Protection Through ‘Geographical Indications' International and National Trends

Article written by: Nishita Singh[1]

Year : Final year law student from LLB Batch

College : Amity Law School, Noida

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/nishita-singh-bb80ba287?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app

Introduction

Geographical Indications (GIs) are a unique class of intellectual property rights that attest to a product’s quality, reputation, or other characteristics that are inextricably linked to its place of origin. They bridge the gap between business interests and cultural preservation by giving locally sourced products a distinctive personality. Examples like as French champagne, Indian Darjeeling tea, and Italian parmesan cheese illustrate the significance of GIs in preserving historic products and ensuring their high value in global markets.

For communities that rely on traditional knowledge and regional handicrafts, GIs serve as both economic drivers and stewards of cultural heritage. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) provides the essential framework for GI protection on a worldwide scale. Articles 22 and 23 of TRIPS provide standards for GI identification and enhanced protection, particularly for spirits and wines. This international framework notwithstanding, there are notable variations in the application and enforcement of GI legislation among countries. Financial objectives, cultural settings, and legal structures all influence this discrepancy. These national and international dynamics must be understood in order to evaluate the challenges and efficacy of GI protection in today’s interconnected marketplaces.

 Synopsis

Geographic indications (GIs) were developed to protect products that are significantly linked to their place of origin, ensure authenticity, and preserve the intellectual and cultural history of their respective regions. Protecting the reputation of locally distinctive products, preserving traditional knowledge, and fostering economic progress all depend on geographic indications (GIs), a subclass of intellectual property rights. The frameworks created by regional processes like the European Union’s PDO and PGI systems and worldwide accords like the TRIPS Agreement are examined in this study as it examines the developments in GI protection at the national and international levels. National strategies are examined to show differences in execution and enforcement, with an emphasis on nations like the US and India.

The legal ideas of GI protection are shown by an analysis of significant case laws, such as Comité Interprofessional du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) v. Wineworths Group Ltd. (1991) and Tea Board of India v. ITC Ltd. The article addresses problems including counterfeiting, illiteracy, and uneven international enforcement while providing solutions enabled by technological innovations like blockchain to guarantee product traceability and authenticity.

In assessing the cultural and economic effects of GIs, the research concludes by highlighting their contribution to rural development and cultural conservation. To ensure their continued relevance in a changing global trade environment, the conclusion discusses opportunities for GI protection to be harmonized internationally and broadened to encompass non-traditional commodities and services.

International Law for Geographical Indication Protection

The primary instrument governing the global protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) is the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This agreement ensures that member countries provide enough legal safeguards to uphold the validity and reputation of goods connected with a particular geographic origin by defining the lowest conditions for GI protection.

The role that TRIPS plays in GI protection

TRIPS’s Articles 22 to 24 provide forth the fundamental guidelines for the protection of GIs, with a focus on wines and spirits. Article 22, which introduces the basic concept of geographical indications (GIs), defines GIs as markers that identify commodities originating in a certain region where a particular quality, reputation, or other traits are related to that location. TRIPS mandates that member nations forbid the use of misleading markers of origin, which falsely suggest that a product is connected to a certain region when it is not. By protecting consumers against fraud, this provision ensures that the reputation of genuine goods is not harmed. Under TRIPS[2], GIs are shielded from illegal uses, including counterfeiting and misrepresenting the country of origin of a product. To preserve the prestige and authenticity of the brand, for instance, only sparkling wines from the Champagne region of France are legally allowed to use the term “Champagne” since it is protected under TRIPS.

National Variations and Flexibility in Implementation

While GI protection is a requirement of TRIPS, member countries are allowed to decide how best to fulfil this need. This flexibility has led to different nations implementing diverse approaches to GI legal recognition and enforcement. In order to maintain quality standards, some countries, including those in the European Union (EU), have adopted a more comprehensive approach and put in place mechanisms that not only protect products but also regulate their manufacturing processes.

The Model of Regional Systems in the European Union

Regional systems, like the European Union’s Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) systems, provide stronger protection measures in addition to the TRIPS framework. By guaranteeing that only locally sourced raw materials and conventional production techniques may be used to make goods from particular locations, these systems give GIs an additional degree of protection.

The Protected Designation of Origin (PDO)[3] system—which ensures that only products manufactured, processed, and prepared in a certain region following traditional methods are allowed to use the designation—offers the highest level of protection. Only cheese produced in a certain area of France following the traditional process, for example, can be referred to as “Roquefort.”

Only a portion of the manufacturing or processing process must occur in the specified region under the Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) system, which provides a little less stringent kind of protection. Using this method, products such as “Balsamic Vinegar of Modena,” which is made and processed in the Modena region of Italy, are used[4].

Wine, spirits, and agricultural products are also protected by the EU’s PDO and PGI systems. This enormous infrastructure, which also submits GI items to strict quality standards and rules, preserves their individuality. These regional procedures reinforce the global legal system by providing an integrated approach that combines quality control and origin protection.

Prospects and Challenges

Globally, GI protection remains problematic despite robust regional and international frameworks. These include variations in national laws, the unlawful use of GI names outside of the EU, and the difficulty of putting GI protections into place in markets with lax legal protections. Expanding protections beyond traditional agricultural products to non-traditional goods and services and harmonizing international legislation might be crucial for the survival of protected intellectual property.

Strategies at the national level to safeguard geographic indications (GIs)
The great differences in national approaches to the protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) reflect the legal, cultural, and economic systems of each country. Global frameworks like as the TRIPS Agreement offer fundamental recommendations for GI protection, but many countries have developed their own strategies for recognizing and safeguarding GIs in accordance with their particular needs and circumstances. In this part, the GI protection systems of the United States and India—two countries with distinct approaches to this issue—are analysed.

India’s Lawful Basis for GI Protection

A relatively young yet well-organized structure, India’s approach to GI protection was established by the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. This law provides a framework for GI registration and protection for a range of goods, including as agricultural products, textiles, foodstuffs, and handicrafts. By providing a comprehensive framework for GI identification, the Act permits the registration and safeguards against misuse or appropriation of items that are unique to a certain region. Despite adhering to international standards, particularly the TRIPS Agreement, the Indian system has been adjusted to accommodate local socioeconomic needs, especially in relation to rural development and the preservation of traditional knowledge[5].

The GI registration process is managed by India’s Geographical Indications Registry, which is based in Chennai. Upon registration, a product is legally entitled to use the GI brand solely; any infringement, such as manufacturers utilizing the GI trademark without permission outside of the designated zone, may lead to legal action. This strategy, for example, has protected the market value and global reputation of the well-known Indian product Darjeeling Tea[6].

The emphasis on conserving traditional handicrafts and encouraging rural development in India’s GI system makes it noteworthy. Traditional agricultural or handicraft items, like Kashmir’s Pashmina wool or Tamil Nadu’s Kanjivaram silk, make up a large portion of India’s GI-protected commodities. Farmers and artisans benefit from the protection of these products through GIs, which also helps to preserve local knowledge by limiting exploitation by unauthorized makers. Consequently, GI protection is emerging as a key tool for promoting sustainable development in rural areas.

The US’s GI Protection Strategy

The United States’ approach to GI protection is more fragmented than India’s because to its intellectual property regulations. Although GIs are recognized in the United States, they are often included under the existing intellectual property laws, particularly trademark law. Compared to India, the United States lacks a specific framework for GI registration and protection, which has led to a more fragmented and market-driven approach to GI protection.

In the United States, the Lanham Act, which governs trademarks, provides GIs with wide protection. Geographic names that meet certain requirements, such proving that the term has acquired secondary meaning or is distinctive in the marketplace, may be trademarked under this method[7]. But this approach prioritizes business operations and consumer safety over regional heritage preservation and traditional product promotion. The makers of Napa Valley Wine, for instance, are able to prevent others from using the name “Napa Valley” to refer to wines that are not from the region since it is a well-known GI in the US and has trademark protection. Certain provisions of U.S. laws relating to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), such as the country’s sui generis system for wine and spirits, provide protection for GIs. Wines, spirits, and certain agricultural products are protected under this system, which shares characteristics with the European Union’s PDO and PGI systems. However, compared to other countries, the scope of protection is restricted since the US has been reluctant to expand this system to include other goods, including handicrafts or non-alcoholic agricultural products.

In terms of Geographical Indication (GI) protection, the following table lists the main distinctions between the US and India:

The disparities between the two countries’ GI protection laws, goals, and strategies are shown in this column-based comparison.

Implementation Challenges at the National Level

Both the US and India have constructed GI protection laws, but both nations face challenges in putting these into practice and enforcing them:

India: Despite having a strong legal structure, the misuse of GI names in domestic and international markets is still an issue in India. The counterfeit market continues to be a problem, particularly for popular products like Darjeeling Tea. Additionally, India’s GI registration process can be slow and onerous, which hinders the timely protection of unique products[8].

United States: Because the U.S. system is so disjointed, GIs are usually left unprotected until there is a definite trademark claim or market awareness. This absence of coordinated protection makes it difficult for producers to effectively defend their local products[9]. It is also the case that many traditional commodities lack legal safeguards because GIs are not widely recognized outside of the wine and alcohol sectors.

Obstacles in GI Law Enforcement

Several barriers to efficient enforcement of Geographical Indications (GIs) hinder the effective protection of these valuable intellectual property assets. These challenges are regionally specific and arise from both pragmatic and legal concerns. The primary hurdles are:

Exploitation and Fake GI Products: One of the biggest dangers to GI protection is still fake GI products. Fake goods are readily available since many companies make misleading claims about coming from well-known international markets. The financial advantages of GIs are compromised, and the reputation of genuine goods is damaged[10]. For example, the potential for fake “Champagne” or “Darjeeling Tea” items to take over international marketplaces might be costly for manufacturers and trick customers into buying subpar products. Fake goods damage local producers’ reputations and compromise the authenticity that GIs are supposed to safeguard.

Insufficient Awareness and Understanding: The importance of Geographical Indications (GIs) and the methods for protecting them are not well understood in many developing countries. Conventional goods, which are usually created by local communities, typically lack the tools, legal knowledge, or assistance needed to properly protect their GIs. These communities may be deprived of the entire spectrum of cultural and economic advantages that GI protection may provide as a result of this ignorance, which may result in the abuse, exploitation, or undervaluation of GIs. Lack of local involvement and education significantly impedes the creation of GI rights.

Inconsistency and International uniformity: The absence of global uniformity in GI protection makes cross-border enforcement difficult. Regarding what qualifies as a GI and the degree of protection it has, several nations have varying laws and rules. For example, nations with more lax or diverse standards could not recognize or implement the European Union’s strict Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) requirements. Because different jurisdictions have different legal systems, manufacturers from one jurisdiction could have trouble defending their GIs in other areas. Because of this discrepancy, it is difficult to enforce GI rights globally, and products with international reputations are not as well protected.

processes of implementation: Strong and well-coordinated legal processes are essential for the implementation of GI rules, yet many nations lack the infrastructure required. For instance, in certain areas, insufficient funds may be available to track down and prosecute GI violations, which might result in inadequate protection. Local authorities, producers, and international trade organizations are among the many parties involved in GI rights enforcement, and their differing degrees of jurisdiction and commitment further complicate matters.

Global Integration and Market Trends: The protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) may occasionally be jeopardized by the increasing interconnectedness of global markets. The ease of global product marketing and sales makes it easier for fake goods to quickly enter global marketplaces, making it more difficult for national authorities to enforce laws. Furthermore, businesses are frequently encouraged to circumvent legal requirements or steal a GI’s identity in order to achieve higher rates due to the great demand for particular GI items. This problem is particularly noticeable in places where there is a high rate of counterfeiting or no legal protection.

These problems demand creative solutions and coordinated global efforts to resolve. Strengthening enforcement mechanisms, increasing awareness, and promoting international agreements on GI protection needs are essential to GIs’ continued viability and protection in the global economy.

Innovations in Technology and Blockchain’s Function in GI Protection

The emergence of blockchain technology offers revolutionary opportunities to improve Geographical Indications (GI) enforcement and protection. A number of GI protection obstacles, like as counterfeiting, lack of traceability, and problems with consumer confidence, may be addressed by stakeholders by utilizing blockchain’s decentralized and impenetrable architecture[11].

Strengthening Transparency and Traceability

The development of an unchangeable, decentralized ledger that documents each stage of a product’s supply chain is made possible by blockchain technology. This implies that all phases of GI-protected products may be tracked and validated in real time, from eventual distribution to manufacture or cultivation within the specified geographic region.

Customers have the ability to view comprehensive details on a product’s history, including its place of origin, compliance with GI requirements, and certifications it has received. As an illustration:

• A blockchain ledger for Darjeeling tea may contain information on the farm where it was cultivated, the date of plucking, and the stages involved in the processing, all of which would be confirmed by the appropriate GI authorities.
• This traceability increases the openness of the production process, which not only reassures customers about the product’s legitimacy but also discourages counterfeiters.

Reducing Counterfeiting and Fraud

Counterfeiting is a persistent issue in GI protection. Blockchain helps to address this problem by ensuring that each product has a unique digital identity or “token” linked to its blockchain record. Throughout the whole supply chain, these immutable tokens attest to the product’s integrity. For example, A bottle of champagne might be instantly linked to its blockchain record via a QR code or NFC (Near Field Communication) tag. By scanning the code, customers may verify that the product is made in the Champagne region and satisfies its production requirements.

Ensuring adherence to standards

Additionally, by automating the auditing and monitoring procedures, blockchain can assist in enforcing adherence to GI standards. Self-executing contracts with conditions encoded directly into code, known as smart contracts, can make sure that distributors and manufacturers follow the guidelines related to the GI certification.

As an example:A smart contract for Parmesan cheese might guarantee that only goods that satisfy particular requirements—like maturation times or manufacturing processes—are referred to as “Parmigiano-Reggiano.” Any step that deviates from the established norms would be recorded on the blockchain, and the product may be marked or taken out of the supply chain.

Increasing Customer Trust and Producer Capabilities

Blockchain empowers small-scale producers by providing them with an open method of confirming the authenticity of their goods, particularly in developing countries. By increasing their market access and brand awareness, they could be able to compete in international marketplaces. Additionally, it fosters consumer confidence by offering verified information about the origin and quality of the products they purchase[12].

Challenges and Prospects for the Future

Although blockchain offers a lot of potential, there are certain barriers preventing its wider adoption:

High Initial Costs: Especially for small firms, implementing blockchain infrastructure might be expensive.

Digital Literacy: It’s possible that rural farmers lack the technological know-how needed to install and manage blockchain systems.

Interoperability: Verifying that blockchain technologies are compatible with different supply chains and regulatory frameworks may be challenging.

Nonetheless, blockchain’s contribution to GI protection is anticipated to increase in tandem with growing digitalization and worldwide interest in safeguarding traditional goods. Through government assistance, collaborations, and technology advancement, these issues may be resolved, and blockchain may eventually become a key component of GI enforcement.

CASE LAW

Comité Interprofessional du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) v. Wineworths Group Ltd. (1991)[13]

In the 1991 case of Comité Interprofessional du Vin de Champagne (CIVC) v. Wineworths Group Ltd., the High Court of Wellington, New Zealand, issued a landmark decision regarding the protection of Geographical Indications (GIs). The Australian corporation Wineworths Group Ltd. was sued by the CIVC, which represents French Champagne producers, for using the word “Champagne” to sell sparkling wine in New Zealand. The wine, which was created entirely in Australia using grapes cultivated in the Champagne region of France, falsely claimed the GI-protected name “Champagne,” which is only allowed for sparkling wines made in that region. The CIVC said that this kind of use amounted to “passing off,” misleading consumers and infringing on the rights of legitimate Champagne producers. Using the méthode champenoise, which is dependent on the specific soil and climate of the Champagne region and necessitates a second fermentation in the bottle, the court examined the unique characteristics of authentic Champagne. New Zealand has been receiving champagne shipments since the 19th century, but sparkling wine production and consumption were nonexistent there until the 1980s. Montana Wines, a New Zealand company, produced sparkling wine under the name “Lindauer New Zealand Champagne,” which led to additional legal action and further complicated the situation.

The lawsuit was won by the CIVC, and Wineworths was ordered to cease using the name “Champagne” on their products. The decision upheld Champagne’s stringent production standards for sparkling wines, which are the only ones that may use the region’s name. For a number of reasons, this decision was significant. It underlined how important GI protection is everywhere in order to preserve the genuineness and distinctiveness of regional products. It preserved the cultural and economic heritage of the Champagne area by preventing consumers from being misinformed about the origin and quality of products. The case demonstrated the significance of robust legal frameworks and international cooperation for the successful implementation of GI in global markets.

Tea Board of India v. ITC Ltd. (2011),

In the 2011 case of Tea Board of India v. ITC Ltd., the Tea Board of India sues ITC Ltd., alleging that the latter’s use of the word “Darjeeling Lounge” at their hotel in Calcutta violates the Tea Board’s certification mark and registered geographical indicator (GI) for “Darjeeling.” The Tea Board claimed that by using the name “Darjeeling” to lead patrons to believe that the lounge was associated with the Darjeeling region, which produces tea, ITC had engaged in unfair competition.

Three main questions were raised in the case: did ITC use the term maliciously, did the Tea Board have the right to use the “Darjeeling” mark for purposes other than certifying tea, and could the “Darjeeling” logo be protected by copyright? Businesses engaged in the Darjeeling tea trade suffered as a result of ITC’s usage of the name, according to the Tea Board.

In contrast, ITC said that the litigation was precluded by limitation since the Tea Board only possessed a certification trademark that applied to products like tea and not services like hotel lounges. Because it had nothing to do with commodities, ITC also argued that using “Darjeeling” for a lounge did not violate the Geographical Indications of commodities Act.

Section 26(4) of the GI Act, which limits such procedures to within five years of the infringement being obvious, prohibited the Tea Board’s action under the Act, the court ruled in Favor of ITC. Because the parties operated different companies, the court further noted that there was no direct rivalry between them. The action was consequently dismissed, and the Tea Board was ordered to reimburse expenditures of one lakh rupees[14].

The Cultural and Economic Effects of GIs

Significant cultural and economic benefits are offered by Geographical Indications (GIs), especially to rural communities. Geographical indications (GIs) enable companies to charge higher prices for items associated with certain places, so opening new markets. This premium pricing encourages the growth of local economies by raising the earnings of small producers, farmers, and craftspeople. Additionally, by shielding traditional goods from abuse and imitation, GIs maintain the value and originality of regional delicacies like Parmigiano Reggiano and Darjeeling tea on the international market. In terms of culture, GIs are essential to preserving local identities and customs. Since they signify a strong bond with a location’s history and frequently reflect distinctive manufacturing techniques, local resources, and enduring cultural customs, they are more than just labels. GIs contribute to the preservation of specialized knowledge and practices that are essential to a community’s identity by identifying and safeguarding these commodities. Additionally, when GIs are recognized, local populations are happier and are motivated to keep their unique customs alive for future generations. Thus, GIs promote sustainable local development and the protection of cultural assets[15].

Conclusion

Ultimately, geographic indicators play a critical role in fostering sustainable economic development and preserving traditional goods, particularly in rural regions. GI protection is based on international frameworks like TRIPS and regional systems like the EU’s PDO and PGI, although the effectiveness of these regimes varies from country to country. National approaches, like those used in India and the United States, demonstrate the challenges of standardizing GI protection in a global setting. The issues of enforcement and counterfeiting have exciting solutions thanks to blockchain technology and other innovations. As the global trade environment evolves, protecting GIs will become increasingly crucial to maintaining economic viability and preserving cultural legacy. Eventually, more international cooperation and the development of defined standards are needed to ensure the effective protection of GIs. If non-traditional goods and services are covered by GI protection, their importance in the global economy will be further solidified.

[1] NISHITA SINGH https://www.linkedin.com/in/nishita-singh-bb80ba287?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app

[2] World trade law, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) https://www.worldtradelaw.net/document.php?id=uragreements/tripsagreement.pdf&mode=download

[3] Science Direct , Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG): A bibiliometric analysis January 2018, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996917306440

[4] Science Direct , Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG): A bibiliometric analysis January 2018, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996917306440

[5] Legal services, Geographical Indications in India: Legal Protection and Economic Implications https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-17745-geographical-indications-in-india-legal-protection-and-economic-implications.html

[6] Legal services, Geographical Indications in India: Legal Protection and Economic Implications, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-17745-geographical-indications-in-india-legal-protection-and-economic-implications.html

[7] USPTO, Geographical Indication Protection in the United States, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/dcom/olia/globalip/pdf/gi_system.pdf

[8] Lawyers club India, Protection of geographical indication in India https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Protection-of-Geographical-Indication-in-India-3869.asp

[9] USPTO , Geographical Indications (GI) Protection https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/trademark-policy/geographical-indications-gi-protection#:~:text=The%20United%20States%27%20GI%20system%20uses%20administrative%20trademark,the%20registration%20or%20continued%20existence%20of%20a%20registration.

[10] The law brigade, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS LAWS IN INDIA: ISSUES

AND CHALLENGES https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/NEETHU-S.T-SALER.pdf

[11] MDPI , Blockchain Technology: Security Issues, Healthcare Applications, Challenges and Future Trends https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/12/3/546

[12] MDPI Blockchain Technology: Security Issues, Healthcare Applications, Challenges and Future Trends  https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/12/3/546

[13] Chegg, New Zealand-Comite Interprofessionel du Vin de Champagne v. Wineworths Group, Ltd. 2 N.Z.L.R 432 (1991) High Court of Wellington https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/questions-and-answers/new-zealand-comite-interprofessionel-du-vin-de-champagne-v-wineworths-group-ltd-2-nzlr-432-q25385464

[14] Case in short Tea Board of India v. ITC Ltd. (2011), https://www.caseinshort.com/post/tea-board-of-india-v-itc-ltd-2011#:~:text=The%20Tea%20Board%20of%20India%20filed%20a%20suit,the%20plaintiff%E2%80%99s%20geographical%20indication%20mark%2C%20and%20certification%20mark.

[15] SSRN Geographical Indications and Cultural Protection in India: Harnessing Intellectual Property for Regional Development https://download.ssrn.com/23/06/24/ssrn_id4490648_code5681777.pdf?