Section 134:<\/strong> Grants jurisdiction to District Courts (and courts above) for trademark infringement suits \u2014 the brand owner does not need to file in the city where infringement occurs; they can file in the city where they carry on business<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Copyright Act, 1957<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Where counterfeiting involves reproduction of artistic works \u2014 packaging designs, labels, logos, mascots, instruction manuals \u2014 the Copyright Act provides additional civil and criminal remedies alongside trademark law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Copyright infringement is both a civil wrong (giving rise to injunction and damages) and a criminal offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Criminal copyright infringement is punishable with imprisonment of 6 months to 3 years and fine of Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2 lakh<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb The Copyright Act allows for search and seizure of infringing copies by a police officer of Sub-Inspector rank or above without a warrant, under Section 64<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
For products associated with specific geographical origins \u2014 Darjeeling tea, Kanchipuram silk, Alphonso mangoes, Basmati rice, Kolhapuri chappals \u2014 counterfeiting may also constitute infringement of a registered Geographical Indication. The GI Act provides civil and criminal remedies for unauthorised use of registered GIs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
For counterfeit medicines and cosmetics, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act provides a parallel enforcement framework administered by drug regulatory authorities. Manufacture and sale of spurious or adulterated drugs carries severe criminal penalties \u2014 imprisonment of up to life in cases where the counterfeit drug causes grievous hurt or death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Legal Metrology Act, 2009<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Counterfeit products frequently carry false declarations of weight, measure, price, or country of origin. The Legal Metrology Act provides enforcement tools specifically for these violations, administered by Legal Metrology Officers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Criminal offences under the general penal law \u2014 cheating (Section 318), forgery (Section 336), using forged documents (Section 338), and criminal conspiracy (Section 61) \u2014 can be invoked against counterfeiters in addition to, or in combination with, IP-specific criminal provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Customs Act, 1962<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
At the border, the Customs Act provides powerful tools to intercept counterfeit goods being imported into India or exported from India. Rights holders who register their IP with Customs can trigger alert-based detention of suspected counterfeit shipments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nStep 1: Establish and Document Your IP Rights<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Before taking any enforcement action, the brand owner must be in a position to establish that they have enforceable rights in the mark, design, or creative work being counterfeited. This foundation determines the strength of every subsequent enforcement step.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Trademark Registration Is the Cornerstone<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb A registered trademark<\/strong> gives the owner the statutory right to sue for infringement under the Trade Marks Act \u2014 the strongest and most readily enforceable IP right for anti-counterfeiting purposes<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb An unregistered trademark<\/strong> can still be protected through passing off actions, but passing off requires proof of reputation and goodwill \u2014 a higher evidentiary burden than registered trademark infringement<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb If your trademark is not yet registered, file for registration immediately \u2014 and note that you can still take action for passing off while the registration is pending<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Ensure your registration covers the correct classes<\/strong> of goods or services and the correct mark<\/strong> \u2014 a registration for a slightly different version of your current mark may not cover the exact mark being counterfeited<\/p>\n\n\n\nCopyright in Artistic Works<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Copyright in original artistic works \u2014 logos, packaging designs, label artwork \u2014 subsists automatically on creation without any registration requirement<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb However, copyright registration<\/strong> (with the Copyright Office) creates a public record of ownership and simplifies enforcement \u2014 register your artistic works if you have not already done so<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Maintain records of the creation of original works \u2014 design briefs, drafts, correspondence with designers, payment records \u2014 to establish ownership and creation date<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Document the Counterfeit Activity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Before any enforcement action, gather evidence of the counterfeit product in the market:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Purchase samples of the counterfeit product from the market \u2014 retain purchase receipts and document the source (shop name, address, date)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Photograph the counterfeit product alongside your genuine product to illustrate the similarity<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Document the source of the counterfeit \u2014 the seller’s name, address, and any information about the supplier<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb If the counterfeit is available online \u2014 on e-commerce platforms, social media, or websites \u2014 take screenshots with URLs, timestamps, and seller details<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb If possible, engage a private investigator or a licensed trap agent to conduct a formal trap purchase \u2014 a documented purchase operation that creates a stronger evidentiary record for criminal proceedings<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nStep 2: Choose Your Enforcement Strategy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Anti-counterfeiting enforcement in India can proceed through three primary channels \u2014 civil litigation, criminal prosecution, and administrative enforcement. Each has different advantages and is most effective in different circumstances. The most aggressive anti-counterfeiting strategies use all three simultaneously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Civil Enforcement<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Civil enforcement involves filing a suit in the appropriate civil court (District Court or High Court) seeking:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Injunction<\/strong> \u2014 a court order prohibiting the defendant from continuing to manufacture, sell, or distribute the counterfeit product<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Ex-parte injunction<\/strong> \u2014 an urgent injunction granted without hearing the defendant, available where the plaintiff can demonstrate that delay would cause irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favours immediate relief<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Damages<\/strong> \u2014 financial compensation for the losses caused by the infringement; calculated on the basis of actual losses suffered or, where actual losses are difficult to quantify, on the basis of the infringer’s profits<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Account of profits<\/strong> \u2014 an order requiring the infringer to disgorge all profits made from the infringing activity<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Delivery up and destruction<\/strong> \u2014 an order requiring the infringer to deliver up all infringing goods, packaging, and materials for destruction<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Anton Piller order (search order)<\/strong> \u2014 an extraordinary civil remedy allowing the plaintiff’s lawyers to enter the defendant’s premises and seize evidence without prior notice, available in cases where there is a real possibility that evidence will be destroyed if notice is given<\/p>\n\n\n\nAdvantages of civil enforcement:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb The brand owner controls the litigation \u2014 they choose the timing, the defendants, and the relief sought \ud83d\udccb Ex-parte injunctions can be obtained quickly \u2014 sometimes within days of filing \ud83d\udccb Damages and account of profits can be substantial in large-scale counterfeiting cases \ud83d\udccb The civil court record creates a public precedent that deters future infringers<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Criminal Enforcement<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Criminal enforcement involves filing a criminal complaint with the police \u2014 either directly at the local police station or before a Magistrate \u2014 to trigger arrest, search, seizure, and prosecution of the counterfeiters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Under the Trade Marks Act, criminal complaints can be filed for falsely applying a registered trademark (Section 102)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Under the Copyright Act, police can conduct search and seizure without a warrant under Section 64<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Criminal prosecution, if successful, results in imprisonment and fines \u2014 a more serious consequence for the infringer than a civil damages award<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb The threat of criminal prosecution and arrest is often a more effective deterrent than civil litigation for small-scale counterfeiters<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Advantages of criminal enforcement:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Arrest and detention of the infringer is possible \u2014 a powerful immediate consequence \ud83d\udccb Police seizure of counterfeit stock can be immediate \u2014 clearing the market of fakes faster than civil proceedings \ud83d\udccb No court fee is required for filing a criminal complaint (unlike civil suits) \ud83d\udccb The state bears the cost of prosecution \u2014 the brand owner is the complainant, not the litigant<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Limitations of criminal enforcement:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb The police may not always be responsive to IP complaints \u2014 engaging a lawyer to accompany the complaint and follow up is essential \ud83d\udccb Criminal proceedings are in the hands of the state \u2014 the brand owner cannot control the pace or direction of prosecution \ud83d\udccb The standard of proof is higher in criminal proceedings (beyond reasonable doubt) than in civil proceedings (balance of probabilities)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Administrative Enforcement<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Customs recordal:<\/strong> Brand owners can record their trademarks and copyrights with the Customs authorities under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007. Once recorded, Customs officers are empowered to detain suspected counterfeit imports and alert the rights holder \u2014 allowing the brand owner to inspect and confirm counterfeiting before the goods enter the market<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Consumer Protection authorities:<\/strong> Complaints can be filed with Consumer Protection authorities (District Consumer Commissions, State Consumer Commissions) \u2014 particularly effective where counterfeit products harm consumers and the brand owner can position itself as seeking consumer protection rather than merely commercial protection<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Drug regulatory authorities:<\/strong> For counterfeit medicines and cosmetics, complaints to the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) or state drug controllers trigger regulatory enforcement that can be faster and more targeted than police action<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Legal Metrology Officers:<\/strong> For products with false weight, measure, or labelling declarations, complaints to Legal Metrology Officers trigger enforcement under the Legal Metrology Act<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nStep 3: File a Police Complaint for Criminal Action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
For most brand owners dealing with counterfeit physical products, a criminal complaint to the police is the fastest route to market clearance \u2014 seizure of infringing stock and arrest of the manufacturer or distributor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How to File an Effective Police Complaint<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb File at the police station<\/strong> with jurisdiction over the location where the counterfeit was found or the infringer operates \u2014 this is the local police station (thana) for that area<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Bring a lawyer<\/strong> \u2014 IP complaints require a degree of legal framing that most police officers are not familiar with. A lawyer who accompanies the complaint, explains the legal provisions, and assists in drafting the FIR (First Information Report) significantly improves the likelihood of prompt action<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Provide sample evidence<\/strong> \u2014 bring a sample of the counterfeit product, a sample of the genuine product for comparison, and photographs documenting the similarity<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Provide proof of registration<\/strong> \u2014 bring your trademark registration certificate and, if relevant, copyright registration certificate<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Provide the specific legal provisions<\/strong> \u2014 explicitly cite Section 102 and 103 of the Trade Marks Act, Section 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, and Sections 318 and 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as applicable<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Identify the infringer specifically<\/strong> \u2014 provide the name, address, and any other identifying details of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller<\/p>\n\n\n\nIf the Police Fail to Act: Section 156(3) CrPC Application<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
If the local police refuse to register an FIR or fail to take meaningful action, the brand owner can file an application before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to the former Section 156(3) CrPC) directing the police to register an FIR and investigate. This is a powerful tool when police inaction is the obstacle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Alternatively, a private complaint can be filed directly before the Magistrate under Section 223, who may then issue process (summons or warrant) against the accused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nStep 4: File a Civil Suit for Injunction and Damages<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Parallel to or following the criminal complaint, a civil suit for trademark infringement (and passing off, if the mark is unregistered) should be filed in the appropriate court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Choosing the Right Court<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb District Courts:<\/strong> Have original jurisdiction over trademark infringement suits \u2014 appropriate for most counterfeiting cases<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb High Courts:<\/strong> Have original jurisdiction in cases where they are specifically vested with original civil jurisdiction \u2014 the Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta, and Madras High Courts hear trademark suits in their original sides; other High Courts hear trademark suits in appellate jurisdiction<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Plaintiff’s choice of jurisdiction:<\/strong> Under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, the plaintiff can file in the court within whose jurisdiction they carry on business \u2014 even if the infringement occurs elsewhere. This allows brand owners to litigate in their home city rather than in the location of the infringing activity<\/p>\n\n\n\nApplying for an Ex-Parte Interim Injunction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
In most anti-counterfeiting cases, the first and most urgent step in the civil suit is an application for an ex-parte interim injunction<\/strong> \u2014 an order restraining the defendant from continuing the infringing activity, granted without the defendant being heard.<\/p>\n\n\n\nTo obtain an ex-parte injunction, the plaintiff must establish:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Prima facie case:<\/strong> A strong case of infringement \u2014 typically straightforward where a registered trademark is being counterfeited<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Balance of convenience:<\/strong> That the harm to the plaintiff from refusing the injunction outweighs the harm to the defendant from granting it \u2014 generally clear in counterfeiting cases<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Irreparable harm:<\/strong> That damages would not adequately compensate the plaintiff if infringement continues during the pendency of the suit \u2014 brand dilution and loss of customer trust are generally accepted as irreparable harm<\/p>\n\n\n\nCourts in India \u2014 particularly the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court \u2014 have a strong track record of granting ex-parte injunctions in clear cases of trademark counterfeiting. Applications supported by strong evidence (samples, purchase receipts, comparison photographs, registration certificates) are typically heard within days of filing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Anton Piller Orders (Search Orders) in India<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
In cases where there is real danger that the infringer will destroy evidence or dispose of infringing stock if given notice, the brand owner can apply for a search order<\/strong> \u2014 allowing the plaintiff’s lawyers and an independent supervising advocate to enter and search the defendant’s premises and seize evidence without prior notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIndian courts, particularly the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court, have granted search orders in appropriate cases. The application must be supported by strong evidence of the likelihood of evidence destruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nStep 5: Enforce Against Online Counterfeiting<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Online counterfeiting \u2014 through e-commerce platforms, social media marketplaces, and dedicated counterfeit websites \u2014 has grown dramatically and requires a parallel enforcement strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
E-Commerce Platform Takedowns<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Major e-commerce platforms operating in India \u2014 Amazon, Flipkart, Meesho, Snapdeal, and others \u2014 have brand protection programs that allow registered brand owners to report and remove counterfeit listings:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Amazon Brand Registry:<\/strong> Allows brand owners with registered trademarks to report infringing listings directly through the Brand Registry portal \u2014 removals are typically processed within 24 to 48 hours for clear cases<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Flipkart Brand Protection:<\/strong> Similar program allowing registered brand owners to report counterfeit listings for investigation and removal<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Meesho and other platforms:<\/strong> Complaint mechanisms for IP rights holders to report infringing listings<\/p>\n\n\n\nDocument everything before reporting<\/strong> \u2014 take screenshots of the listing with URL and seller details before filing the takedown, as listings are sometimes removed by the seller before the platform processes the complaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\nSocial Media Takedowns<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Facebook\/Instagram:<\/strong> Meta’s IP reporting tool allows trademark and copyright owners to report infringing content for removal<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb WhatsApp Commerce:<\/strong> Infringing WhatsApp catalogue listings can be reported through Meta’s IP tools<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb YouTube:<\/strong> Copyright and trademark infringement reporting tools allow rights holders to request removal of videos promoting or selling counterfeit products<\/p>\n\n\n\nWebsite Takedowns and Domain Name Disputes<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb For dedicated counterfeit websites, the brand owner can:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Report the website to its hosting provider for suspension \ud83d\udccb File a complaint with the Internet Service Provider’s Grievance Officer under the Information Technology Act \ud83d\udccb File a UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) complaint or INDRP (India’s equivalent for .in domains) to recover domain names that infringe the brand owner’s trademark \ud83d\udccb Apply to court for an injunction against the website \u2014 Indian courts have granted website blocking orders in IP infringement cases<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nStep 6: Customs Recordal to Intercept Counterfeit Imports<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
For brand owners whose products are being counterfeited through imported goods, Customs recordal<\/strong> is one of the most effective proactive tools available.<\/p>\n\n\n\nHow Customs Recordal Works<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb The brand owner records their trademark (and other registered IP) with the Customs authorities by applying under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Once recorded, Customs officers are empowered to suo motu detain<\/strong> suspected counterfeit consignments \u2014 without waiting for a complaint from the rights holder<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb When a consignment is detained, the rights holder is notified and given an opportunity to inspect the goods<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb If the goods are confirmed as counterfeit, they are seized and the importer faces penalties and prosecution<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb The rights holder can also file a specific complaint with Customs about a particular expected shipment \u2014 providing shipping details, expected port of entry, and consignee information<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Benefits of Customs Recordal<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Interception at the border prevents counterfeit goods from entering the market at all \u2014 far more effective than trying to clear them from retail channels after distribution<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Customs detention can be obtained without a court order \u2014 the administrative mechanism is faster than civil proceedings<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb The cost of Customs recordal is modest relative to the protection it provides for businesses facing import-based counterfeiting<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nBuilding a Sustained Anti-Counterfeiting Program<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
One-time enforcement actions, however effective, do not solve a counterfeiting problem permanently. Counterfeiters who are shut down in one location reappear in another. Effective brand protection requires a sustained, systematic program:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Market Surveillance<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Engage trained investigators to conduct regular market surveys in key distribution territories \u2014 both physical markets and online platforms<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Establish a network of distributors, retailers, and customers who can report suspected counterfeits<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Monitor online platforms proactively \u2014 set up keyword alerts for your brand name combined with terms like “duplicate,” “copy,” or at suspiciously low price points<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Authentication Measures<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Implement product authentication features that allow customers and enforcement agencies to verify genuineness \u2014 holographic labels, QR codes linked to verification systems, unique serial numbers, tamper-evident packaging<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Authentication measures serve a dual purpose: they make counterfeiting harder and they provide a basis for customers to report suspected fakes<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dealer and Distributor Training<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Train your distribution channel to identify and report counterfeits \u2014 dealers who know what to look for are your first line of market intelligence<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Establish a formal reporting mechanism and consider incentivising reports that lead to enforcement action<\/p>\n\n\n\n
IP Portfolio Maintenance<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Ensure trademark registrations are renewed on time \u2014 an expired trademark loses its registration and significantly weakens the enforcement position<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Register trademarks in all relevant classes, not just the primary class \u2014 counterfeiters frequently operate in adjacent categories<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Consider registering in key export markets if the brand has international ambitions \u2014 enforcement rights are territorial<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Record-Keeping for Enforcement<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Maintain a systematic record of all counterfeit products found, all complaints filed, all enforcement actions taken, and their outcomes \u2014 this record demonstrates the scope of the problem for courts and establishes the brand owner’s diligence<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nDamages and Compensation: What Can Be Recovered<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A successful civil suit for trademark infringement in counterfeiting cases can yield substantial financial relief:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udccb Compensatory damages:<\/strong> Actual losses suffered \u2014 lost sales, price erosion, costs of market surveillance and enforcement, costs of dealing with customer complaints about fakes<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Account of profits:<\/strong> The infringer’s entire profit from the infringing activity \u2014 sometimes greater than the brand owner’s provable actual loss<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Punitive or exemplary damages:<\/strong> In cases of deliberate, large-scale counterfeiting, courts have awarded punitive damages significantly exceeding actual loss \u2014 to deter future infringement<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Legal costs:<\/strong> Courts increasingly award realistic legal costs against infringers in clear counterfeiting cases<\/p>\n\n\n\n\ud83d\udccb Delivery up and destruction:<\/strong> The infringing goods, packaging, dies, moulds, and printing plates are ordered to be delivered to the plaintiff or destroyed<\/p>\n\n\n\nIndian courts \u2014 particularly the Delhi High Court \u2014 have developed a body of case law awarding significant damages in trademark counterfeiting cases, with some awards running into crores of rupees for large-scale organised counterfeiting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
![\"counterfeits-product-img\"](\"https:\/\/legaltax.in\/blogs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/counterfeits-product-img.png\" "\\"counterfeits-product-img\\"")