The expression “IP raid” is commonly used to describe urgent enforcement measures taken when a rights-holder alleges that counterfeit or infringing goods, copies, labels, packaging, equipment or digital evidence are being used or stored at identified premises. In India, however, the expression does not describe one universal power. Different legal routes apply to trade marks, copyright and patents, and any compulsory search, inspection or seizure must be traceable to statutory authority or a specific court order.
1. Court-directed local commissioner and evidence preservation
In civil intellectual-property litigation, a plaintiff may seek urgent interim relief and, where the legal and evidentiary requirements are met, appointment of a Local Commissioner to preserve and document potentially infringing material. The scope of the commission is determined by the court’s order. Depending on that order, a Local Commissioner may be authorised to visit identified premises, make an inventory, photograph or video-record relevant material, inspect specified records, or take other steps expressly authorised by the court.
In Autodesk Inc. v. A.V.T. Shankardass, FAO (OS) 116/2008, decided on 4 July 2008, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court considered the appointment of a Local Commissioner in a software copyright infringement matter. The Court discussed the purpose of preserving and protecting evidence that may otherwise be altered or removed. The judgment is often cited in intellectual-property matters involving alleged software piracy and evidence preservation. It does not create an unrestricted power to search premises: the appointment and the commissioner’s actions remain controlled by the judicial order.
A party seeking such relief should place credible material before the court, identify the premises and the suspected infringing activity with appropriate particularity, explain the risk of loss or destruction of evidence, and propose proportionate directions. The order should be read carefully before execution. A Local Commissioner is an officer of the court for the limited purpose of the commission, not an agent with an independent right to investigate or exceed the directions granted.
2. Trade mark matters: statutory police search and seizure
Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides a specific statutory route. It applies to offences referred to in Sections 103, 104 and 105. A police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent may exercise the power to search and seize without warrant when the statutory conditions are met. Before carrying out the search and seizure, the officer must obtain the Registrar’s opinion on the facts relating to the trade mark and abide by that opinion. The seized articles must be produced before the appropriate Magistrate as soon as practicable. Section 115(5) provides a mechanism for an interested person to seek restoration of seized articles within the prescribed period.
This statutory power belongs to the qualifying police officer, subject to the conditions in the Act. It should not be confused with a civil Local Commissioner visit ordered by a court. Nor should a rights-holder assume that a private investigator, advocate or representative can independently exercise police powers.
3. Copyright matters: Section 64 of the Copyright Act
Section 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957 separately empowers a police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, on being satisfied that an offence under Section 63 in respect of infringement of copyright in a work has been, is being or is likely to be committed, to seize without warrant infringing copies and plates used for making them. The seized copies and plates are required to be produced before a Magistrate as soon as practicable. The statutory text and the facts supporting the officer’s satisfaction must be considered in each case.
For civil copyright proceedings, a rights-holder may also seek court-supervised preservation measures where the applicable procedural requirements are met. A civil commission and a criminal-law seizure are distinct routes, with different legal sources, decision-makers and safeguards.
4. Patent matters: relief under Section 108
Section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970 sets out reliefs in a suit for patent infringement. These include an injunction and, at the plaintiff’s option, damages or an account of profits. Section 108(2) further provides that a court may order infringing goods and materials or implements predominantly used to create infringing goods to be seized, forfeited or destroyed, as the court considers appropriate in the circumstances. This is a court-ordered civil remedy; it should not be described as an independent police raid power under the Patents Act.
5. Planning an enforcement action
Before seeking urgent relief, rights-holders should organise the underlying rights and evidence. Relevant material may include registration certificates and specifications, chain-of-title documents, licences, dated purchases, test-purchase records, photographs, product samples, packaging, online listings, invoices, distribution records, technical comparisons and a clear explanation of the suspected infringement. The evidence should connect the identified premises and material to the rights relied upon. The relief sought should be proportionate to the alleged infringement and the risk that evidence will be lost.
Execution planning also matters. The order should identify the premises, the scope of inspection, the categories of material, persons permitted to accompany the commissioner, inventory and sealing requirements, treatment of business records and any police assistance authorised. The team executing the order should not extend the visit to an unlisted premises or seize material beyond the order. In Rashi Santosh Soni v. Rajesh Sharma, RFA (COMM) 695/2025, decided on 3 February 2026, the Delhi High Court considered serious concerns arising from a Local Commissioner’s visit to premises beyond the directions in the appointment order. The decision is a reminder that court-appointed measures must remain within the precise mandate granted.
Conclusion
IP enforcement may involve civil interim relief, court-appointed commissions, statutory police powers, or a combination of lawful steps. The route depends on the right asserted, the alleged conduct, the evidence and the statutory conditions. “IP raid” is a convenient shorthand, not a standalone source of legal authority. Every search, inspection or seizure must be carried out strictly under the applicable statute or the terms of a competent court’s order.