Masaba Counterfeit Case: Fashion Fights Back

 “A brand is a voice, and a product is a souvenir.”

— Lisa Gansky

In the world of fashion, for those who truly admire it—feel its significance when worn by others, on themselves, or even as distant investors through sentience or monetary considerations—you’d know that a label is not just the name of a clothes maker. It is a narrative built around a brand, and the reputation that has been earned.

A label = a designer’s or brand’s name + identity + design style.

And when we deep dive into the world of Indian couture, we’re left awestruck by the depth of craftsmanship, the creativity with which colourful cultures are blended, and the storytelling that melodiously threads itself into elegance. When such efforts are invested to build a repute that must stand the test of time, safeguarding that reputation isn’t optional—it’s critical.

The Couture Roots Run Deep

Whilst the world is shifting its attention-grabbing prospects to digital platforms, and fashion weeks have become the new stage for showcasing couture, when it comes to Indian couture specifically, its roots trace back to the royal courts of Ancient India. The word "couture" may not have been part of the designers' lexicon then, but the idea of exclusivity and finesse was spot on. The thoughtfulness which is apparent through the detailed works of the designers, the love for holding onto the scent of one's culture, has been passed down through generations. When we look at the maestros—our favourites—Manish Malhotra, Gaurav Gupta, Rahul Mishra, and Masaba Gupta, what’s common between them is their burning desire to bring designs to the table that leave the world awestruck. What sets them apart, however, is the learnings and lived experiences they translate into the very threads that define couture. They preserve the culture by presenting it—whether on the runways of Paris Fashion Week or the red carpets of New York—with fans ranging from Kareena Kapoor to Taylor Swift.

And we can’t stop counting our blessings when we gain access to industry updates, beautiful designs, and stunning presentations on both national and international stages.

But oh—mind you—the digital era doesn’t come without its cons. This increased accessibility has also made imitation easier than ever. And with the reputation one earns, as the saying goes, the higher you rise, the sharper the knives—the counterfeits will inevitably follow, piggybacking off established brands and designers. That leaves them with no choice but to turn to the courts—not just to defend their clothes, but the creative identities they’ve spent decades building.

This brings us back to the Rahul Mishra case we had analysed, wherein the brand knocked on the doors of the Delhi High Court to fight off counterfeit selling of his designs. What was at play there was counterfeiting, copyright infringement, and the copying of both designs and the brand’s website and social media presence. And while the other side didn’t show up to present their case, making it a John Doe order, designer Masaba Gupta followed in those very footsteps. In this blog, we explore her case of trademark infringement alongside the deleterious effects of a falsely implicated social media presence—brought forward through such blatant copying—that it led to the infringement and transgression of Masaba’s rights.

While we must never judge a book by its cover, the case name itself feels like a story half told. House of Masaba Lifestyle (P) Ltd. v. Masabacoutureofficial.co, decided on February 18, 2025, saw the court side with the famous designer—putting a stop to the defendants' actions of using the trademarks ‘MASABA’ and ‘MASABA COUTURE’, along with the quite explicitly shady Instagram handles that were notoriously indicative of false implication, being worded as ‘masabacoutureofficial.co’ and ‘masabacouture.in’.

This came after the court found that the infringing party was running a business under trademarks deceptively similar to Masaba Gupta’s registered marks and was clearly trying to ride on the equity of her name.

Masaba Counterfeit:

When Copycats Crossed the Line

To truly understand the pertinence of the case, one must consider the remarkable history of growth and expansion attached to House of Masaba. Launched in 2009, the brand has offered everything from bridal lehengas, jewellery, sarees, gowns, menswear, and more. It has since expanded into the cosmetics space with LoveChild by Masaba Gupta. In 2019, Netflix’s Masaba Masaba—starring Masaba herself and her mother, Neena Gupta—catapulted her into mainstream pop culture fame.

Masaba Gupta has been using the trademark ‘Masaba’ since 2010. As established with the brand history presented, a trademark serves a role more significant than just being a label or logo—it’s what sets a designer’s identity apart. The ‘Masaba’ trademark distinctly reflects her signature design language and contemporary take on Indian fashion. To ensure wide-ranging protection, she registered both ‘Masaba’ and ‘House of Masaba’ across multiple trademark classes strategically: Class 3 for cosmetics, skincare, and haircare; Class 14 for precious metals and fine jewellery; Class 18 for leather and leather substitutes; Class 24 for textiles and textile goods; and Class 25 for clothing, footwear, and headgear—as per the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Red Flagged Instagram Handles and More

Trouble in counterfeit paradise began when House of Masaba, the original brand owner, came across the Instagram handles of the infringing party in February 2025. These accounts were using the impugned trademarks—‘MASABA’ and ‘MASABA COUTURE’—which were, on the very face of it, deceptively and confusingly similar to Masaba Gupta’s registered trademarks. The misuse was blatant, with the infringing party actively operating Instagram pages and websites under the names ‘masabacoutureofficial.co’ and ‘masabacouture.in’. It was also brought to the Court’s attention that disgruntled customers—victims of this infringement—had gone so far as to create an Instagram page titled “masaba_couture_fraud”. This very contention naturally strengthened the brand's case, as the infringement clearly met the threshold of causing harm and unjust loss to potential customers. The Court held that the balance of convenience lied in favour of the brand owner and against the infringing party. It was further acknowledged that owing to the actions of the infringing party, the brand had suffered irreparable harm, as evidenced by the proactive response of affected customers voicing their grievances.

How Designing a Name, Defends Your Legacy

It’s a tale of caution and a guide for all to abide by. House of Masaba made its case be driven in a way that it was ruled in their favour because of the notion of their investment in the creation, promotion, and advertising of their registered trademarks— “Masaba" and "House of Masaba"—which have now become well-known in the market and a source identifier with the designer’s goods. Securing ₹90 crore in 2022, Ms. Gupta, with funding from the Aditya Birla Group, boosted the growth of the brand. With her own label, House of Masaba, she currently has 19 exclusive brand outlets, and LoveChild with 16 standalone stores. And with an aesthetic that stands out, it has secured a place in the wardrobes of Kiara Advani, Madhuri Dixit, Karan Johar, and P.V. Sindhu. And when a brand makes significant investments of such nature—of time, funds, talent, and more—it builds a reputation, a significance of dedication, which people around you begin to recognise and hold to a standard.

And as clear as day, the court decided in favour of House of Masaba. The bottom line being that the infringing party knowingly and willingly chose to use a brand name for the same goods that the original brand was creating, promoting, and selling—simply to accrue unjust benefits from the legacy Masaba built for herself and her label. This misled consumers, a grave concern. Hence, it would be right to say that the case worked well on two fronts: protection of the brand’s IP and prevention of consumer deception.

Another legal principle worth remembering in the course of defending one’s brand is the ‘balance of convenience’, which refers to the court weighing which party would suffer more harm if an injunction is granted or denied before the final verdict. The court examines: will the plaintiff suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted? Or will the defendant suffer undue hardship if it is granted? When applied to the case of Masaba Gupta, the continued use of deceptively similar trademarks could indeed damage her brand reputation irreparably. The infringing party in this case had no legitimate claim to the name and was, quite visibly, piggybacking off her fame. From a strictly legal standpoint, the harm to Masaba was far greater than any temporary loss the infringing party might face from being stopped. As a result, the court directed the infringing party to take down the social media pages and Instagram handles— “masabacoutureofficial.co” and “masabacouture.in”—or any other trademark/trade name that was identical to or deceptively similar to the Masaba brand. It also restrained their partners, principal officers, retailers, agents, and all others connected to their course of selling in Masaba’s name from using the trademarks “MASABA” / “MASABA COUTURE”.

The Cost of 'Copy-Paste'

One breath of fresh air that we witness in this era of necessary digitization—and the debacles it can lead to—is how Indian courts have made it resoundingly clear that intellectual property protection, especially in the fashion industry, is not optional but essential. With rulings like House of Masaba Lifestyle (P) Ltd. v. masabacoutureofficial.co, we are brought face-to-face with the Indian legal culture's growing commitment to safeguarding the identity, value, and legacy that designers work tirelessly to build. One particularly intrinsic aspect of this case was how the Delhi High Court not only restrained the infringing party from using deceptively similar trademarks and domain names but also directed Instagram to take down the infringing handles and share relevant contact information—establishing an important precedent on third-party responsibility in IP enforcement.

This case joins a growing list of legal victories in fashion IP, including FabIndia v. Fab India Emporium and the historic ₹325 crore (USD 39 million) ruling against Amazon for the unauthorized sale of goods mimicking the Beverly Hills Polo Club logo—marking one of the highest damages ever awarded in a trademark infringement case in India. This sends out a signal not only to big businesses but also to smaller entities: originality, proper registration across trademark classes, and digital due diligence are non-negotiable. Being strategic with relevant trademark classifications and keeping a close watch on potential infringement demands a comprehensive legal strategy and prompt, decisive action.