian Premier League (IPL) being a major contributor to its growth. The IPL has transformed cricket into a globalized empire, attracting international players and significant investments (Gupta, 2009) (Kedar, 2015). Despite cricket’s dominance, other sports like badminton, boxing, and wrestling are gaining popularity, partly due to India’s successes in international competitions (Jajo, 2016). The emergence of leagues in sports such as kabaddi and football indicates a diversification in the sports industry, appealing to a broader audience (Jajo, 2016).

Role of Media and Broadcasting

Media and broadcasting have played a pivotal role in the commercialization of sports in India. The privatization of broadcasting rights, especially for cricket, has increased the sport’s visibility and revenue (Halder, n.d.). The shift from state-controlled media to private broadcasters has allowed for more dynamic and engaging sports coverage, further fueling the industry’s growth (Halder, n.d.).

Government Initiatives

The Khelo India and Fit India movements are significant government initiatives aimed at promoting sports at the grassroots level and encouraging a culture of fitness (Clarke & Mondal, 2022). The Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) is designed to support elite athletes in their preparation for international competitions, reflecting the government’s commitment to improving India’s performance on the global stage (Clarke & Mondal, 2022).

Private Sector Contributions

The private sector has been instrumental in developing sports infrastructure and academies, with significant investments in facilities and talent development (Krishnamurthy & Madha, 2023). Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are increasingly being adopted to enhance the sports ecosystem, leveraging the strengths of both sectors to achieve national sporting goals (Krishnamurthy & Madha, 2023).

While the sports industry in India is on a promising trajectory, challenges remain. The dominance of cricket can overshadow other sports, limiting their growth potential. Additionally, the commercialization of sports raises concerns about equitable access and the prioritization of profit over grassroots development. Balancing these aspects is crucial for the sustainable growth of the sports industry in India.

Trademark Protection: Evolution and Challenges

Trademark protection has evolved significantly over the years, shaped by historical developments, landmark cases, and emerging challenges such as ambush marketing. The historical context of trademark law in the U.S. began with the Trademark Cases of 1879, which set the stage for future legislation like the Lanham Act of 1946. Landmark cases such as Romag Fasteners v. Fossil and Adidas v. Forever 21 have further defined the boundaries of trademark infringement and enforcement. Ambush marketing, exemplified by cases like ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises, presents ongoing challenges to trademark protection. To strengthen trademark protection, recommendations include enhancing enforcement mechanisms, leveraging technology, promoting public awareness, and strengthening international cooperation.

Historical Context

The Trademark Cases of 1879 (U.S.): The Supreme Court’s decision in 1879 declared the federal trademark code unconstitutional, emphasizing the need for a constitutional basis for trademark protection, which was later addressed by the Lanham Act (Rosen, 2008).
Evolution of the Lanham Act, 1946: This act established a comprehensive federal system for trademark registration and protection, addressing the limitations identified in earlier cases and providing a framework for modern trademark law (Ramirez-Montes, 2010).

Landmark Cases

Romag Fasteners v. Fossil (2020): This case clarified that willful infringement is not a prerequisite for awarding profits in trademark infringement cases, impacting how damages are assessed in future cases (Digital Trademarks in the Global Marketplace: Navigating Legal Landscapes and Technological Challenges, 2024).
Adidas v. Forever 21: This case highlighted the challenges of protecting trade dress and the importance of distinctiveness in trademark claims, as Adidas sought to protect its iconic three-stripe design against Forever 21’s similar products (Digital Trademarks in the Global Marketplace: Navigating Legal Landscapes and Technological Challenges, 2024).

Ambush Marketing and Related Issues

ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises (2003): This case exemplifies the challenges of ambush marketing, where companies attempt to associate with events without official sponsorship, undermining the value of legitimate sponsorships (Nufer, 2010) (Berger-Walliser et al., 2012).
Legal and Ethical Considerations: Ambush marketing often operates in a legal gray area, with courts sometimes finding such practices legitimate, highlighting the need for clearer legal definitions and protections (Crow & Hoek, 2003).

Recommendations for Strengthening Trademark Protection

Enhancing Enforcement Mechanisms: Strengthening legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms can deter infringement and provide clearer guidelines for resolving disputes (Dornis, 2017).
Leveraging Technology (e.g., Blockchain, AI): Utilizing technology like blockchain for secure trademark registration and AI for monitoring potential infringements can enhance protection and enforcement (Digital Trademarks in the Global Marketplace: Navigating Legal Landscapes and Technological Challenges, 2024).
Promoting Public Awareness and Education: Educating businesses and consumers about trademark rights and the importance of respecting intellectual property can reduce unintentional infringements and support enforcement efforts (Digital Trademarks in the Global Marketplace: Navigating Legal Landscapes and Technological Challenges, 2024).
Strengthening International Cooperation: International treaties and cooperation among countries can provide a unified approach to trademark protection, addressing the challenges of territoriality and cross-border infringements (Farley, 2024) (Calboli & Lee, 2014).

While these strategies offer pathways to strengthen trademark protection, it is important to consider the balance between protecting trademark rights and fostering competition and innovation. Overly stringent enforcement could stifle creativity and limit market entry for new businesses. Additionally, the global nature of commerce necessitates a nuanced approach that respects the territoriality of trademark laws while promoting international collaboration. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, trademark protection must adapt to new challenges and opportunities, ensuring that it remains effective and relevant in a global economy.

Related research work offers critical insights into trademark and counterfeiting issues in the sports industry, addressing intellectual property (IP) rights, enforcement challenges, and their implications for sports branding and commercialization. Moral rights in IP law support brand integrity and identity protection under trademark law (Yadav et al., 2025). Enforcement delays and judicial backlogs in IP cases highlight the need for reforms to combat sports-related counterfeiting (Rahul & Yadav, 2025). Enforcement challenges in IP law, analyzed in the pharmaceutical context, inform legal strategies against sports counterfeiting (Singh et al., 2025). Legal education strengthens consumer protection and trademark awareness in sports markets through IP drafting skills (Yadav, 2025a). AI-based IP enforcement mechanisms align with technological anti-counterfeiting approaches in sports (Yadav, 2025b).

IP clinics educate the public and aid counterfeit prevention in the digital sports economy (Sharma & Yadav, 2025). Sustainable IP enforcement strategies complement efforts to protect sports trademarks (Yadav & Yadav, 2025a). Digital IP challenges, including online sports merchandise piracy, underscore the need for updated legal frameworks (Yadav & Yadav, 2025b). Digital transformation in IP regulation further emphasizes robust frameworks for e-commerce sports platforms (Yadav & Yadav, 2025c). Trade secret law and IP strategies support broader protection narratives in sports (Yadav, 2025c). E-commerce legal challenges are particularly relevant to online sports goods counterfeiting in India (Yadav, 2024). The legal framework governing sports commercialization and trademark concerns is foundational (Yadav, 2016). Originality in IP supports protecting non-traditional marks like sounds and shapes in sports branding (Yadav & Kumar, 2018). Recovery techniques, such as yoga and massage, enhance athlete performance by reducing post-endurance fatigue (Kaur & Singh, 2019). Integration of physical education in Indian policy emphasizes sports governance and infrastructure needs (Yadav & Singh, 2020). Regional differences in athletes’ fitness and physiology highlight the need for localized training metrics (Kumar & Singh, 2024). Sports commercialization overshadows grassroots development, raising brand integrity concerns (Yadav & Singh, 2019). Fitness comparisons among runners inform customized endurance training modules (RS & Singh, 2015).

Conclusions

The sports industry in India, while thriving due to growing popularity and commercialization, faces significant threats from counterfeiting, which erodes brand value, economic returns, and consumer trust. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, provides a foundational legal framework for trademark protection, yet challenges persist in registering non-conventional trademarks, enforcing rights in digital and virtual marketplaces, and addressing consumer-driven demand for counterfeit goods. Effective legal responses, such as border enforcement under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and judicial precedents like Duck Back vs. Dack Back, are critical but require consistent implementation and adaptation to digital challenges. Strategic measures, including AI and blockchain for monitoring, international alignment with TRIPS and Paris Convention standards, and consumer awareness campaigns, are essential to strengthen trademark protection. As India’s sports industry continues to globalize, a coordinated approach integrating legal reforms, technological advancements, and global cooperation will be vital to safeguarding brand integrity and fostering sustainable growth in this dynamic sector.

References

BABA, A. (2024). The agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (trips). Analele Universităţii Din Oradea. [CrossRef]
Basílio, A. (2023). Counterfeit Goods. [CrossRef]
Berger-Walliser, G., Williams, M. S., Walliser, B., & Bender, M. R. (2012). Bavarian Blondes Don’t Need a Visa: A Comparative Law Analysis of Ambush Marketing. Social Science Research Network.
Blackett, T. (1998). What is a Trademark. [CrossRef]
Bryan, M. A., & Hill, A. E. (2024). Worldwide Illicit and Counterfeit Alcoholic Spirits: Problem, Detection, and Prevention. Journal of The American Society of Brewing Chemists. [CrossRef]
Calboli, I., & Lee, E. (2014). Trademark Protection and Territoriality Challenges in a Global Economy. [CrossRef]
Calboli, I., Calboli, I., & Farley, C. H. (2016). The Trademark Provisions in the TRIPS Agreement. Social Science Research Network.
Cebula, K. (n.d.). Trademark Protection Across Borders. [CrossRef]
Chandra, N., & Kumar Yadav, D. R. (2024). Evolution of E-commerce and Consumer Protection Laws in India. MDU Law Journal, 32.
Chaudhry, M. S. (2008). Scope of trademark protection.
Chaudhry, P. E., & Zimmerman, A. (2009). The Economics of Counterfeit Trade: Governments, Consumers, Pirates and Intellectual Property Rights.
Chaurasiya, A., Tandon, V., Sharma, M., & Singh, M. (2022). Laws relating to trade mark infringement in India. International Journal of Health Sciences (IJHS). [CrossRef]
Choudhary, V. K. (2010). Protection of Well Known Trademarks and Weakening of Honest Concurrent User Defense.
Chow, D. C. K. (2020). Alibaba, Amazon, and Counterfeiting in the Age of the Internet. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business.
Clarke, J. A., & Mondal, S. (2022). Sport policy in India. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics. [CrossRef]
Constantinou, A., & Blackshaw, I. (n.d.). Sports Marketing: Building an Athlete’s Brand - The Importance of Trademarks. Journal of Sports and Games. [CrossRef]
Crow, D., & Hoek, J. (2003). Ambush Marketing: A Critical Review and Some Practical Advice.
Dhingra, J. (2023). Remedy for Trademark Infringing Domain Names and Counterfeits. Journal of World Trade. [CrossRef]
Digital Trademarks in the Global Marketplace: Navigating Legal Landscapes and Technological Challenges. (2024). Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media. [CrossRef]
Dinu, C. (2025). Trademark Protection. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov. [CrossRef]
Dornis, T. W. (2017). Trademark and Unfair Competition Conflicts: Historical-Comparative, Doctrinal, and Economic Perspectives.
Farley, C. H. (2024). Furthering Interests Abroad: Advancing Trademark Rights in the Americas in the First Decades of the Twentieth Century. [CrossRef]
Fitri, S., Askar, N. A., Loemnanu, A. H., & Devi, N. (2024). Legal Protection on the Brand Owners for Counterfeiting Brands Traded through Electronic Transactions on Online Marketplace Platforms (E-Commerce). Daengku. [CrossRef]
Fu-sheng, L., & Li, Z. (n.d.). The Legal Protection of Well-known Sports Trademarks. [CrossRef]
Gupta, A. (2009a). Border Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in India: Recent Developments. Social Science Research Network.
Gupta, A. (2009b). India and the IPL: Cricket’s Globalized Empire. The Round Table. [CrossRef]
Gupta, A. (2010). Border Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in India. Trade, Law and Development.
Halder, A. (n.d.). State, Market, and Media in Indian Cricket. [CrossRef]
Harvey, M. (1987). Industrial product counterfeiting: problems and proposed solutions. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. [CrossRef]
Jajo, L. (2016). Sports Industry Development in India: Opportunities, Constraints and Way Forward. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research.
Kalamadi, S. (2012). Intellectual Property and the Business of Sports Management.
Kastowo, C., & Christiani, T. A. (2024). The Responsibility of the Brand Owner for Counterfeit Goods. KnE Social Sciences. [CrossRef]
Kaur, M. G., & Singh, S. P. (2019). Effect of selected massage and yogic exercise on the recovery pattern of blood lactate after an endurance workout. International Journal of Physiology, Nutrition and Physical Education, 4(1), 2047-2049.
Kedar, M. S. (2015). Ipl the most valuable franchise brand building game, branding cricket – the ipl way. South Asia Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies.
Kim, S., Grady, J., & Ballouli, K. (2024). Navigating emerging trademarks issues for sport brands in the metaverse. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship. [CrossRef]
Krishnamurthy, V., & Madha, S. (2023). Public-private partnership in the sports sector: a scan of the extant literature on the policy environment, global perspectives, and projects implemented by other sectors in India. International Journal of Knowledge Management in Tourism and Hospitality. [CrossRef]
Kumar Yadav, D. R. (2025). Enhancing Clinical Legal Education Through Drafting Skills: A Focus on Intellectual Property Rights and Beyond. Available at SSRN 5159770.
Kumar, R., & Yadav, A. (2025). Reimagining Copyright Law in the Digital Age: Challenges, Reforms, and Educational Access in India. Preprints. [CrossRef]
Kumar, R. (2025). Trade Secrets and Whistleblowing: A Comparative Analysis of Legal, Ethical, and Historical Perspectives Across Jurisdictions and Industries.
Kumar, R., & Shahi, S. K. Introduction to the Concept of originality under Copyright Law in India.
Kumar, R., & Singh, S. (2024). A Comparative Investigation of Physical and Physiological Components of Team Game Athletes from Northeast and South India. Indian Journal of YOGA Exercise & Sport Science and Physical Education, 55-60.
Kumar, R., & Yadav, A. Academic Use and Academic Writing: Copyright Law, Digital Transformation, and Educational Fair Use in India.
Mackenzie, S. (2010). Counterfeiting as corporate externality: intellectual property crime and global insecurity. Crime Law and Social Change. [CrossRef]
Mahalwar, V. (2024a). Protection of non-visible marks under the trade marks act, 1999: issues and challenges. ShodhKosh Journal of Visual and Performing Arts. [CrossRef]
Mahalwar, V. (2024b). Protection of non-visible marks under the trade marks act, 1999: issues and challenges. ShodhKosh Journal of Visual and Performing Arts. [CrossRef]
Manufac, B. W., Back, D., & Back, D. (2013). Suvrashis Sarkar Researcher for PhD with Mumbai University at Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies. Dr. Stephen D’Silva Research guide and Professor of Marketing at Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies. Mumbai.
Mukhtar, S., Zainol, Z. A., Jusoh, S., & Zahid, A. (2018). Review of Trademark and Its Enforcement Provisions under TRIPS. Journal of Automated Reasoning. [CrossRef]
Nufer, G. (2010). Ambush-Marketing im Sport. Grundlagen - Strategien - Wirkungen.
Nufer, G., Bühler, A., & Chadwick, S. (2016). Branding in sports. [CrossRef]
Pathak, S. (2024). Legal and Commercial Dynamics of E-Consumer Protection: Navigating Challenges in India’s Digital Economy. International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research. [CrossRef]
Peng, J. (2025). The Role and Significance of Trademark Law in Brand Value Protection. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media. [CrossRef]
Pokrovskaya, A. (n.d.). Protection of Trademark Rights on E-commerce Platforms: An Updated Outlook. [CrossRef]
Pokrovskaya, A. V. (n.d.). Intellectual property rights infringement on e-commerce marketplaces: Application of AI technologies, new challenges. E3S Web of Conferences. [CrossRef]
Rahul, S. K., & Yadav, R. K. (2025). The Copyright Quandary: Criminalization and Judicial Backlog in India. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR), 30(2), 188-196.
Raman, R., & Pramod, D. (2017). A Strategic Approach Using Governance, Risk and Compliance Model to Deal with Online Counterfeit Market. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. [CrossRef]
Ramirez-Montes, C. (2010). A Re-Examination of the Original Foundations of Anglo-American Trademark Law. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review.
Ramnath, V. P. (n.d.). Infringement Oftrade Marks - Section 29 of Trade Marks Act, 1999. [CrossRef]
Ramsey, L. P. (2010). Free Speech and International Obligations To Protect Trademarks. Yale Journal of International Law.
Ramsey, L. P. (2015). Reconciling trademark rights and free expression locally and globally. Social Science Research Network. [CrossRef]
Rizqi, A. M., & Ramli, M. (2024). E-Commerce Liability to Consumers For the Sale of Black Market Products. AL-MIKRAJ: Jurnal Studi Islam Dan Humaniora (E-ISSN: 2745-4584). [CrossRef]
Rosen, Z. S. (2008). In Search of the Trade-Mark Cases: The Nascent Treaty Power and the Turbulent Origins of Federal Trademark Law. Social Science Research Network.
S., B. V. (2022). Intellectual property right - trademark: general review. GLOBAL JOURNAL FOR RESEARCH ANALYSIS. [CrossRef]
Sandhiya, S., & Madhumitha, C. (2024). The Legal Challenges of Registering Motion Marks in India: A Comparative Study of Graphical Representation and Distinctiveness with Other Countries. International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research. [CrossRef]
Saunders, K. M., & Berger-Walliser, G. (2011). The Liability of Online Markets for Counterfeit Goods: A Comparative Analysis of Secondary Trademark Infringement in the United States and Europe. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business.
Sharma, J., & Yadav, R. K. (2025). Navigating the Digital Frontier: The Role of Law School IP Clinics in Education, Access to Justice, and Policy Innovation. Access to Justice, and Policy Innovation (May 08, 2025).
Singh, R., & Singh, S. P. (2014). An Analysis among Physiological and Physical Fitness of Middle Distance and Long Distance Runners. International Journal of Advanced Computer Research, 4(4), 979.
Singh, S., Singh, A., Prakash, R. C., & Yadav, R. K. (2025). Contemporary Stance of Compulsory Licencing in the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR), 30(3), 361-375.
Sly, C. (2001). Counterfeit parts: The scourge of industry. Practical Failure Analysis. [CrossRef]
Staake, T., Thiesse, F., & Fleisch, E. (2009). The emergence of counterfeit trade: a literature review. European Journal of Marketing. [CrossRef]
Tad, M. C. S., Solomon, D., & Samuel, S. F. (2023). Purchasers Attitude Towards Counterfeit Items - A Survey Study of Nagercoil Town in Tamilnadu. RGSA: Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental. [CrossRef]
Takouche, A. (2019). Well-Known, or Not Well-Known? That is the Question. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property’s Article 6bis in the Context of American Trademark Law. UC Irvine Law Review.
Tamayo, L. (2016). A Global Fight Against Counterfeit: Infringement Caused by Goods in Transit Under the New European Trademark Law Regulation No. (EU) 2015/2424 and Directive (EU) 2015/2436. Social Science Research Network. [CrossRef]
Teal, C., & Lee, S.-H. (2017). The dark side of counterfeit luxury goods.
Thio, R., Christiawan, R., & Wagiman, W. (2024). Trademark Law in the Digital Age: Challenges and Solutions for Online Brand Protection. [CrossRef]
Tomer, A., Daksh, A., Gautam, J. K., Prajapati, P. M., Tomer, A., & Singh, R. (2024). Enforcing Trademark Rights in the Digital Age: International Complications. [CrossRef]
Trivedi, S., & Buch, N. (2024). Protecting sports moves as motion marks under trademark regime in special reference to india. Gaming Law Review. [CrossRef]
Verma, S., Kumar, R., & Yadav, S. K. (2018). An Empirical Study on Consumers’ Buying Intentions of Counterfeit Products in India.
Wilson, J. M. (2015). Brand Protection 2020 Perspectives on the Issues Shaping the Global Risk and Response to Product Counterfeiting.
Wilson, J. M. (2017). The future of brand protection: responding to the global risk. Journal of Brand Management. [CrossRef]
Yadav, A., Yadav, R. K., Singh, V. P., Rajpurohit, G. S., & Singh, S. (2025). Recognition to Implementation: Bridging the Gap in Moral Rights Protection under Indian Copyright Law. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR), 30(3), 295-303.
Yadav, R. K. (2016). Commercialization of Sports and Competition Law. Available at SSRN 2889622.
Yadav, R. K. (2025). Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Rights: Intersection with Fundamental Human Rights such as Privacy and Freedom of Expression. Available at SSRN 5242836.
Yadav, R. K., & Singh, S. (2020). PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORTS IN NAAC AND NEP-2020. International journal of Multidisciplinary educational research, ISSN-2277-7881, 9.
Yadav, R. K., & Singh, S. SPORTS MARKETING AND GLAMOUR IN SPORTS IS DEVELOPING IN THE SHADOW OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION. 2019.
Yadav, R. K., & Yadav, A. (2025). Green Intellectual Property Rights: A Sustainable Approach to Innovation and Environmental Protection. Available at SSRN 5198470.
Zhan, Q. (2017). The International Registration of Non-traditional Trademarks: Compliance with the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention. World Trade Review. [CrossRef]
孙青. (n.d.). On Quantity of Intellectual Property Crime——With “dabao SOD Honey” for Example. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.