Aligning India’s IP Enforcement Framework With The EU-India FTA: Implications For Customs Regulation And Cross-Border Counterfeit Trade

Aligning India’s IP Enforcement Framework with the EU-India FTA: Implications for Customs Regulation and Cross-Border Counterfeit Trade

Introduction

The conclusion of the framework agreement for the EU-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) marks a significant milestone in the bilateral economic relationship between India and the European Union. Among the most contentious and technically complex chapters in such agreements is the Intellectual Property (IP) chapter, which typically sets out obligations relating to the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Following the framework agreement, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has initiated structural reviews of India’s domestic IP enforcement standards, with a particular focus on strengthening customs regulations to address cross-border trade in counterfeit goods.

This development raises important questions about the future direction of India’s IP enforcement regime, the balance between stronger border measures and access to affordable goods, and the institutional capacity required to implement enhanced enforcement obligations. This article examines the likely contours of the IP chapter obligations, the proposed reforms to customs enforcement, and their broader implications.

Key IP Enforcement Obligations in Modern FTAs

Contemporary free trade agreements, particularly those involving the European Union, typically include detailed provisions on IP enforcement that go beyond the minimum standards set out in the TRIPS Agreement. These often include obligations relating to border measures, civil and criminal enforcement procedures, provisional and precautionary measures, and the destruction of infringing goods. The EU’s approach generally emphasises strong ex officio powers for customs authorities, streamlined procedures for rights holders to obtain enforcement action, and robust remedies including the destruction of counterfeit goods at the border.

For India, aligning with such standards would likely require amendments to the Customs Act, 1962, the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, and related regulations. The focus on “tighter civil enforcement customs regulations” suggests a move towards more proactive border enforcement, expanded powers for customs officers, and possibly simplified procedures for rights holders to seek suspension of suspected counterfeit consignments.

Implications for India’s Customs and IP Enforcement Architecture

Strengthening customs enforcement against counterfeit goods carries both opportunities and challenges. On the positive side, enhanced border measures can help protect legitimate Indian industries (particularly pharmaceuticals, textiles, and consumer goods) from the influx of counterfeit products, safeguard consumer health and safety, and improve India’s reputation as a jurisdiction serious about IP protection. This can also support India’s own ambitions to become a global manufacturing and export hub under initiatives such as “Make in India” and “Atmanirbhar Bharat”.

At the same time, stronger enforcement mechanisms raise concerns about potential overreach, increased compliance costs for legitimate importers and exporters, and the risk of disruption to trade flows. There is also the longstanding concern in India-EU trade negotiations regarding the impact of stringent IP enforcement on access to affordable medicines and generic drugs. India has historically been cautious about agreeing to TRIPS-plus enforcement standards that could be used to impede the legitimate trade in generic pharmaceuticals. Any new customs regulations will need to carefully balance robust anti-counterfeiting measures with safeguards against misuse that could affect public health and access to essential goods.

Institutional and Capacity Considerations

Effective implementation of enhanced customs enforcement will require significant investment in institutional capacity. This includes training customs officers in the identification of counterfeit goods across diverse product categories, developing robust risk assessment and intelligence systems, improving coordination between customs authorities and IP offices, and establishing clear protocols for the handling, storage, and destruction of seized goods. The involvement of multiple agencies, DPIIT, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), and rights holders, necessitates well-defined inter-agency coordination mechanisms.

Additionally, the shift towards more proactive, intelligence-led enforcement (as opposed to purely complaint-driven action) will require investment in data analytics, information sharing with international partners, and possibly the use of technology such as AI-based screening tools at ports and airports. These capacity-building requirements should be factored into the implementation roadmap for any new regulations arising from the FTA commitments.

Conclusion

The structural reviews initiated by DPIIT following the EU-India FTA framework agreement represent an important moment in the evolution of India’s IP enforcement landscape. While stronger customs regulations against counterfeit goods can yield significant benefits for legitimate industry and consumers, the design and implementation of these measures must be carefully calibrated to avoid unintended consequences for legitimate trade, public health, and access to affordable goods. As India moves towards finalising and implementing its commitments under the IP chapter of the FTA, a balanced, transparent, and capacity-sensitive approach will be essential to ensure that enhanced enforcement strengthens rather than undermines India’s broader trade, industrial, and public welfare objectives.

References

1. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 1994, Part III (Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights), Articles 41–61.
2. World Trade Organization, TRIPS Agreement – Border Measures, Articles 51–60, https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_05_e.htm
3. Customs Act, 1962, Sections 11 and 156.
4. Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, Notification No. 47/2007-Customs (N.T.), dated 8 May 2007.
5. Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, Rule 11.
6. Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Government of India, National IPR Policy, 2016, Objective 6 (Enforcement and Adjudication).
7. European Commission, Intellectual Property Rights in EU Trade Policy, https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/help-exporters-and-importers/protecting-intellectual-property_en.
8. European Commission, Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013, Official Journal of the European Union.
9. Reuters, “India-EU free trade pact: What’s agreed, what’s at stake after years of talks,” 23 January 2026.
10. Reuters, “Details of EU-India trade deal – tariffs, quotas and market access,” 27 January 2026.
11. World Customs Organization (WCO), IPR, Health and Safety Programme, https://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/enforcement-and-compliance/activities-and-programmes/ipr-health-and-safety-programme.aspx.
12. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) & European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Global Trade in Fakes: A Worrying Threat, 2021.
13. OECD & EUIPO, Misuse of Containerized Maritime Shipping in the Global Trade of Counterfeits, 2025.
14. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), Customs Manual 2023, Chapter on Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement.
15. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: Border Measures, https://www.wipo.int/enforcement/en/
16. Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Make in India Initiative – Manufacturing and Intellectual Property Protection Framework, https://www.makeinindia.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.