Author: Anand Patel, Senior Associate
What Is Intellectual Property Piracy?
Intellectual Property Piracy refers to the unauthorized duplication, reproduction, distribution sharing, sale, or use of creations protected by intellectual property laws. These may include copyrighted content, patented inventions, branded logos, proprietary software, and confidential trade information. The internet has amplified the scale and anonymity of infringement, making it easier to access pirated content such as software, movies, music, books, and logos without consent or legal authorization. With technological advancements like peer-to-peer sharing, torrent sites, and cloud storage, enforcing IPR laws has become increasingly complex. When individuals or organizations utilize such protected assets without proper authorization or legal rights, they infringe upon the owner’s exclusive privileges.
How Does IP Piracy Take Place?
The forms and channels through which intellectual property is pirated have grown more sophisticated, especially due to the accessibility of technology and online platforms. Below are the most common avenues of IP piracy:
Digital piracy: In today’s digital and globalized era, piracy takes on multifaceted and often highly organized forms, both online and offline. One of the most prevalent methods is digital piracy, which involves unauthorized downloading, streaming, or sharing of digital media such as films, music, television shows, e-books, and software. These acts are often facilitated through torrent websites, illegal streaming platforms, file-hosting services, and social media channels, where infringing content is made available at zero or minimal cost to the consumer.
The stance of digital piracy of unauthorized streaming of movies was extensively laid out in the cornerstone judgement of 1UTV Software Communications Ltd (2019), wherein The Delhi High Court dealt with eight suits filed by the international film production company against several websites, accused of streaming and offering downloads of copyrighted films without authorization. The issue of dealing with online piracy was laid out through a comprehensive measure of blocking such piracy websites and servers via, Site Blocking, The Domain Name System (DNS) Name Blocking, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) Based Blocking etc. This judgment provides a fundamental approach in dealing with modern age IPR Piracy and ways to combat such piracy for the purpose of establishing a secured future for the IPR Holders not only in the real world but also in the digital arena.
“THE GENERAL INDUSTRY EVIDENCE APPEARS CONSISTENT WITH A HYPOTHESIS THAT DIGITAL PIRACY HAS HURT THE MOVIE INDUSTRY. IN FACT, ONLINE PIRACY HAS HAD A VERY REAL AND TANGIBLE IMPACT ON THE FILM INDUSTRY AND RIGHTS OF THE OWNERS.”
“However, the focus of copyright enforcement and website blocking is on sites that facilitate large-scale copyright infringement—such as those that have many full-length movies, TV shows, and songs—so even if the IP address used by a piracy site hosts non- infringing pages or files, the legitimate content that is blocked is small, and not reason enough to avoid shutting down the website. If The Pirate Bay or KickAssTorrents facilitated access to a small amount of content that had a creative commons license, and was therefore able to be shared, this would not change the fact that it is a piracy site worth shutting down.”
Patent infringement: Another avenue of piracy wherein an invention protected under patent law is exploited without authorization. This often occurs through reverse engineering or unauthorized production and sale of patented items on digital platforms and online marketplace, leading to massive losses for innovators and companies that have invested in research and development.
Trademark piracy: Involves using logos, names, or designs similar to registered trademarks to mislead consumers on digital platforms, websites, and torrent apps. This results in deceiving the consumers along with diminishing the goodwill of certified trademarks. The mere purpose of this is profit maximization and revenue generation upon the mimicry of market reputation, product, goodwill, brand image, of well-known trademarks. The Delhi High Court recently on 28th July 2025 in the matter of “2Ferrero Spa & Ors V. M.B. Enterprises” laid out the intricacies concerning the deceitful usage of well-known trademarks, while defining its purpose and recognition.
“35. a ‘well-known trademark’, as per the provisions of Section 2(zg) and Section 11(6)7 of the Act, the said trademarks ‘NUTELLA’/ of the plaintiffs have to be such that they have become so well-known to a substantial segment of the public that its use on other goods or services is likely to indicate a connection between those goods or services and the person using the mark in relation to the first-mentioned goods or services. In order to ascertain such declaration, the factors that need to be considered inter alia are knowledge or recognition obtained by way of promotion of the said trademark, duration, extent and geographical area of use. 29. As such, if the defendant is allowed to continue under such circumstances, it is likely to result in causing utter confusion, lead to deception and cause damage amongst the members of the public at large as also to the long well-established goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs as well.”
Software piracy: This includes the unauthorized use, duplication, or distribution of software, often via cracked versions, illegal installations, or counterfeit licenses. Common methods include softlifting (installing one licensed software on multiple devices), hard disk loading (pre-installing pirated software on sold devices), and the use of key generators or activators. Another troubling domain is academic and creative plagiarism, where individuals reproduce another’s, content be it academic papers, blogs, designs, or multimedia without appropriate attribution, thereby violating moral and copyright rights. Platforms like blogs, personal websites, or freelance portals often harbor such plagiarized content. Peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks such as BitTorrent also serve as a hotbed for piracy, where users simultaneously download and upload files without central oversight, making enforcement difficult and enabling wide-scale infringement.
Rise of mobile app piracy: has seen the proliferation of cracked or modified APK files, where paid apps or games are distributed for free via third-party websites, bypassing app store licensing protocols. These apps often unlock premium features illegally, impacting developers ’revenue streams. Finally, unauthorized use of images, code, video content, or articles from copyrighted websites often termed as content scraping is a growing issue for digital publishers and creators. This involves copying entire blog posts, news articles, videos, or website templates and passing them off as original work. In all these forms, piracy not only erodes the financial incentives for original creators but also destabilizes markets, misleads consumers, and undermines the integrity of innovation, creativity, and fair competition.
NFT & Digital Art Piracy: NFT piracy involves the unauthorized creation and sale of NFTs based on copyrighted or trademarked content without the rights holder’s permission, leading to widespread IP violations in the digital space. This includes copying digital works, impersonating artists, and misusing brand names or imagery, often exploiting the lack of clear regulation and enforcement on NFT platforms. A key example is “3Hermès v. Rothschild, 2023”, where the court ruled that “MetaBirkins” NFTs, which depicted Hermès’ iconic Birkin bags, infringed on Hermès’ trademark rights despite the creator’s claim of artistic expression.
“Hermès labeled Rothschild a “digital speculator who is seeking to get rich quick” and asserted that the MetaBirkin brand “simply rips off Hermès’ famous Birkin trademark.”
An extract from the decision given by the District Court of New York is followed as:
“Given the centrality of consumer confusion to trademark law generally, it is best to view this issue from the perspective of the prospective consumer. Individuals do not purchase NFTs to own a “digital deed” divorced from any other asset: they buy them precisely so that they can exclusively own the content associated with the NFT.”
Deepfake technology: Rooted in advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning, particularly through the use of Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), enables the creation of highly realistic synthetic media by altering or fabricating audio-visual content. Originally intended for positive applications such as enhancing special effects in entertainment, aiding in immersive education, or simulating interactions in healthcare deepfakes have increasingly been misused. With the democratization of AI tools, even those with limited technical skills can produce convincing deepfakes, often weaponized for harmful purposes such as misinformation, fraud, and non-consensual explicit content, especially targeting women.
Domain name: Disputes are complex due to the varied reasons people register them ranging from legitimate business and personal use to opportunistic practices like cybersquatting and piracy. While no specific laws grant exclusive rights over domain names, courts have applied trademark principles to address conflicts arising online. As globalization and internet commerce grow, trademarks have become increasingly valuable, serving as key identifiers of products and services.
In the case of 4Gulshan Khatri v. Google INC the Delhi High Court observed upon the facts related to the adoption of a domain name that is deceptively similar, impersonating and benefitting from the goodwill of trademark of the internationally recognized search engine ‘Google’.
“The domain name and mark ‘google’ is a coined word, distinctive in nature, particularly in relation to the goods and services that it represents. The adoption by Mr. Khatri of a nearly identical mark/domain name ‘googlee.in’ is indeed in bad faith and not merely a coincidence. Mr. Khatri was rightly stopped in his tracks by the Arbitrator from continuing with his misadventure. He could not have hoped to get away with exploiting Google’s goodwill and reputation by merely adding an ‘e’ to its domain name. Google rightly cried foul.”
Clone detection– Refers to identifying duplicate or similar code in software, particularly to detect cloned Android apps on the Play Store that infringe on developers’ intellectual property and pose security risks to users. These clones often mimic the design, functionality, and even package names of popular apps, making them hard to distinguish without specialized techniques. Methods such as code-based, behavior-based, metadata, and machine learning analysis are used to identify such clones. Tools like NiCad have proven effective in detecting near-miss code clones, which can help uncover modified malware.
Counterfeiting– Defined as producing goods that closely imitate genuine products to mislead consumers, has become a major global issue, now extending beyond physical markets into the digital space. With the rise of e-commerce and social media platforms, counterfeit products are increasingly sold online, making it difficult for consumers to distinguish between real and fake goods. This not only harms consumer trust but also significantly impacts national economies. The Delhi High Court Judgement of 5Sirona Hygiene Pvt. Ltd. v. Parulben Navnath Chothani on 9th May, 2023:“These Defendants make unlicensed use of copyrighted promotional material and their listing/tagging to sell to the consumers of the Plaintiff’s products fake, sub-standard and cheap infringing copies. This leads to the commission of a string of other infringements and violations of laws including the infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyright, design and patent rights; cheating and passing off fake goods in the guise of sale of its products, causing the exposure of the Plaintiff to unwarranted complaints and prosecutions for cheating and product liability claims.”
Strategies to Combat IP Piracy
While piracy cannot be completely eradicated, a combination of legal, technological, and societal approaches can significantly curb its prevalence.
Digital Rights Management (DRM)
Digital Rights Management (DRM) refers to a suite of technologies designed to control access and usage of digital content. DRM ensures that only authorized users can access content, and it restricts how they can interact with it such as preventing copying, forwarding, or printing. Commonly used in eBooks, movies, music, and software, DRM is embedded within the content to enforce licensing agreements. For instance, a DRM- protected movie may only be playable on registered devices, or an eBook may be readable only through a specific platform.
Watermarking and Fingerprinting
Watermarking and fingerprinting are techniques used to trace the origin and ownership of digital content. Watermarking involves embedding invisible or visible markers such as logos, timestamps, or user IDs into the content (audio, video, or images) that can be used to identify the original source. Fingerprinting, on the other hand, generates a unique signature or “fingerprint” from the content, which can be matched against a database to detect unauthorized copies. Both methods are particularly effective in copyright enforcement because they allow rights holders to track leaked or pirated versions back to the original distributor or consumer, thereby deterring intentional leakage and aiding in legal enforcement.
Robust Encryption
Encryption involves converting data into a coded format that can only be read or accessed with a decryption key. For digital content, robust encryption ensures that only users with the correct authorization (such as a license key or verified account) can access or use the content. This is especially important for software, games, and confidential media files. Encryption can also be used in conjunction with DRM to offer a multi-layered security approach. The use of AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) and RSA encryption protocols helps prevent unauthorized users from bypassing protections or extracting useful information through reverse engineering.
Online Monitoring and Enforcement
To combat piracy in real time, content creators and copyright holders engage in online monitoring, which involves scanning the internet, including torrent sites, streaming
platforms, social media, and file-hosting services, for infringing content. Tools such as content recognition algorithms, web crawlers, and automated bots are employed to detect unauthorized distributions.
Educational Campaigns
Educational initiatives play a key role in reducing digital piracy by informing the public especially students, consumers, and budding creators, about the legal and ethical consequences of plagiarism and content theft. Campaigns may be conducted through schools, media platforms, public service announcements, or online influencers. These programs often emphasize the importance of respecting intellectual property, highlight the negative impact piracy has on creators and industries, and promote the use of legal content sources.
Legal Measures and Litigation
Taking legal action against piracy involves civil or criminal proceedings against individuals or entities found guilty of unauthorized use or distribution of protected content. Rights holders can file lawsuits to seek damages, injunctions, or even criminal penalties, depending on severity and jurisdiction. High-profile cases such as the shutdown of major piracy websites like
Geo-Blocking and IP Restrictions
Geo-blocking restricts access to digital content based on a user’s geographic location. It works by detecting a user’s IP address and determining whether they are in an authorized region. This method helps content owners comply with licensing agreements that vary by country and prevent access from regions known for high levels of piracy. For example, streaming services may restrict movies from being accessible in countries where they haven’t been licensed.
Collaboration with ISPs (Internet Service Providers)
ISPs play a critical role in monitoring and managing online traffic, making them valuable allies in the fight against piracy. By working with ISPs, rights holders can track and curb illegal file sharing, often through IP monitoring. Some jurisdictions mandate ISPs to implement a “three-strikes” policy, where users receive warnings for illegal downloading, followed by suspension or legal consequences. ISPs may also be required to block access to piracy websites.
Affordable and Accessible Legal Alternatives
One of the most effective deterrents to piracy is offering consumers convenient, affordable, and high-quality legal alternatives. Services like Spotify, Netflix, Amazon Kindle, and Steam have significantly reduced piracy by giving users easy access to content at competitive prices. When legal options are more user-friendly than illegal ones offering fast streaming,
multilingual support, offline downloads, and minimal ads consumers are less likely to seek pirated versions.
Use of Anti-Tamper Software
In the gaming and software industries, anti-tamper technologies are used to protect applications from being modified or cracked. These tools, such as Denuvo, are designed to make reverse engineering or debugging extremely difficult, thereby preventing hackers from bypassing DRM or licensing restrictions. Anti-tamper mechanisms often work alongside encryption and obfuscation to make software piracy technically challenging and time-consuming.
Substantive Legislations
The Copyright Act, 1957
The Copyright Act, 1957 serves as the primary legislation to combat software piracy in India. The 1995 amendment to the Act significantly enhanced the protection afforded to copyright holders, especially in the realm of software. Section 52-A lays down the condition and particulars for a person publishing a sound recording or video films. The Act provides for robust civil remedies under Section 55, including injunctions to restrain further infringement, damages or account of profits, and special orders to prevent concealment or destruction of evidence. Additionally, criminal remedies under Section 63 stipulate that infringement of copyright is punishable with imprisonment ranging from six months to three years and a fine between ₹50,000 and ₹2,00,000. Moreover, Section 63B specifically criminalizes the knowing use of infringing computer programme software, with penalties extending from seven days to three years of imprisonment and the same fine range. The 1984 amendment that extensively recognised modern age piracy and enacted provisions that shall curb such use of digitalised IPR, has consolidated the position in the view of a legal framework.
“Statement of Objects and Reasons of Amendment Act 65 of 1984. —Piracy has become a global problem due to the rapid advances in technology. It has assumed alarming proportions all over the world and all the countries are trying to meet the challenge by taking stringent legislative and enforcement measures. The problem of piracy and the necessity for taking sufficient anti-piracy measures were also voiced by Members of Parliament at the time of the consideration of the Bill to amend the Copyright Act, 1957, last year.
The Supreme Court of India in the matter of “6State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Nagoti Venkataramana” on 20 August, 1996 laid down the objective to prevent piracy under Section 52-A of The Copyright Act , 1970 and interpreted Section 2(C) of the Cinematograph Act that directs the inclusion of video tapes.
“The object of amending the Copyright Act by Act amendment 65 of 1984, as noted above, was to prevent piracy which became a global problem due to rapid advances in technology. The legislature intended to prevent piracy and punish the pirates protecting copyrights. The law, therefore, came to be amended introducing Section 52-A. Thereafter, the piracy of cinematograph films and of sound recording etc. could be satisfactorily prevented. Moreover, the object of the pirate is to make quick money and avoid payment of legitimate taxes and royalties. The uncertified films are being exhibited in a large scale. Mushrooming growth of video parlours has sprung up all over the country exhibiting such films recorded on video tapes by charging admission fee from the visitors. It is settled view that video tapes come within the expression “cinematograph” in view of the extended definition in Section 2 [c] which includes apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures as copy of the video should be created in respect of a cinematograph under the Cinematograph Act which gives protection to the purchasers of the cinematograph if they are registered.”
Cinematograph (Amendment) Act, 2023: Of Piracy and Penalties
The 2023 Act represents a significant step in India’s ongoing battle against IPR piracy, particularly in the film and entertainment sectors. It enhances the legal framework by allowing dual claims one under Section 6AA, targeting acts involving an “infringing copy,” and another under Section 6AB, addressing broader copyright infringement. The Act aligns the definition of “infringing copy” with that provided in Section 2(m)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957, ensuring consistency in identifying pirated material. From an IPR piracy standpoint, this legislation takes a firmer stance through stricter punitive measures. Offenders under Sections 6AA and 6AB now face imprisonment ranging from three months to three years, along with a fine starting at ₹3 lakhs and extending up to 5% of the audited gross production cost an especially severe penalty for piracy of big-budget films.
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
While the Copyright Act addresses the content aspect of software, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 becomes crucial when piracy involves unauthorized use of brand names, trade labels, or logos associated with genuine software. Under Section 134, a trademark owner can file a suit for infringement with the district court, and under Section 135, relief for in suits of infringement along a common law action for passing off is available to prevent deceptive use of unregistered marks. Civil remedies under this Act include the grant of injunctions, damages, and other equitable orders. On the criminal front, Section 103 penalizes acts of falsifying or falsely applying trademarks. Aggrieved parties can lodge police complaints which may result in the search and seizure of counterfeit software, labels, and associated infringing tools, thereby aiding in the prevention and prosecution of trademark piracy.
The Information Technology Act, 2000
It complements the Copyright Act by addressing digital piracy and cyber infringement. As per Section 43 of the IT Act, any person who accesses a computer system, network, or digital storage device without authorization, and views, copies, or extracts data whether through the internet or removable storage devices like pen drives or external hard drives
is considered to have committed a civil wrong. The law imposes liability for compensation, which may extend up to ₹1 crore, for such unauthorized access and data theft. This also covers the act of downloading stolen or pirated digital content, making users of pirated material equally responsible under the law.
India’s Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act
Enacted in August 2023, represents a critical step in combating digital piracy and protecting personal data in the online ecosystem. Sparked by the 7Puttaswamy judgment of 2017, which recognized privacy as a fundamental right, the DPDP Act provides a legal framework for safeguarding digital personal data particularly relevant in an age where piracy often involves the unauthorized use, sharing, or monetization of individuals’ personal and copyrighted content.
“The principles should include that the means of collection of data are fair and lawful, the purpose and relevance is clearly defined, user limitations accompanied by intelligible consent requirements are specified and subject to safeguards against risks such as loss, unauthorized
access, modification and disclosure.”
Though the Act is yet to be enforced (pending notification), it applies broadly to any entity, within or outside India, that processes digital personal data linked to Indian users such as platforms that host pirated content or unlawfully collect user data.
Conclusion
Internet-based IPR piracy poses a serious threat to innovation, creativity, and economic growth. While India has robust legal frameworks like the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the enforcement mechanisms must evolve to address the dynamic and borderless nature of digital piracy. Strengthening cyber policing, improving international cooperation, and enhancing digital literacy are essential to curb the menace.
Anand Patel, Senior Associate, Solomon & Co. About Solomon & Co.
Solomon & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors) was founded in 1909 and is amongst India’s oldest law-firms. The Firm is a full-service firm that provides legal service to Indian and international companies and high net-worth individuals on all aspects of Indian law.
“Disclaimer”
The information contained in this article is intended solely to provide general guidance on matters of interest for the personal use of the reader, who accepts full responsibility for its use. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. As such, it should not be used as a substitute for consultation with a competent adviser. Before making any decision or taking any action, the reader should always consult a professional adviser relating to the relevant article posting.
Copyright © Solomon & Co. 2026, All rights reserved.
