The originals and first copies have their distinctive customer groups, that do not overlap in most cases.
Nike, Puma or Reebok are brands that have a set customer base. These are the ones who will buy the original, irrespective of the price. These people go for quality, authentic merchandise, and are willing to shell that amount of money for the brand.
While the others, settle for their first copies/true copies. These are the people who either cannot spend that amount for a shoe/sports merchandise or maybe they just aren’t willing to.
Nike and such other brands are very able suppliers and they retain their customers with their good quality service.
The purpose of buying a luxury (a 6–7k shoe in a country like India), is the exclusivity effect wherein it gives you a feeling of exclusivity or difference from the other people. Such people will always go for the originals, no matter what.
So, technically, these brands do not suffer any competition or losses and hence are unwilling to invest their resources in doing something to curb this practice.( of first copies).
Moreover, in a huge country like India, it is actually very difficult to get to the roots of the issue.
To be precise, counterfeiting is not only a problem specific to India or for these three brands, but these practices have taken over the world, even in cosmetic and skin care product lines and others.
The IP regulations in India i.e. Trademark Act, Copyright Act and Patent Act envisage provisions which prohibit counterfeiting.
Copyright Act, 1957– The Act confers power on the Police to seize infringed copies of copyrighted works. Section 63 of the Act provides for the offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by the Copyright Act and Section 64 empowers the Police to seize infringing copies.
Trademark Act, 1999– The Act nowhere mentions the term “counterfeit”, however the Act provides for civil remedies in the form of injunction, damages, delivery-up, anton pillar and john doe orders under Relief in suit for infringement under Section 135 of Trademark Act.
The Act also provides for criminal remedies. It enumerates provision in the event of falsifying or falsely applying for a trademark under Section 102 and 103 of the Act.
The reality is, it is an unethical practice that needs to be checked, but ain’t nobody got time for that, we are all happy sleeping our days off, I guess, so is Nike/ Puma/ Reebok.
