Counterfeit Branded Product From Marketplace: Trademark Owner, Platform and You

The Package That Was Not the Brand

You ordered a pair of "branded" running shoes from a well-known online marketplace for ten thousand rupees. The listing showed the brand name in big letters, the official logo, the promise of authenticity, six glowing reviews and "Sold by" some seller with a generic name. The package arrived. You opened it. The stitching was loose, the logo was crooked, the inner sole bore the name of a town you had never heard of, and the box did not look like the boxes shown on the brand's official website. You went online and compared photographs. The shoes were a counterfeit. The marketplace says it is "only a platform" and refers you to the seller. The seller does not answer the phone. The brand owner, on its own site, says it does not authorise any third-party sellers for online retail in India.

This story repeats itself a thousand times a day across India. Cosmetics. Watches. Electronics. Sports gear. Mobile accessories. Even basic medicines. The buyer is stuck with a worthless object. The brand owner is losing money and reputation. The marketplace pleads it is an intermediary. Each is pointing fingers at the other. In legal terms, this is not chaos — it is a three-cornered relationship governed by three different statutes, and each of the three actors has rights and duties that can be invoked.

The buyer can claim a refund and compensation. The brand owner can sue for infringement and demand the platform take down the listing. The platform itself can be made liable if it does not act on a takedown notice the right way. Understanding which law applies to which actor is the difference between giving up and getting your money back.

Three Laws, Three Actors

The counterfeit marketplace problem sits at the meeting point of three Indian statutes. Each does a different job and each protects a different person.

The Trade Marks Act, 1999, protects the brand. The trademark proprietor — say Nike, Lakme, Apple, Adidas — has the exclusive right under Section 28 to use its registered mark on the goods for which it is registered. Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 defines infringement. Section 134 and Section 135 give the proprietor the right to sue in the District Court (or in the High Court where the proprietor resides or carries on business), and a wide menu of remedies including injunctions, damages or an account of profits, and orders for delivery up and destruction of the infringing goods.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, protects the buyer. Section 2(43) defines "spurious goods" as those "falsely claimed to be genuine". Sections 82 to 87 introduce a product-liability regime where the manufacturer, the service provider and the seller can each be made liable for harm caused by a defective or spurious product. The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, made under this Act, place specific duties on marketplaces — disclosure of seller details, grievance mechanisms, time limits for responding to consumer complaints.

The Information Technology Act, 2000, governs the platform. Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, gives "intermediaries" — and a marketplace is an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) of the same Act — a conditional safe harbour from liability for third-party content. But this safe harbour is not absolute. It is hedged with "due diligence" requirements, and a strict takedown duty once the intermediary has "actual knowledge" of unlawful content, as read down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1.

These three statutes do not contradict each other. They run in parallel. The brand owner uses the Trade Marks Act. The buyer uses the Consumer Protection Act. Both invoke the IT Act to make the platform act or take it out of its safe harbour. Understanding this map is the first step.

What Is a 'Counterfeit' in Trademark Law?

The word "counterfeit" is the common-language term. In Indian trademark law, the technical word is "infringement". Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 lays down when a registered trademark is infringed.

Under Section 29(1), the mark is infringed when a person, not being the registered proprietor or a permitted user, uses in the course of trade a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the registered trademark in relation to goods or services for which the trademark is registered. A counterfeit product carries the original brand's mark on goods that the brand did not make. That is straight-line infringement under Section 29(1).

Section 29(2) extends infringement to situations where the goods are similar (not identical) and there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. Section 29(3) presumes such confusion in cases of identical marks on identical goods. Section 29(4) further extends protection to "reputed marks" — well-known brands — even when used on dissimilar goods, if the use takes unfair advantage of the reputation or is detrimental to it. Section 29(5) prevents adoption of someone else's trademark as part of one's trade name or business name. Section 29(6) catches use of the mark in advertising, on business papers, or on packaging.

For a marketplace listing that shows the official brand name and logo on a fake pair of shoes, every test in Section 29 is met. The seller is using an identical mark, in the course of trade, in relation to identical goods, with no authorisation from the proprietor. There is no defence under Section 30 of the Act available in such a case — Section 30 covers honest descriptive use, comparative advertising done fairly, exhausted goods sold in legitimate parallel trade. None of those defences fit a deliberately fake product.

The Brand Owner's Civil Remedies

Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 lists the reliefs available in a suit for infringement and passing off. The court may grant — injunction (including ex-parte and interlocutory orders to preserve evidence and prevent further sale); damages or, at the plaintiff's option, an account of profits made by the infringer; and an order for delivery up of the infringing labels and marks for destruction or erasure.

Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 deals with jurisdiction. The suit can be filed in the District Court or, importantly, where the plaintiff "actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain". This is a major widening of the choice of forum — the brand owner does not have to chase the defendant to wherever the counterfeiter is hiding. The owner can file in Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore or wherever its registered office or principal commercial operation is located. This is why so many trademark cases in India end up in the Delhi High Court — major brand owners have offices there and find Delhi a friendly forum.

The most effective remedy in counterfeit marketplace cases is the interim injunction, granted ex parte at the very first hearing, restraining the named seller and the platform from continuing to display or sell the offending listing. Section 135(2) of the Act expressly empowers the court to grant such ex-parte injunctions where evidence may be destroyed and the plaintiff's recovery would be defeated by delay. Local commissioners are appointed under Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to visit the seller's premises and seize stock.

The brand owner's litigation has direct value for the buyer as well. Once an interim injunction is in place, the platform is obliged to take the listing down. Other buyers stop being defrauded. The brand owner, after winning, can claim damages — and in egregious cases, even punitive damages — which forces the counterfeit network to stop the activity entirely.

The Criminal Route — Falsifying a Trademark

The Trade Marks Act also provides a criminal route. Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 make it a criminal offence to apply a false trademark or trade description or to sell goods bearing a false trademark. The punishment is imprisonment from six months to three years, and fine. These are cognisable offences. The brand owner, or any person aggrieved, can lodge an FIR with the police.

In practice, the criminal route is used in tandem with the civil suit. A police complaint creates pressure on the counterfeiter. The civil suit obtains an immediate injunction and damages. The two move in parallel. For the buyer, the criminal complaint can be more directly accessible — the local police station is closer than the High Court and the cost is zero. The complaint should describe the purchase, attach the screenshots of the listing, photographs of the counterfeit item, the invoice or order confirmation, and ask for investigation under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act read with Section 420 of the IPC (or Section 318 of the BNS in post-2024 cases) for cheating.

Many state police now have separate cyber and economic-offences wings that handle online counterfeit complaints. They are typically more responsive to complaints involving identified marketplaces and large brand owners than purely individual consumer complaints.

John Doe Orders Against Unknown Sellers

One of the practical problems in counterfeit marketplace cases is that the seller is often anonymous — a generic shell account, a fake address, an email that goes nowhere. Indian courts, particularly the Delhi High Court, have developed the practice of "John Doe" orders to address this. A John Doe order is an interim injunction directed against unknown persons identified only by their conduct — "Ashok Kumar v John Doe" being a typical title.

The order restrains "all persons selling, offering for sale, or advertising goods bearing the trademark [X]" and is served on the marketplace itself and on internet service providers. The marketplace is then obliged to take down any listing falling within the scope of the order, identify the seller, and disclose the seller's KYC details to the brand owner so that the named-defendant action can follow. This is the most useful single instrument the brand owner has against counterfeit networks.

For the buyer, the existence of a John Doe order in respect of a particular brand means the marketplace is on notice and must act on any further fake listing. A simple email to the marketplace's nodal officer attaching the order and the listing URL usually produces an immediate takedown.

Spurious Goods and Product Liability

For the buyer, the central protection comes from the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Section 2(43) of the Act defines "spurious goods" as "such goods which are falsely claimed to be genuine". A counterfeit branded product is squarely within this definition. Sections 82 to 87 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 establish a regime of product liability.

Under Section 83 of the Act, a product liability action may be brought by the buyer against the product manufacturer, the product service provider, and the product seller, individually or jointly. Section 84 fastens liability on the manufacturer where the product contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, deviates from manufacturing specifications, does not conform to express warranty, or lacks adequate warning. Section 86 covers the product seller, who is liable if it had substantial control over the design or production or labelling, altered or modified the product, made an express warranty, sold the product when it was unreasonably dangerous, or failed to exercise reasonable care.

Section 86(c) is particularly important for the online buyer. A seller of a spurious product cannot escape by saying it merely re-sold what someone else gave it. If the seller knew or ought to have known that the product was counterfeit, the seller is fully liable. The marketplace, where it acts as more than a mere conduit — where it provides logistics, returns, warranties or assurances of authenticity — can also be treated as a "product seller" within the meaning of Section 2(37) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 35. The District Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction up to one crore rupees. The relief includes refund of the price, replacement of the goods with a genuine product, compensation for harm including mental agony, and costs. The procedure is faster, cheaper and more buyer-friendly than a civil suit. Filing fees are nominal.

The Act also creates a criminal offence in Section 90 — selling, storing or distributing spurious goods is punishable with imprisonment up to one year and fine up to three lakh rupees if the goods cause injury not amounting to grievous hurt; the punishment escalates sharply for grievous hurt and death. This is parallel to and separate from the trademark criminal provisions, and a complaint under both can be made.

Section 79 IT Act — The Platform's Safe Harbour

The big question in counterfeit marketplace cases is whether the platform itself is liable. The platform's defence is Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 — the intermediary safe harbour.

Section 79(1) provides that an intermediary shall not be liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by it. Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act defines "intermediary" to include "online market places". So Amazon, Flipkart, Meesho, Snapdeal and similar platforms enjoy the prima-facie protection of this section.

But the safe harbour is conditional. Section 79(2) requires that the intermediary's function is limited to providing access to the communication system, that it does not initiate the transmission, select the receiver, or select or modify the information contained in the transmission, and that it observes due diligence in discharging its duties. Section 79(3) takes the safe harbour away in two specific situations — first, where the intermediary conspires, abets, aids or induces the unlawful act; and second, where the intermediary, upon receiving "actual knowledge" or notification, fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to the unlawful material.

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (which replaced the 2011 Rules) specify the due diligence — publication of terms of use prohibiting infringing content, designation of grievance officer with name and contact, time limits to act on user complaints (72 hours for grievance redressal generally), and so on. Marketplaces routinely publish all these. Whether they actually exercise the due diligence in practice is a separate question.

Shreya Singhal and 'Actual Knowledge'

The Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 is the foundation stone of intermediary liability in India. While the case is famous for striking down Section 66A of the IT Act, paragraphs of equal importance read down Section 79(3)(b) — the takedown trigger.

The Supreme Court held that the words "actual knowledge" in Section 79(3)(b) must be interpreted strictly. An intermediary is required to take down content only when it receives "actual knowledge from a court order or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency" that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) of the Constitution are being committed. A mere private notice from any aggrieved person is not enough to trigger the takedown duty under the IT Act.

This protects marketplaces from frivolous and harassing takedown demands. But it does not protect them where a competent court issues an order — typically a John Doe injunction, an order in a trademark infringement suit, or an order in a writ petition or a public interest litigation. Once such an order is received, the platform must act expeditiously to take down the listing, or its safe harbour collapses.

For the brand owner, this means that the most effective takedown tool is a court order. A simple legal notice may or may not produce results. A court order produces results almost always. For the buyer, this means that combining the consumer complaint (which the marketplace will defend) with a trademark complaint to the brand owner (which may produce an injunction order) is a stronger strategy than purely consumer-side action.

It should also be noted that the 2021 Rules and several subsequent High Court decisions have somewhat expanded the takedown framework for specific kinds of content. But the core Shreya Singhal principle — that bona fide intermediary status protects against vague private demands and only court or government notice triggers automatic liability — remains intact.

E-Commerce Rules 2020 — The Buyer's Rights

The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, made under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, are the buyer's dedicated weapon for online marketplace disputes. The Rules apply to "all e-commerce entities" — including foreign entities — that systematically offer goods or services to consumers in India.

Under these Rules, every e-commerce entity must — display details of the seller including legal name, principal geographic address, name of the website, contact details and customer care details; disclose to consumers any information required for them to make an informed purchase decision including return, refund, exchange and warranty terms; ensure that the description of goods is accurate; appoint a grievance officer and a nodal officer; resolve consumer complaints within prescribed timelines; and not adopt any unfair trade practice in the course of business.

For marketplace-model entities, the Rules require disclosure that the entity is acting only as a marketplace, identification of sellers and their grievance redressal channels, and prevention of fraudulent practices including the posting of fake reviews. Where the marketplace acts as an "inventory e-commerce entity" — that is, where it actually owns the inventory it sells — its liability is even higher and it stands in the shoes of a seller.

Practically, the E-Commerce Rules, 2020 force the platform to give you a clear seller name and address, a grievance officer's contact, and a defined response timeline. If the platform fails on any of these, a consumer complaint becomes much stronger. Recently, online marketplaces have also been required to file undertakings on authenticity verification, and the Central Consumer Protection Authority — established under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — has been given specific powers to act against unfair practices including sale of spurious or counterfeit goods.

If your story includes a parallel pattern — fake reviews praising the spurious product, misleading authenticity claims, or platform refusal to share seller details — you have multiple grounds in the E-Commerce Rules to add to your complaint. Understanding the wider framework of consumer rights in online shopping disputes helps you push every available button at once.

What Should I Actually Do Now?

If a counterfeit branded product has reached you from an online marketplace, the law gives you a clear sequence of actions. Work through this list:

1. Preserve evidence before doing anything else. Take photographs of the product, the packaging, the inner labels, the box, the courier slip. Screenshot the listing page from the marketplace. Save your order confirmation and invoice. Note the date, time and seller name on the listing. Keep the original packaging untouched.
2. Compare with the brand's official photographs from the manufacturer's website. Note discrepancies — font of the logo, stitching, holograms, batch numbers, country of origin. These become the foundation of your case.
3. Raise a formal return and refund request on the marketplace within the platform's return window. Use the words "spurious goods" and "counterfeit product" in the request, not just "wrong product". This activates Section 2(43) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
4. If the platform offers only a partial refund or refuses, escalate to the grievance officer named under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. Write a clear email with all evidence attached.
5. Simultaneously, contact the brand owner's official customer-relations or anti-counterfeit team. Most major brands maintain a "report counterfeit" channel. Send them the listing URL, seller name, photographs and your order details. Brands often initiate a takedown of the listing and supply you with confirmation that the product was not theirs.
6. Send a registered legal notice to the marketplace and the seller demanding full refund, replacement with a genuine product, and compensation. Quote Section 2(43), Sections 82-87 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the relevant E-Commerce Rules.
7. File a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The pecuniary jurisdiction is up to one crore rupees. Include the marketplace, the seller and (if relevant) the brand owner's distributor as opposite parties.
8. If the value is high or you face a public-interest aspect, also lodge a complaint with the Central Consumer Protection Authority under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, asking it to investigate the broader pattern.
9. For the criminal side, lodge an FIR or a complaint at the police station with cyber cell, citing Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 90 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (spurious goods). Add cheating under Section 318 BNS / Section 420 IPC as applicable.
10. If the platform refuses to take down the listing despite the brand owner's notice, push the brand owner (or the platform itself) to obtain a John Doe order. Once the order exists, Shreya Singhal's reading of Section 79 IT Act, 2000 obliges immediate takedown.
11. Document the harm fully — the price paid, any consequential damage, mental harassment, time wasted, travel for police complaints. Consumer Commissions routinely award compensation for these heads, in addition to the refund.
12. Where the counterfeit was a medicine or food product or anything that could affect physical health, also consider parallel routes — Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, or the equivalent state authority. Where deliberate cheating online amounts to a digital fraud, you may also have a separate cause of action — see how to handle online fraud and digital scams for parallel digital-economy remedies.

The Bigger Picture

Counterfeit branded products on online marketplaces are one of the largest consumer harms in modern Indian commerce. Indian law has responded by building protection on three independent layers — trademark, consumer, and intermediary. Each layer offers its own remedy, and the strongest cases use all three.

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 protects the brand owner and, through it, the public who relies on the brand. Sections 28, 29, 134 and 135 create rights of injunction, damages and delivery up. Sections 103 and 104 create criminal sanctions. The Delhi High Court and other High Courts have developed a body of John Doe practice that makes infringement litigation effective even against shadowy networks.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 protects the buyer. Section 2(43)'s definition of spurious goods, Sections 82-87's product liability regime, and the E-Commerce Rules 2020 give you refund, replacement, compensation, and a forum that is fast and cheap. The Central Consumer Protection Authority adds an institutional dimension to combat systematic counterfeit networks.

The Information Technology Act, 2000 governs the platform. Section 79's safe harbour is conditional. After Shreya Singhal, the platform must take down on court or government order. Where the platform does not exercise due diligence — does not verify sellers properly, does not respond to grievance, does not act on takedown — its safe harbour falls, and direct liability follows.

For the buyer, the practical message is simple. The marketplace is not untouchable. The seller is not invisible. The brand owner is your natural ally. Pinaka Legal has helped buyers and brand owners alike pursue counterfeit cases on each of these three tracks in tandem, and the results are far better than any single-track approach. If a counterfeit has reached your house, treat it as an event with legal consequences — for the seller, for the platform, and for the brand pretender. Each of them owes you something the law can enforce.

Frequently Asked Questions

I received a counterfeit branded product from a marketplace. Can I get my money back?

Yes. The counterfeit product is a 'spurious good' under Section 2(43) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. You can demand a refund and compensation from the seller and, depending on the circumstances, from the marketplace. Start with a formal return request on the platform, escalate to the grievance officer under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, send a legal notice, and if necessary file a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 35 of the Act.

Is the marketplace platform itself liable, or only the seller?

The platform's first defence is Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which gives intermediaries a conditional safe harbour. But the safe harbour requires due diligence and expeditious takedown on receipt of actual knowledge — as read down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1. Where the platform fails its E-Commerce Rules, 2020 obligations, or where it acts as more than a pure intermediary (for example by curating, warranting authenticity, or fulfilling orders), it loses the safe harbour and can be held liable as a seller under Section 86 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

What is Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act and how does it apply to fake products online?

Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 defines infringement. Sub-section (1) catches identical or deceptively similar marks used in the course of trade on the same goods. A counterfeit branded product carrying the original mark satisfies this test directly. Sub-section (4) extends protection to reputed marks even on dissimilar goods. The brand owner can sue for injunction and damages under Section 135 and can choose the forum under Section 134 — including the district court where it carries on business.

Can the brand owner help me as a buyer?

Yes, in most cases. Major brand owners run anti-counterfeit channels and will confirm in writing whether a product was theirs. That confirmation is strong evidence in your consumer complaint and your police complaint. The brand owner may also separately file a trademark infringement suit against the seller and the marketplace, obtain an injunction, and force a takedown — which protects future buyers as well.

What is a John Doe order and how does it help in counterfeit cases?

A John Doe order is an interim injunction issued by a court against unknown defendants identified only by their conduct, granted typically in a trademark infringement suit. The order restrains all unidentified persons from selling or advertising goods bearing the trademark and is served on marketplaces and internet service providers. Once an order exists, the platform must act on it under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act as read in Shreya Singhal. The order also forces disclosure of seller KYC information to the brand owner so that named-defendant actions can follow.

Is selling a counterfeit a criminal offence?

Yes. Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 make it a criminal offence to apply a false trademark to goods or to sell goods bearing a false trademark, punishable with imprisonment of six months to three years and fine. Section 90 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 makes selling, storing or distributing spurious goods criminally punishable. Cheating under Section 318 of the BNS (or Section 420 IPC for older facts) can also be added. You can lodge an FIR or a complaint with the police cyber cell.

What are my rights under the E-Commerce Rules, 2020?

The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, require every e-commerce entity to display accurate seller details, disclose return, refund and warranty terms, appoint a grievance officer and nodal officer, respond to consumer complaints within prescribed timelines, and not adopt unfair trade practices. Marketplaces must clearly identify themselves as marketplaces, identify sellers, prevent fake reviews, and may not vouch for product authenticity unless they are willing to bear liability. Failure on any of these strengthens your consumer complaint.

Can the platform claim it had no knowledge of the counterfeit?

It can claim that, but the claim must be tested against Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 as read in Shreya Singhal. If the platform received actual knowledge by way of a court order, government notice or any official communication of the counterfeit nature of the listing, and did not act expeditiously to remove it, the safe harbour falls. The brand owner's takedown notice supported by a court order is therefore the strongest single weapon. Even without a court order, repeated unanswered consumer complaints showing pattern and platform indifference may be used to argue lack of due diligence.

Which forum should I file my counterfeit complaint in?

For refund and compensation, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is the primary forum — pecuniary jurisdiction up to one crore, then State Commission up to two crores, National Commission above. For criminal action, the police station with a cyber cell. For brand-side action, the brand owner files a trademark suit under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The CCPA under Section 10 of the CP Act can be approached for systemic relief. These run in parallel, not in sequence.

Are spurious medicines or food items treated differently?

Yes. Spurious medicines fall under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and attract very serious criminal penalties including life imprisonment in extreme cases. Spurious food falls under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. For counterfeit branded medicines or food, lodge a complaint with the State Drug Controller or the Food Safety Officer in addition to the consumer and trademark routes. The remedies stack — you can pursue all of them at once.

How much compensation can I expect from a consumer complaint about a counterfeit product?

The Consumer Commission routinely awards (a) the full price paid as refund, (b) compensation for mental harassment and inconvenience — typically Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 depending on facts, (c) costs of litigation, and (d) interest from the date of complaint. Where the spurious product caused physical harm — for example a fake cosmetic causing a skin reaction — actual medical bills and pain-and-suffering compensation are added under Section 84 read with Section 86 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In high-value or repeated-pattern cases, the Commission has awarded punitive damages against marketplaces.

What is the time limit to file a counterfeit complaint?

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides a two-year limitation period from the date of cause of action — usually the date of receiving the counterfeit product or the date of the platform's refusal to refund. The Consumer Commission can condone delay where sufficient cause is shown. For trademark suits, the period is three years from the date of infringement under the Limitation Act, 1963. For criminal complaints there is no fixed limitation in this category. File at the earliest in any case — evidence ages quickly in online cases.

For more articles on Indian law, visit the Pinaka Legal Blog.