News Broadcasting
Entertainment, software are the most heavily counterfeited sectors
MUMBAI: Gieschen Consultancy has released the 2006 Mid-Year Counterfeit and Piracy Intelligence Report derived from Bascap’s Daily Counterfeit and Piracy Intelligence Report statistics compiled over the first half of 2006.
This focusses on intellectual property theft, citing major links to illegal activity, the Internet, and brands.
Entertainment, software are the most heavily counterfeited sectors. The US, UK, India, Malaysia and China top the list of countries that have the most intellectual property violations. Over the first six months of 2006 a total value of $699.3 million of counterfeit and pirated goods, specifically intellectual property theft, was discovered from 760 incidents in 69 countries. Louis Vuitton, Nike, Microsoft, Gucci and Prada are the brands that are counterfeited the most. Pepsi is the most counterfeited brand in the food category.
Glen Gieschen says, “This activity has major implications upon job creation and sustainability, consumer health, safety and security, and is driving serious criminal activity into this seemingly innocent crime. The greatest misconception about counterfeiting is that the impact is negligible, however the truth is far different.
“Consumers who are unaware they are purchasing fake products and those who are actively seeking them have consumed adulterated drugs and died, installed fake products in their vehicles which reduce its life or cause bodily injury when they malfunction. We have documented an endless number of instances where these bogus items result in serious problems, large and small for consumers.
“Recently, counterfeit airline parts were discovered in Russia which, as a passenger, is a concern. When seizures are made of bootleg music, software, and films, it is becoming a frequent occurrence to discover illegal drugs and weapons. In some cases, phony items are sold by illegal immigrants to support their families and fund causes in their homelands. When you purchase these items, you have no idea of the type of people you are supporting, where these funds are going and for what purpose.”
The top 5 (of 69) countries enforcing intellectual property violations:
1. USA, 205 incidents, $51.7 Million seizures & losses
2 UK, 116 incidents, $31.1 Million
3. India, 87 incidents, $2.5 Million
4. Malaysia, 52 incidents, $5.9 Million
5. China, 43 incidents, $5.3 Million
The report also analyses the use of the Internet in networking and organising the activity of counterfeiters in addition to providing unregulated and competitive advantages which legitimate businesses are unable to use through trade boards, spam, auctions and cyber outlets.
The most heavily counterfeited sectors:
1. Entertainment and Software, 383 incidents, valued at $256 Million
2. Clothing and Accessories, 149 incidents, $69 Million
3. Drugs and Medical, 44 incidents. $15.8 Million
4. Food and Alcohol, 40 incidents, $1.7 Million
5. Cigarettes and Tobacco Products, 37 incidents, $276 Million
The reports conclusions are based on data obtained from actual counterfeit and piracy activity.
– Countries, such as China and Russia, export more counterfeit goods than they seize domestically.
– The US and UK are more effective at enforcing intellectual property rights than other countries.
– Five per cent of all intellectual property theft is linked to other serious criminal activity such as drugs, thefts, and weapons offences.
– Counterfeiters are now cross selling different brands with different types of fake goods and in some cases are dealing illicit items with the counterfeits.
– 14 per cent of counterfeit investigations now involve the use of the Internet.
– The Internet is being used by all types of counterfeiters to network and organise their activity.
– Trademark and copyright goods are counterfeited in nearly equal proportions.
The Bascap Intelligence Reports show that the Internet has been used as marketing tool in one of every seven reported investigations. A significant percentage of spam and junk email is attributable to internet vendors peddling everything from counterfeit drugs and watches to clothing, jewelry, software and pens. Manufacturers of fakes are using the Internet to market directly to consumers, retailers, and distributors through trade boards, auction sites, spam, and cyber outlets.
The shift from physical marketing to cyber marketing of fake products is due to a number of factors. The Internet is a vast and growing consumer and business market in all economies. Websites can be set up in minutes, at a minimal cost, with the use of a credit card and require only basic computer skills to design and publish. Moreover, tracing the physical location of a counterfeiter through a website can be extremely difficult.
Some counterfeiters are able to gain a competitive advantage over legitimate businesspeople by using Internet marketing methods that may be illegal or that most manufacturers or retailers would not wish to use. For example, the use of spam, online auctions, or trade boards may dilute a brand’s value and pose legal, technical, and ethical challenges for many legitimate brand owners.
The top 5 (of 357) items counterfeited:
1. Films, 13.3 per cent of items counterfeited
2. Music, 7.5 per cent
3. Software (Business and Games), 6.1 per cent
4. Medicine, 4.3 per cent
5. Handbags, 2.1 per cent
In reviewing the top counterfeited items reported in the Bascap Intelligence Reports, it becomes evident that copyrighted (51.3 per cent) and trademarked (48.7 per cent) products are being infringed in nearly equal numbers. The variety of reported items suggests that counterfeiters are diversifying into a larger range of goods and industries, which phenomenon is regularly demonstrated when a wide mix of products is seized in raids on a single site.
Cross selling of different items and brands is also becoming a standard practice as fake Viagra is sold with cigarettes, CDs with handbags, and perfume with watches. In a small, but growing, trend, knockoffs are being sold with other illegal goods such as illicit drugs, fake identification and counterfeit currency.
The growth of the popularity as a distribution channel for counterfeit and pirated goods notwithstanding, reports indicate that traditional channels and mobile operations are still a significant problem for brands. A large percentage of retail operations are now set up in homes to minimise detection of mail order, product assembly, copying, warehousing and distribution operations. Mobile operations such as street vendors, flea markets, bazaars, auctions, and boot sales remain strong due to the large numbers of consumers attracted to discounted items and bootleg goods.
Intelligence also suggests that counterfeiters are experts at building upon existing brand marketing, thus saving themselves the cost of creating and testing consumer segments, setting up distribution channels, and advertising. For these reasons, it is not surprising that the leading brands counterfeited in each classification are well-known global brands. A notable case study is the Fifa World Cup 2006 which serves as an example of how counterfeiters implement this strategy.
Unlike brands whose images have been developed over dozens of years, the World Cup was promoted by organisers and sponsors in a relatively short period of time. Counterfeiters anticipated key markets, manufactured and warehoused knockoffs well in advance of the consumer demand, and then began attempting to distribute them as soon as the brand image was created by the World Cup organisers.
The top 5 (of 392) brands counterfeited:
1. Louis Vuitton, 5.2 per cent of incidents.
2. Nike, 4.9 per cent
3. Microsoft, 4.7 per cent
4 Gucci, 3.8 per cent
5. Prada, 2.5 per cent
During this reporting period, 392 brands were imitated. The majority of the 760 investigations focused on a number of brands, of which the top five were compiled in Table 4. Noticeably, Louis Vuitton, Gucci and Prada represent luxury products where supplies are limited and prices reflect the exclusivity of the brand. Counterfeiters are successfully moving large quantities of these products for a number of reasons. This exclusivity includes substantial marketing and retail costs, which translate into high prices that are easily avoided by counterfeiters.
The counterfeiters are able also to manipulate product quality and thus lower the cost of copying the products. The result is a substantial undercut in price of between 50 – 75 per cent from the suggested retail price. Regardless of these deeply discounted prices, it is common to find hundreds of percentage points in profit margins on these knockoffs, thus making it an attractive market to enter.
The top brands counterfeited in each category:
Cigarette and Tobacco Products – Marlboro
Clothing and Accessories – Louis Vuitton
Computer Equipment and Supplies – Canon
Drugs and Medical – Viagra
Electronic Equipment and Supplies – Underwriters Laboratories
Entertainment and Software – Microsoft
Food and Alcohol – Pepsi
Industrial Goods and Supplies – Toyota
Jewelry and Watches – Rolex
Perfume and Cosmetics – Giorgio Armani
Toys and Sports Equipment – Fifa World Cup 2006
Non-luxury goods, such as those produced by Nike, fight the challenge of popularity as opposed to exclusivity. Due to the high consumer demand for some brands, counterfeiters are able to sell large quantities at the full retail or modestly discounted prices. Again, quality is controlled by the counterfeiter to reduce costs and increase profit margins. Perhaps the highest-margin knockoff product is software. While hundreds of percentage points in profit appears adequate to counterfeiters and pirates for many phony products, margins in pirated software are in the thousands of percentage points.
The 392 brands analysed for this report represent a significant portion of the portfolio of consumer products available worldwide and a significant percentage of international trade. Moreover, the production and distribution of these brands provide millions of jobs – many of which are at risk to growing competition from illegal markets distributing fake versions of the original products. In controlling the cost of production and thus the quality of fake products, counterfeiters may put consumer health and safety at risk and undermine the confidence placed in these brands.
A number of factors affect sectors differently. Sales of fake Clothing and Accessories are influenced by a large variety of selling schemes, such as street peddlers, flea market vendors, bazaars, purse parties, internet auctions and discount outlets. The Entertainment and Software industries are vulnerable to Internet file-sharing technology and simple computer manufacturing techniques available to most consumers.
The Drugs and Medical, Food and Alcohol, and Cigarettes and Tobacco sectors are subject to regulatory and health restrictions such as mandatory age limits, verification of prescriptions, and expiry of goods. In addition, added taxes levied on these products provide incentives for counterfeiters to enter these markets and infiltrate supply chains.
News Broadcasting
Barc forensic audit in TRP row awaits as Twenty-Four probe gathers pace
KERALA: A forensic audit commissioned by the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) India has emerged as the centrepiece of the government’s response to fresh allegations of television rating point manipulation involving a regional news channel in Kerala, with both the audit findings and a parallel police investigation still awaited.
Replying to a query in the Lok Sabha, minister of state for information and broadcasting L Murugan, said Barc had appointed an independent agency to conduct a forensic probe into the conduct of senior personnel allegedly linked to the case.
The move followed media reports claiming that a Barc employee had accepted bribes to manipulate viewership data in favour of a regional television news channel.
“The report from BARC is still awaited,” Murugan told Parliament, signalling that the forensic exercise remains ongoing.
Industry specialists say forensic audits are crucial in alleged TRP fraud cases, as they examine internal controls, data access trails, panel household integrity, staff communications and financial transactions. The outcome could determine whether the alleged manipulation was an isolated breach or a deeper systemic weakness in India’s television measurement framework.
Running alongside the audit, the Kerala Police has formed a special investigation team to probe the allegations. The ministry has sought a preliminary report from the state’s director general of police, including details of action taken on the first information report. That report, too, is yet to be submitted.
The episode has revived long-standing concerns over the vulnerability of India’s TRP system, particularly in regional news markets where competition for ratings is fierce and advertising revenues hinge on weekly viewership rankings.
India’s sole television audience measurement body Barc, has faced scrutiny before, most notably during the nationwide TRP controversy involving news channels in 2020. While tighter compliance norms were introduced in the aftermath, the latest allegations suggest enforcement challenges may persist.
On regulatory consequences, the government said any punitive action against television channels, including suspension or cancellation of uplinking and downlinking permissions, would be governed by the Policy Guidelines for Uplinking and Downlinking of Television Channels issued in November 2022, and would depend on investigation outcomes and due process.
The ministry also pointed to ongoing efforts to overhaul the ratings ecosystem. Television measurement continues to be regulated under the Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies, 2014. Draft amendments were released for public consultation in July 2025, followed by a revised version in November 2025, aimed at tightening audit mechanisms and improving transparency and representativeness.
In November 2025, Barc said it had taken note of allegations aired by Malayalam news channel Twenty-Four, which linked an internal employee to irregularities in audience measurement. The council said it had engaged a “reputed independent agency” to conduct a comprehensive forensic audit, underscoring the seriousness of the claims.
The ratings system sits at the heart of India’s broadcast advertising economy, shaping billions of rupees in annual ad spends. With trust in audience data once again under strain, advertisers, broadcasters and regulators are closely watching the outcome of the investigations.
Barc has urged industry stakeholders and media organisations to exercise restraint while the probe is underway, calling for an end to “unverified or speculatory claims” and reiterating its commitment to integrity and accountability.
Until the forensic audit and police findings are submitted and reviewed, the government said it would refrain from drawing conclusions.
News Broadcasting
Rajat Sharma defamation row: Delhi court summons Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Pawan Khera and Jairam Ramesh
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has ordered the summoning of senior Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Pawan Khera and Jairam Ramesh in a criminal case filed by veteran journalist Rajat Sharma, sharpening a legal battle over alleged defamation and doctored digital content.
The order was passed on Monday by Devanshi Janmeja, judicial magistrate first class at Saket Courts, after the court found prima facie grounds to proceed under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including forgery, creation of false electronic records and defamation.
Sharma, chairman and editor-in-chief of India TV, had approached the court over allegations made in June 2024 that he had used derogatory language against Congress spokesperson Ragini Nayak during a live television debate. He denied the charge, claiming it was fuelled by a manipulated video circulated online.
According to the complaint, a clipped version of the broadcast carrying superimposed captions, which were not part of the original programme, was first shared on social media platform X by Nayak and later amplified through retweets and public statements by Khera and Ramesh. Sharma said the viral spread caused serious reputational harm and personal distress.
The court took note of forensic science laboratory findings that pointed to visible post-production alterations in the video, including added titles and captions. It also cited witness testimonies from those present during the live broadcast, who stated that no abusive or objectionable language had been used.
In a related civil matter, the Delhi High Court had earlier observed a prima facie absence of abusive remarks and directed the removal of the disputed social media posts.
With criminal proceedings now set in motion, the case adds to mounting scrutiny around political messaging, digital manipulation and accountability on social media platforms.
News Broadcasting
Mukesh Ambani, Larry Fink come together for CNBC-TV18 exclusive
Reliance and BlackRock chiefs map the future of investing as global capital eyes India
MUMBAI: India’s capital story takes centre stage today as Mukesh Ambani and Larry Fink sit down for a rare joint television conversation, bringing together two of the most powerful voices in global business at a moment of economic churn and opportunity.
The Reliance Industries chief and the BlackRock boss will speak with Shereen Bhan, managing editor of CNBC-TV18, in an exclusive interaction airing from 3:00 pm on February 4. The timing is deliberate. Geopolitics are tense, technology is disruptive and capital is choosier. India, meanwhile, is pitching itself as a long-term bet.
The pairing is symbolic. Reliance straddles energy transition, digital infrastructure and consumer growth in the world’s fastest-expanding major economy. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, oversees more than $14 tn in assets and sits at the nerve centre of global capital flows. When the two talk, markets tend to listen.
Fink’s appearance marks his third India visit, a signal of the country’s rising strategic weight for the Wall Street-listed firm, which carries a market value above $177 bn. His earlier 2023 trips included an October stop in New Delhi, where he met both Ambani and Narendra Modi.
India is now central to BlackRock’s expansion plans, notably through its joint venture with Jio Financial Services. Announced in July 2023, the 50:50 venture, JioBlackRock, commits up to $150 mn each from the partners to build a digital-first asset-management platform aimed at India’s swelling investor class.
The backdrop is robust. BlackRock ended 2025 with record assets under management of $14.04 tn, helped by $698 bn in net inflows, including $342 bn in the fourth quarter alone. Scale gives Fink both heft and a long lens on where money is moving.
He has been openly bullish on India. At the Saudi-US Investment Summit in Riyadh last year, Fink argued that the “fog of global uncertainty is lifting”, with capital returning to dynamic markets such as India, drawn by reforms, demographics and durable return potential.
Expect the conversation to range beyond balance sheets, into technology’s role in finance, access to capital and the mechanics of sustainable growth in a fracturing world order. For investors and policymakers alike, it is a snapshot of how big money is thinking about India.
At a time when capital is cautious and growth is contested, India wants to be the exception. When Ambani and Fink share a stage, it is less a chat and more a signal. The world’s money is still looking for its next big story, and India intends to be it.
-
e-commerce1 month agoSwiggy Instamart’s GOV surges 103 per cent year on year to Rs 7,938 crore
-
iWorld1 year agoKuku TV transforms India’s OTT space with vertical microdrama boom
-
News Headline1 year agoTRAI puts a ‘stop’ to unsolicited calls and messages
-
News Headline2 months agoFrom selfies to big bucks, India’s influencer economy explodes in 2025
-
Comedy2 years agoTaarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah celebrates 4,000 episodes
-
MAM2 years agoOpenAI joins C2PA steering committee
-
News Headline2 years agoOdisha to host Ultimate Kho Kho Season 2 from December 24
-
News Headline1 year agoAbhishek Bachchan joins as co-owner of European T20 Premier League




