The Landscape of Geographical Indications(GIs) in India : What Every Law Student Should Know

This Article is written by SANJANA RAKHI KUJUR of AMITY UNIVERSITY , KOLKATA in 3^RD YEAR, BA.LLB (H)

LIST OF TOPICS COVERED :

1. Foundational Legal Framework
2. Legal Maxims Aligned with the GI Act, 1999
3. Difference between GI vs. Trademark (Crucial concept)
4. Case laws
5. Current issues and Controversies

KEYWORDS: Geographical Indications, Intellectual Property Rights, GI Act 1999

ABSTRACT 

Geographical Indications (GIs) are an important yet often overlooked aspect of intellectual property law in India. This article examines the GI landscape through The Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, covering the foundational legal framework, core principles and rights, enforcement mechanisms, and current controversies. The famous Rosogolla dispute between West Bengal and Odisha shows us the complex connection between cultural heritage, regional identity, and legal recognition. Through analysis of relevant case laws, this article provides law students with essential knowledge about GIs as a distinct category of intellectual property rights that protect India’s regional heritage and traditional knowledge.

If you love sweets, you might have heard the long contentious topic between West Bengal and Odisha claiming Rosogolla to be originated from their respective states. Both states have a history where Bengal claims that the Rosogolla was first created in Kolkata in the 19th century, while Odisha argues that its Rasagulla has been part of its religious and culinary traditions for centuries.

The battle lasted for several years. Ultimately West Bengal secured the GI tag in 2017 and followed by Odisha in 2019 , for its version of Rasagulla. Only a small difference was there that Bengal Rosogolla is considered more sweeter because of its light syrup and more potent sweetness than the Odisha’s rasagulla.  

For Every law students, to understand the landscape of Geographical Indication they must have the  understanding of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (GI Act).

1. INTRODUCTION : UNDERSTANDING GEOGRAPHICAL INDIACATION

Geographical Indication are which gives a special identification to a product from the place is originates along with the region or territory its mainly popular in highlights the quality or characteristic of the product. It safeguards the particular product and gives exclusive rights to the people/place it is associated with. 

Thus, its topic related to Intellectual property Rights but it’s a different species under it which focuses only on location based.

In India Geographical indications come under Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

It was 1999 when Darjeeling became the first to get their first GI Tag of Darjeeling Tea followed by more 334 products.

1.1 Important concepts under The Geographical Indication of goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999

Section 2(1)(e) defines GI in relation to goods as “An indication which identifies such goods as agricultural goods, natural goods or manufactured goods as originating , or manufactured in the territory of a country, as a region or locality in that territory, where  a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of such goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin… where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.”

The core of the Act. Defines a GI as an indication where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. This establishes the required link between product and place.

Section 2(1)(j) defines “Producer” as “Producer… includes any person who—(i) cultivates the goods; (ii) exploits the goods; (iii) manufactures or makes the goods; (iv) deals with the goods.” 

The definition is broad, encompassing everyone involved in the value chain, ensuring the collective right protects the interests of all relevant community members.

Section 2(1)(k) defines Registered Proprietor as “Registered proprietor… means any association of persons or organisation or authority referred to in section 11.”

Section 9(d) enables the Registrar to reject deceptive applications, upholding the consumer protection objective of the GI system by preventing misleading claims of origin.

Section 9(e) gives A public policy limitation reflecting the need to respect cultural and religious sensitivities in India’s diverse society

Section 11(1) states Application for Registration Confirms the legal requirement that the applicant must be a collective body representing producer interests, not an individual, for a GI to be registered.

Section 11(1) states Application for Registration states Confirms the legal requirement that the applicant must be a collective body representing producer interests, not an individual, for a GI to be registered.

Section 20 states No action for infringement of unregistered GI states This makes registration mandatory to invoke the statutory infringement remedies under the Act, though it saves common law rights (like passing off).

Section 21(1) states’ Rights Conferred by Registration Grants the crucial monopoly over the sign, which is the economic and legal value of the GI protection.

Section 24 states Prohibition of Assignment, etc (The most restrictive clause) it prevents the commodification and privatization of the GI, ensuring the right remains tied to the community and the territory.

Section 25 states Prohibition of Registration of GI as Trademark “Prevents a collective GI from being captured and monopolized as a private trademark, protecting its status as a collective right.

2. Legal Maxims Aligned with the GI Act, 1999

1. Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium (Where there is a right, there is a remedy.)

• Principle Embodied: Enforcement and Protection of Rights.

The GI Act grants the exclusive right to use the registered Geographical Indication to the Registered Proprietors  and Authorized Users (producers). This maxim ensures that if a right is infringed upon by an unauthorized third party, the Act provides a clear legal remedy, such as filing a suit for infringement, seeking injunctions, and claiming damages.

2. Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet (No one gives what they do not have.)

• Principle Embodied: Non-Assignability of the GI.

A GI is a collective public right linked to a specific community and geographical area, not a private property right like a trademark that can be freely sold or licensed by a single entity. The Act strictly prohibits the assignment, transmission, or licensing of a registered GI. This maxim reinforces the idea that an individual or entity cannot legally transfer a right (the GI) that belongs to the collective community/territory.

c) Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona (A personal right of action dies with the person.)

• Principle Embodied: Perpetuity of the Collective Right.

The GI Act negates the spirit of this maxim. Unlike a personal right that ends with the individual, a GI is granted to an association or body representing a collective of producers. This structure ensures that the right to the GI does not lapse upon the death or exit of an individual producer but remains with the geographical area and the community, underscoring its indefinite renewal and collective nature.

d)  Bona Fide (In good faith.)

• Principle Embodied: Protection against Deception (Passing Off).

The Act is specially designed to protect the public (consumers) from being deceived about a product’s true origin and to protect the producers from unfair competition. The registration process itself requires proof of the bona fide (genuine) connection between the product’s quality/reputation and its geographical origin. Any use of the GI on goods that are not bona fide originals is considered infringement.

e) Sui Generis (Of its own kind.)

• Principle Embodied: Unique Legal Classification.

This is non-Latin legal term that defines the GI Act. Unlike other Intellectual Property laws (like Patents or Copyright), which protect one’s own creation, the GI Act is a unique (sui generis) legislation. It specifically protects the product made out of nature and human skill  from a particular place. Its rules on ownership (collective) and transfer (prohibited) make it distinct from private IP rights.

3. Crucial concepts  between GI vs Trademark

This is said to crucial concept because not only consumers but law student may get confused between the same. At surface they look the same because as they both protect a name tag on a product and both let the owners sue copycats.

For example : “Kashmiri Shawl” ( a Gi tagged product)

The word “Kashmiri” here is a promise that the shawl was made in the Kashmir Valley, using specific, traditional Pashmina wool and hand-weaving techniques perfected over centuries. The place ensures the unique quality. And the price is high due to the quality.

Whereas a shawl made by a factory in a different state, often with cheap, blended wool, but labelled as “Kashmir Style Shawl” or simply having the word “Kashmir” written prominently on the tag. They are trying to “free-ride” on the famous name and reputation that the Kashmiri artisans built. They are using the geographical name like a private brand and also the price is much lower, due to mass production and cheaper materials.

The consumers thinks, “This cheaper one also says ‘Kashmir,’ so it must be the same thing, maybe just a different local brand.” 

They don’t realize that “Kashmir” in the GI context guarantees the origin, material, and method, while “Kashmir” in the fake context is just a decorative word used to trick them.

1. legal difference between GI  and Trademark 

Below table explains the key difference between GI and Trademark in a very concise table.

Ultimately, the distinction ensures that India meets its international trade obligations while implementing effective domestic policy. The Trademark incentivizes individual branding and investment in marketing, whereas the Geographical Indication incentivizes the community’s adherence to traditional quality standards essential for agricultural and artisanal prosperity. By recognizing GI as a non-transferable community asset, the law strategically combats consumer deception and preserves the unique market value of location-specific products.

4. LANDMARK CASE LAW

Tea Board, India v. ITC Limited (The Darjeeling Lounge Case) (2011)

This case is about  India’s first-ever Geographical Indication (GI) tag for “Darjeeling Tea” in 2004-05. This was a historic moment as it recognized Darjeeling tea’s unique characteristics that come from being grown in the specific Darjeeling region of West Bengal.

To protect this GI, the Tea Board of India registered:

• The word mark “DARJEELING”
• A logo/certification mark featuring the Darjeeling name

In 2003, ITC Limited, a major Indian hospitality company, opened a premium executive lounge at its ITC Sonar Hotel in Kolkata and named it “Darjeeling Lounge”. Seven years later in 2010, the Tea Board discovered this use and filed a lawsuit in the Calcutta High Court. The Tea Board argued that ITC was misusing the registered GI “Darjeeling”, that this would confuse customers and dilute the reputation of Darjeeling tea, and sought to restrain ITC from using “Darjeeling Lounge” as the name.

JUDGEMENT: The Calcutta High Court ruled in Favor of ITC Limited. The court held that the use of “Darjeeling Lounge” did not constitute GI infringement because the term “Darjeeling” was being used in a different context (hospitality services) and was unlikely to confuse consumers into believing the lounge was the source of or endorsed by the Darjeeling Tea producers.

5. RECENT PRADA-KHOLAPURI CONTROVERSY

This controversy started after a global luxury brand “Prada” During June 2025, Milan Fashion Week priced at approximately Rs 1.2 lakh launched an expensive line of leather shoes, which looked effectively the same as the made in India, traditional Kolhapuri chappal.

This launch elicited cries of cultural appropriation and intellectual property violation in India. It was not only a matter of similar designs, but also that Prada not only did not consult with the artisans, who have been engaged in this trade for centuries, it did not even consult with their cultural heritage.

CONCLUSION

The Geographical Indication regime in India stands as a testament to the nation’s commitment to preserving its diverse cultural heritage, traditional knowledge systems, and regional specialties within a robust legal framework. The Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, provides an essential mechanism for protecting the unique characteristics of products that derive their distinctiveness from specific geographical locations, whether through natural factors, human expertise, or a combination of both.

For law students and emerging legal professionals, understanding GIs is increasingly vital in contemporary practice. As India continues to recognize and protect more of its regional products from Darjeeling tea to Banarasi silk, from Alphonso mangoes to Kanchipuram sarees lawyers must be equipped to navigate this specialized area of intellectual property law. The intersection of cultural preservation, economic development, and legal protection makes GI law a dynamic and socially relevant field of study.