Category: Online Brand Protection

This Authentix article has been published as a part of the Asia Video Industry Association’s Asia Video Report 2025. To learn more, please visit their website.

By Bharat Kapoor, Vice President, Online Brand Protection, Authentix

The creation of AI-generated visual content has profound implications for IP owners, especially in the context of copyright. When AI engines scrape images and videos to create new works, the critical question is whether such processing amounts to “reproduction” under copyright law. There also arises the vexed question of whether an AI-generated visual work is independently entitled to copyright protection. The few disputes that have so far reached courts have left many questions and concerns unaddressed. For example, in Getty Images v Stability AI (2023), Getty Images claimed before the UK High Court that Stability AI scraped millions of its copyrighted images to train its AI engine. While the court allowed the case to proceed to trial (finding that it involved a novel and previously undetermined question of law) it remains to be seen whether the parties decide to settle, thus scuttling the development of judicial guidelines on the subject. In Kneschke v LAION (2024), the Hamburg Regional Court in Germany rejected a similar claim by a stock image photographer against LAION, a non-profit AI company. Somewhat controversially, the court allowed LAION the benefit of an exemption normally reserved for research organizations. If courts begin to lean in this direction globally, copyright owners will struggle to be renumerated fairly. Given the deep links between certain non-profits and major tech companies, such an outcome might even be seen as patently unjust. Meanwhile, in Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023), the US District Court in Columbia upheld the US Copyright Office’s denial of copyright in an image created using AI, ruling that “human authorship” is a necessary ingredient of copyright ownership. But the ruling arguably fails to provide guidance in situations involving human authorship assisted by AI, or the highly creative use of an AI engine where the user goes beyond dictating mundane commands.

Alongside copyright, an overlooked area involves the use of trademarks in the creation of AI-generated visual content. To illustrate, Authentix Online Brand Protection conducted an experiment where multiple AI apps were instructed to create hundreds of images using well-known trademarks in (arguably) dilutionary contexts. The results were mixed. Some engines did not use the specified trademarks, contrary to our commands. Some slightly altered the specified trademarks and then used these versions. And some used all kinds of trademarks uninhibitedly, in contexts that would probably displease trademark owners (such as Ronald McDonald advertising KFC). Depending on context and jurisdiction, such uses might be prohibited as dilution/tarnishment, or permitted under fair use/criticism/parody exceptions.

In the end, AI can make the process of creating high-quality visual content quicker, easier, cheaper, more accessible and more scalable. This can benefit not only novice or low-budget content creators, but also large corporations wishing to expand their reach through social media. However, IP rights owners will likely argue in favor of laws and regulations governing the use of IP by AI engines. Rights owners may also advocate the adoption of licensing regimes (as a possible harbinger, OpenAI has reportedly been offering news organizations between USD 1 to 5 million in licensing fees to train its AI model). In both cases, copyright-related principles will probably be easier to concretize into laws and norms than trademark principles, and also receive higher prioritization. Yet, in all this, a fact that could be missed is that Western nations no longer monopolize the development of AI. AI engines that place IP owners at risk may well emanate from emerging Asian economies, with contrary viewpoints on the boundaries of IP protection. The bigger challenge for IP owners, therefore, may lie in ensuring the global acceptability of IP norms and the consent of governments and AI developers from emerging economies in the framing of such norms.

About Authentix Online Brand Protection

Authentix provides some of the world’s most recognizable brands with sophisticated online brand protection tools and services to address a broad range of online infringement and counterfeit risks. From global online surveillance and enforcement, online investigations and site takedowns, target verification, and even offline investigations, Authentix helps major brands proactively reduce the threat of counterfeit products being sold online. Our online brand protection solutions combine cutting-edge technological tools and expert analysis to reduce infringements for our clients on online marketplaces, social media platforms, and websites by up to 90%.
Want to see what Authentix OBP can do for your company? Our team is committed to working with you, understanding your unique challenges and requirements, and providing tailored solutions that best fit your industry and the unique challenges your brand faces that make a tangible difference to your brand. Schedule a consultation with one of our brand protection experts to learn more.

Bharat Kapoor, Vice President, Online Brand Protection, Authentix
Formerly the CEO of Strategic IP Information Pte, now a part of Authentix, Bharat has been focused on building effective global brand protection programs for over 250 brands across sectors such as fashion, FMCG, pharma, cosmetics, sporting goods wines, and spirits. He has led the development of the best-in-class machine learning-based online brand protection technology and developed effective global teams to investigate counterfeiting and piracy on the ground in China, Asia, and Latin America. Bharat Kapoor has a B.A. Honors from the University of Technology, Sydney. Prior to joining SIPI, he was an Associate Director at Ernst & Young India, where he led the business development and advisory services program for companies operating in the media, e-commerce, and advertising sectors.

By Bharat Kapoor, Vice President, Online Brand Protection, Authentix

The arrest of Pavel Durov, the founder-CEO of Telegram, has sparked off a wave of criticism and conspiracy theories. An official press release reveals that Pavel (now out on bail) was arrested for the purpose of questioning, as part of a judicial investigation. The judicial investigation followed a preliminary enquiry by the Public Prosecutor Office, National Jurisdiction against Organised Crime (JUNALCO), and was opened against unnamed persons on various charges. These charges included complicity in connection with multiple criminal offences, namely the possession and distribution of child pornography, the sale of narcotics, the sale and distribution of hacking tools, and “organised fraud”; money laundering; offering cryptology services without prior declaration; and non-cooperation with authorities seeking to intercept communications.

It is, of course, rare for owners and operators of online platforms to face such criminal action — as opposed to users on the platform engaged in criminal activity. The few examples one can think of would only encompass outrightly rogue platforms whose primary intent was to facilitate illicit commerce, with the active approval and encouragement of its operators. Two notable cases that come to mind are Ross Ulbricht of the Silk Road marketplace (convicted by a Manhattan federal court and sentenced to life imprisonment) or Kim Dotcom of Megaupload (whose extradition order to the US was signed by New Zealand’s Justice minister in August). An interesting facet of those two cases is the role of IP infringement. In the former case, Ulbricht was convicted on seven counts (concerning drug trafficking, trafficking in fraudulent documents, computer hacking services and malware, money laundering and “continuing criminal enterprise”). However, a statement from the prosecutor’s office mentioned that Silk Road was also involved in disseminating “pirated media content”. In the case of Mega Upload, the case against Dotcom was almost entirely centered around copyright piracy, and the Court of Appeal in New Zealand found that Kim Dotcom could be extradited on that basis.

It is no one’s case that Durov and Telegram fall in the same class as the charges raised against Ulbricht/Silk Road and Dotcom/Mega Upload. In fact, Telegram does have a mechanism through which one can report illicit activity, however, the platform has been non-compliant to takedown requests placed by IP owners. In comparison, other social media platforms are known to have more accessible channels to address the concerns of IP owners. Since the French authorities still found it worth investigating Telegram and arresting Durov, it must be asked why IP infringement was missing from the list of allegations, given the alleged high frequency of pirated content on Telegram, as well as the reported presence of counterfeit sellers. In recent experience, about 20 percent of IP complaints that Authentix has filed with Telegram have been taken down. Even there, the response time has been slower than other platforms, which vitiates the ultimate goal of reducing counterfeit traffic. Further, unlike many other marketplaces, Telegram lacks a separate channel to fast-track complaints involving particularly blatant violations — such as outright counterfeits, or cases where an IP assessment is not warranted to determine if a sale is illegal, such as public sales of restricted goods like prescription medicines, alcohol and certain types of chemicals.

Objectively, there have been examples, notably in India, where Telegram has shared the details of users engaged in copyright piracy which was beneficial to investigation and enforcement. Yet, many of these instances only took place after a court order, and after Telegram had contested such claims on grounds of privacy and jurisdiction. Further, a system was introduced where one could open a Telegram account without a SIM card — which pirates and counterfeiters and other rogue actors are allegedly using to seek anonymity. In the end, what we believe Telegram should do is institute a formal, transparent pro-active mechanism through which IP infringements can be addressed; a similar mechanism through which sales involving public policy violations (independent of IP) can be addressed; and a system through which ads (often the first point of contact between a counterfeiter and a user) can be better monitored.

Looking ahead, it is likely that French authorities will continue and try to pressure Telegram to improve its compliance mechanisms, rather than determinedly seek to prosecute Durov personally, with the goal that Telegram will relent and agree to make these changes. Intriguingly, Telegram just recently changed the language on its FAQ page, from “All Telegram chats and group chats are private amongst their participants. We do not process any requests related to them” to now read “All Telegram apps have ‘Report’ buttons that let you flag illegal content for our moderators — in just a few taps.” Yet, if IP infringement continues to lag and Telegram does not make a serious effort to improve compliance, copyright and brand owners will feel justified in feeling hard done by.

About Authentix Online Brand Protection

Authentix provides some of the world’s most recognizable brands with sophisticated online brand protection tools and services to address a broad range of online infringement and counterfeit risks. From global online surveillance and enforcement, online investigations and site takedowns, target verification, and even offline investigations, Authentix helps major brands proactively reduce the threat of counterfeit products being sold online. Our online brand protection solutions combine cutting-edge technological tools and expert analysis to reduce infringements for our clients on online marketplaces, social media platforms, and websites by up to 90%.

* Image from artist Nick Lubushko

In the digital age, a brand’s reputation is a crucial asset and one of the greatest threats a brand faces is counterfeiting. Whether it’s a popular weight-loss drug like semaglutide or designer apparel, the counterfeit market is thriving and costing brands billions of dollars every year. The impact goes far beyond financial losses; it puts consumer health and safety at risk. Due to the rise in harmful counterfeit products across a variety of industries, the US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property introduced the Stopping Harmful Offers on Platforms by Screening Against Fakes in E-Commerce (SHOP SAFE) Act. The SHOP SAFE Act is legislation aimed at reducing the volume of counterfeit sales online. It includes provisions such as holding platforms accountable for counterfeits that endanger consumer health and safety, requiring them to verify and display sellers’ identity and contact information, and terminating the accounts of repeat infringers.

Criticisms to the SHOP SAFE Act have led to the realization among lawmakers and courts that striking a balance between safe harbor principles and responsibilities is necessary, given the health and safety risks associated with counterfeit products.

The Impact of Widespread Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals

The surge in counterfeit pharmaceuticals such as semaglutide, better known under the commercial brand name Ozempic, has resulted in consumers falling seriously ill after purchasing these fake products online. After a huge surge in demand for the drug in 2023, pharmacies have struggled to keep it in stock and counterfeiters have taken advantage of the lack of availability by flooding the internet with fake semaglutide. Healthcare agencies in the UK have reported multiple cases of consumers falling seriously ill after purchasing counterfeit semaglutide online. Recently, a BBC investigation similarly uncovered cases of consumers buying counterfeit semaglutide pens from sellers on Instagram, WhatsApp and TikTok, with some ending up being hospitalized. Another example comes from Austria where several patients injected with suspected counterfeit semaglutide were hospitalized after suffering from hypoglycemia and seizures. This reality underscores the importance of the SHOP SAFE Act and why brand protection is no longer a choice but a necessity for businesses and consumer protection.

To dig deeper into the extent of the counterfeit semaglutide market, Authentix Online Brand Protection (OBP) scanned multiple platforms and found several suspicious listings of semaglutide across social media and messaging apps and online marketplaces.

In the absence of a detailed investigation, it is difficult to establish which of these products are counterfeit and governments and the industry would benefit from investigating such listings in greater detail. For example, many suspicious listings found by Authentix OBP contained clickbait hashtags like #weightloss and #ozempic. These could serve as a starting point for an investigation. Further, selling even genuine semaglutide without a prescription is an offence in most jurisdictions. Listings of such a nature should automatically be taken down by platforms without insistence on documentation such as IP registration certificates. Similarly, parallel imports should also be treated by platforms as serious cases, not least because these products may be tampered with and may also contain literature in languages not native to the country of sale. The same goes for a significant reduction in retail price — a common tactic employed by rogue sellers to lure consumers. To truly bust the counterfeit semaglutide market, however, will require a sustained cross-border effort that targets known high-risk marketplaces and platforms, and eventually results in physical investigations and enforcement actions.

The Importance of Counterfeit Prevention

Authentix OBP recommends brands check a wide range of sites for infringing products as new listings and new marketplaces for counterfeit goods pop up every day. Between constant monitoring of online marketplaces and e-commerce sites, implementing cutting-edge technology to detect infringing listings, and expert-led takedowns of counterfeit listings, a full online brand protection solution helps brands protect their company and customers from counterfeiters.

The SHOP SAFE Act places an obligation on companies to protect their consumers, and Authentix OBP equips brands with the power and tools to do so – a perfect synergy for safeguarding your brand’s integrity and keeping consumers safe.

About Authentix Online Brand Protection

Authentix provides some of the world’s most recognizable brands with sophisticated online brand protection tools and services to address a broad range of online infringement and counterfeit risks. From global online surveillance and enforcement, online investigations and site takedowns, target verification, and even offline investigations, Authentix helps major brands proactively reduce the threat of counterfeit products being sold online. Our online brand protection solutions combine cutting-edge technological tools and expert analysis to reduce infringements for our clients on online marketplaces, social media platforms, and websites by up to 90%.

Want to see what Authentix OBP can do for your company? Our team is committed to working with you, understanding your unique challenges and requirements, and providing tailored solutions that best fit your industry and the unique challenges your brand faces that make a tangible difference to your brand. Schedule a consultation with one of our brand protection experts to learn more. 

By Bharat Kapoor, Vice President, Online Brand Protection, Authentix

The International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (IACC) recently asked our VP of Online Brand Protection, Bharat Kapoor, his thoughts on intellectual property protection and enforcement and here’s what he shared:

What are the top 2 challenges in IP enforcement you see affecting your industry over the next year?

On the one hand, as online sales occur in an omni-channel environment, brands need to focus on collecting and analyzing the right set of data to make connections and take down infringing distribution channels collectively. On the other hand, ecommerce marketplaces and social media are making it increasingly difficult for brands to access sellers on their platform, with search and enforcement tools becoming less effective at tackling the range of issues online. Brand protection teams need to address these challenges by having targeted strategies supported with data and insights to deliver results and to avoid being overly reliant with on-ground investigators.

Can you provide your top 2 best practices for protecting IP?

First, it is important to have registered IP rights and the ability to authenticate products efficiently. Second, the ability to collect and analyze high-quality data and manage a range of enforcement activity efficiently across hundreds of marketplaces globally is the most important factor in protecting IP. Authentix’s online brand protection solution and service platform gives our clients the ability to find and connect activities on a range of issues across ecommerce channels and further enables our global services team to manage these brand protection activities at scale. We also have active channels of communication with marketplaces to continuously address online threats collaboratively, and actively call out their lack of cooperation publicly.

What hobbies or causes are you passionate about?

We are deeply committed towards sustainability and Authentix Inc. has funded numerous environmental and educational projects in Africa, South America, and many other communities we serve. We have also implemented best practices on sustainability within the global organization. We have been following industry discussions on upcycling of counterfeit goods, and we have supported our clients in building strategies in certain countries. We are passionate about using our skills to support causes that positively impact the environment and conducting investigations into issues such as the illegal trafficking of birds and wildlife. Delivering results on projects such as these reenergizes me and our team to continue to fight against illegal activities online.

Want to learn more about how Authentix can help protect against intellectual property infringement? Schedule a consultation with our brand protection experts today.

Bharat Kapoor, Vice President, Online Brand Protection, Authentix
Formerly the CEO of Strategic IP Information Pte, now a part of Authentix, Bharat has been focused on building effective global brand protection programs for over 250 brands across sectors such as fashion, FMCG, pharma, cosmetics, sporting goods wines, and spirits. He has led the development of the best-in-class machine learning-based online brand protection technology and developed effective global teams to investigate counterfeiting and piracy on the ground in China, Asia, and Latin America. Bharat Kapoor has a B.A. Honors from the University of Technology, Sydney. Prior to joining SIPI, he was an Associate Director at Ernst & Young India, where he led the business development and advisory services program for companies operating in the media, e-commerce, and advertising sectors.

By Bharat Kapoor, Vice President, Online Brand Protection, Authentix

One of the visible recent trends online has been the rise of realistic, AI-generated celebrity avatars. These may take myriad forms (from 3D animations to chatbots) and are generated using a variety of AI technologies (including publicly available apps like Silver Studio and Lensa). Many well-known figures have jumped on the bandwagon and commercialized their AI avatars through strategic partnerships with brands and social media platforms — from Snoop Dogg and Kendall Jenner (partnering with Meta) to Slovenian NBA star Luka Dončić (who has commissioned a digital doppelgänger that can interact with fans on TikTok). In South Korea, an entire K-Pop band “Eternity” has been artificially created by a technology company, using deepfake and motion capture technology.

Legal Precedents Protecting Likeness

The emerging trend of digital avatars brings with it several potential intellectual Property (IP) risks. These risks include false endorsement (by using an avatar to promote an unlicensed product); reputational damage (by using deepfake technology to make a celebrity appear to say or do something unsavory); or straightforward copyright infringement (by copying videos and images, which could then be commercially exploited in various ways, from use in NFTs to social media pages). There are judicial precedents on personality rights worldwide, including in cases preceding the internet, that can prevent wrongful appropriation. For example, in Midler v Ford Motor Co (1988), the singer Bette Midler sued Ford for using a “sound-alike” singer to imitate her voice in a series of commercials. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in her favor, under a California tort statute that prohibited the use of a person’s “name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness, in any manner.” Subsequent cases in the US, UK, and many other countries, have reaffirmed the decision to protect public figures from unauthorized use of their image, likeness, or voice in advertisements or endorsements without their permission. Among recent cases, in April 2023, the Chinese Hangzhou Internet Court ruled that the image and related videos of “Ada”, an AI character created by a Chinese tech company, enjoyed protection under Chinese copyright law. The court further ruled that the defendant had engaged in unfair competition by using Ada’s images and videos to promote products on Douyin.

How To Protect Against Digital Infringement

While international precedents are undoubtedly helpful in protecting digital avatars and personality rights globally, at least two significant challenges remain. First, detecting the misuse of avatars can be difficult in cases where such misuse is widespread (often because rights owners have allowed the problem to fester). Such cases may require scanning hundreds of pages and sending an equivalent number of takedown requests. Second, stemming from the first, not all platforms may be receptive to cooperating with takedown requests. For example, relying solely on case law from foreign jurisdictions, in the absence of a domestic statute clearly recognizing personality rights, may not sway certain platforms to remove infringing products. Some platforms also insist on documentation and certain IP offices may not issue certificates explicitly recognizing personality rights. It is also plausible that some misappropriated avatars may deliberately include dissimilarities in order to resist takedowns. Platforms may also construe certain uses as falling within the realm of fair use, especially if such use is in contexts that are not outrightly commercial. These problems can be suitably addressed by using advanced IP surveillance software, supplemented by a team of experts handling the complex takedown requests, escalating issues to executives, and supplying robust legal reasoning. In the end, the misappropriation of avatars is still a relatively recent problem, and the attitudes of platforms are yet to be discerned. Nevertheless, experience shows that the above problems are highly plausible, which should cause rights owners to be both vigilant and realistic on matters of enforcement.

Authentix Online Brand Protection

Authentix provides some of the world’s most recognizable brands with sophisticated online brand protection tools and services to address a broad range of online infringement and counterfeit risks. From global online surveillance and enforcement, online investigations and site takedowns, target verification, and even offline investigations, Authentix helps major brands to proactively reduce the threat of unauthorized likeness use and IP infringement. Our online brand protection solutions combine cutting-edge technological tools and expert analysis to reduce infringements for our clients on online marketplaces, social media platforms, and websites by up to 90%. If you’re curious how Authentix Online Brand Protection can help protect against intellectual property infringement, schedule a consultation with our brand protection experts today. 

Bharat Kapoor, Vice President, Online Brand Protection, Authentix
Formerly the CEO of Strategic IP Information Pte, now a part of Authentix, Bharat has been focused on building effective global brand protection programs for over 250 brands across sectors such as fashion, FMCG, pharma, cosmetics, sporting goods wines, and spirits. He has led the development of the best-in-class machine learning-based online brand protection technology and developed effective global teams to investigate counterfeiting and piracy on the ground in China, Asia, and Latin America. Bharat Kapoor has a B.A. Honors from the University of Technology, Sydney. Prior to joining SIPI, he was an Associate Director at Ernst & Young India, where he led the business development and advisory services program for companies operating in the media, e-commerce, and advertising sectors.