Geographical Indications (GIs) in India: Law, Landmark Cases & Strategic Significance

A Geographical Indication (GI) is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities, reputation, or characteristics essentially linked to that region.

India emerged among the first developing countries to adopt a dedicated GI law aligned with TRIPS in protecting its unique local products by passing the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which came into effect in 2003. This law created a special system (sui generis) to safeguard products that are closely linked to a particular region and are valued for their origin, quality, or reputation.

For example, Darjeeling Tea is prized worldwide for its distinct flavour that comes only from the hills of West Bengal, while Kanchipuram Silk Sarees are celebrated for their craftsmanship rooted in Tamil Nadu.

The Act ensures that such products are legally protected in line with international trade rules under the TRIPS Agreement (Articles 22–24), preventing misuse of their names and helping genuine producers benefit from their heritage.

In short, India’s GI law makes sure that names like Darjeeling Tea or Kanchipuram Silk cannot be wrongly used, preserving both tradition and market value.

Key Features of the GI Act, 1999

• Dedicated Authority in Chennai

The law is administered by the Registrar of Geographical Indications, based in Chennai. This office is responsible for registering products, maintaining records, and ensuring that GI protections are enforced.

• Who Can Use a GI Name

Only authorised users—that is, producers who live and work within the defined geographical area—and the registered proprietor (usually an association of producers or cooperatives) can legally use the GI name.

Example: Only tea growers in Darjeeling can market their product as “Darjeeling Tea.”

• Validity and Renewal

Once registered, a GI is valid for 10 years. It can be renewed indefinitely, ensuring that traditional products remain protected across generations.

Example: “Kanchipuram Silk Sarees” will continue to enjoy GI protection as long as renewals are filed.

Levels of Protection

The Act provides two levels of protection:

• Standard protection (as per Article 22 of TRIPS) for most products.
• Enhanced protection (as per Article 23 of TRIPS) for wines and spirits.

India goes further by voluntarily extending higher protection to several indigenous products beyond wines and spirits.

Example: “Basmati Rice” enjoys stronger safeguards against misuse abroad.

Ban on Generic Terms & Remedies Against Misuse

Generic names (like “cheese” or “rice”) cannot be registered as GIs. The Act also provides both civil remedies (such as injunctions and damages) and criminal remedies (such as fines and imprisonment) against infringement.

As for example, selling non-Darjeeling tea as “Darjeeling Tea” can lead to legal action.

In short, the GI Act ensures that authentic local products are protected, only genuine producers can use the names, and misuse is punishable by law.

Key GI Legal Battles and Precedents in India

• Protection Against Dilution of GI: Tea Board v. ITC Ltd. (2011)

Case Reference: Tea Board, India v. ITC Ltd., Calcutta High Court, 2011.

The Court held that ITC could not name its hotel lounge “Darjeeling Lounge”, as such indirect use diluted the distinctiveness of the registered GI “Darjeeling Tea.” The ruling confirmed that even suggestive or non-product use of a GI can amount to infringement.

• International Enforcement of Darjeeling GI: Cross-Border Success Cases

Reference: WIPO Case Files & Tea Board Enforcement Reports (2000–2018).
Through international certification and legal objections, Indian authorities successfully stopped unauthorised use of the term “Darjeeling” in over twenty jurisdictions including the EU and USA—demonstrating India’s capacity to protect GIs beyond domestic borders.

• The Basmati Patent Challenge: India v. RiceTec Inc. (1997–2001)

Case Reference: Opposition to RiceTec Patent No. 5663484, USPTO Proceedings (1997–2001).

India successfully contested U.S. company RiceTec’s patent claims over Basmati-like rice strains. The decision prevented the monopolisation of the name “Basmati” and laid the foundation for its eventual GI registration in India (2016).

• Reputation-Based Protection: Scotch Whisky Association v. Golden Bottling Ltd. (2017)

Case Reference: Scotch Whisky Association v. Golden Bottling Ltd., Delhi High Court, 2017.

The Court ruled that “Scotch Whisky” is so globally distinctive that it deserved protection in India even without domestic registration, recognising reputation and consumer perception as enforceable grounds under GI principles.

• Priority of GI Over Seed Rights: Navara Rice Litigation (2014–2018)

Case Reference: Confederation of Navara Farmers v. Registrar of Plant Varieties, Kerala High Court, 2014–2018.

The Court held that GI rights over rice varieties such as Navara take precedence over seed patent claims under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, reaffirming community-based traditional rights.

• Dual GI Recognition: Odisha vs. West Bengal Rasagola Cases (2015–2019)

Case References:

‘Banglar Rasogolla’ GI Tag, GI Journal No. 99, West Bengal (2017).

‘Odisha Rasagola’ GI Tag, GI Journal No. 152, Odisha (2019).

The dispute concluded with both states being granted distinct GI tags—West Bengal for method and craftsmanship, and Odisha for cultural origin—establishing that co-existing regional GIs are permissible where identity and tradition differ.

• Madhya Kshetra Basmati Growers Association Samiti v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board (2021)

The landmark Basmati GI dispute in India, centered on Madhya Kshetra Basmati Growers Association Samiti v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board (2021), arose from the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority’s (APEDA) 2008 application to register “Basmati” rice under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, claiming traditional cultivation areas across Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh (26 districts), Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and parts of Jammu & Kashmir—spanning about 2.89 lakh sq. km—but excluding 13 districts in Madhya Pradesh despite evidence of historical Basmati production there since the 1990s.

The Assistant Registrar initially rejected APEDA’s broad map in 2013 for lacking precise demarcation (Section 11(2)(e)), prompting IPAB remand and eventual 2016 certification to APEDA (GI No. 145, effective 2018) as the statutory proprietor, while deferring Madhya Pradesh’s inclusion claim.

Challenging this exclusion via Madras High Court writs (2016–2018), Madhya Pradesh and growers argued over-inclusion in APEDA’s map diluted origin-specific qualities like aroma and grain elongation tied to Indo-Gangetic terroir (GI Act Preamble, mirroring TRIPS Article 22), but the High Court dismissed on maintainability grounds in 2020.

On appeal, the Supreme Court (L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.) set aside the dismissal on September 2, 2021, remanding for expeditious merits adjudication on both over-inclusion and Madhya Pradesh’s eligibility without opining on substance, thereby underscoring GI protection’s core as a collective right safeguarding reputation and characteristics attributable to precise geographical origins rather than mere branding, which bolsters enforcement against misuse under Sections 39–42 (criminal falsification penalties) and 27–29 (civil remedies).

After prolonged litigation, Madhya Pradesh’s claim was finally accepted in 2024 and the GI demarcation was amended to include certain districts of MP.

India’s Approach: National Strategy and Domestic Focus

How It Boosts the Economy

• Financial Strength: As of December 2025, India has crossed 735 registered GIs, with recent additions including Arunachal Kiwi (2024), Meghalaya Lakadong Turmeric (2024), Manipur Black Rice/Chak-Hao (extended protection 2024–25), and the very latest White Onion of Alibag from Maharashtra (November 2025), further strengthening the portfolio of protected unique products.
• Price Advantage: These certified goods fetch much higher prices. For instance, Darjeeling Tea often sells for 30% to 100% more than similar products.
• Job Creation: Products like Kancheepuram Silk, Chanderi Sarees, and Alphonso Mangoes are vital for creating work in villages and increasing the income India receives from exports.

Role in Culture and Progress

• Beyond Legal Ownership: India considers GIs to be more than just standard intellectual property (IP). The country sees them as powerful instruments for ensuring development reaches all citizens and for preserving its unique cultural identity.
• Government Support: The government is actively investing in these regional industries. Major programs, including the National GI Mission and support schemes like SFURTI, are in place to help groups of GI producers organize and grow.

Persistent Challenges

• Weak Enforcement after Registration

Even after a product is registered as a Geographical Indication (GI), enforcement remains weak. Authorities rarely take action on their own (suo moto), and most of the burden falls on the GI proprietors to monitor and fight misuse. This makes protection uneven and often ineffective.

• Low Awareness among Small Producers

Many small farmers, artisans, and local producers are unaware of the benefits of GI registration. As a result, only about 15–20% of potential producers actually register as authorised users. This leaves the majority outside the system, unable to fully benefit from GI protection or market recognition.

• Patchy International Protection

India joined the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement in 2022, which is meant to strengthen global GI protection. However, outside the European Union, enforcement is inconsistent. This means Indian products often face weak safeguards in international markets, exposing them to misuse and unfair competition.

• Risk of Genericide

Famous names like Basmati rice and Alphonso mango are still used loosely abroad, sometimes to describe products that are not genuinely Indian. This misuse risks turning these unique names into generic terms, diluting their distinct identity and reducing the premium value that authentic producers deserve.

In short, the challenges are about weak enforcement, low producer participation, patchy global protection, and the danger of losing brand identity.

Policy Direction:

• Promoting Local Identity through GIs

Geographical Indications (GIs) will be actively integrated into national campaigns like “Vocal for Local” and One District One Product (ODOP). This means each district’s unique product—whether it’s a craft, food item, or textile—will be highlighted as a GI to boost local pride, create jobs, and strengthen rural economies.

• Securing Global Recognition for Indian GIs

India will push for more of its iconic products, such as Basmati rice and Kashmir Pashmina, to be included in the European Union’s “high-protection list.” This will be done through Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations. Such recognition ensures stronger legal protection abroad, prevents misuse of Indian names, and opens premium export markets for local producers.

• Modernising GI Systems with Technology

The GI Registry will be digitised to make information easily accessible to producers, traders, and consumers. Alongside this, QR-code-based authentication will be introduced. By scanning a code, buyers can instantly verify whether a product is genuine, protecting consumers from fakes and ensuring fair returns for authentic producers.

In short, the policy aims to celebrate local products, protect them globally, and make them trustworthy through technology.

Cognizability and Bailability under the GI Act, 1999

The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (GI Act), provides both civil and criminal remedies for the misuse of registered Geographical Indications. Criminal offences under Sections 39, 40, 41, and 42 (and related provisions) typically carry penalties ranging from six months up to three years of imprisonment, along with fines.

Under Section 50 of the GI Act, offences defined in Sections 39, 40, and 41 are expressly declared “cognizable.” This grant of cognizability empowers the police to register an FIR, initiate investigation, and execute search and seizure operations without requiring a judicial warrant.

However, the GI Act itself does not categorize these offences as non-bailable. Therefore, the determination of bailability ultimately depends on the procedural law—specifically the First Schedule of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)—and the judicial discretion of the court. In recent jurisprudence, courts continue to treat GI-infringement and misuse as enforceable criminal offences while applying the procedural law for arrest and bail decisions.

Conclusion 

Ultimately, India’s GI framework has evolved beyond TRIPS compliance into a tool for safeguarding heritage, ensuring fair trade, and strengthening rural economies. However, enforcement gaps, uneven producer awareness, and inconsistent international reciprocity remain barriers. The future impact of GIs will depend on converting legal protection into real income and sustainable livelihoods for producer communities.