Geographical Indications: Preserving the Legacy of Local Products and Traditions

When you sip a cup of Darjeeling tea or drape yourself in a Kanjivaram silk saree, you are experiencing something that cannot be replicated anywhere else in the world – a product whose identity is inseparable from the land it comes from. This connection between a product and its place of origin is precisely what Geographical Indications (GIs) protect. Far more than a label, a GI is a legal instrument that preserves heritage, empowers local communities, and builds consumer trust across global markets. For law students, understanding GIs means understanding a branch of intellectual property that sits at the intersection of trade, culture, and rural development.

What is a geographical indication? 🔗

According to WIPO, a GI is a sign used on products that originate from a specific place, where the quality, reputation, or characteristics of that product are essentially attributable to its geographic origin. Since those qualities depend on where the product is made, there is a direct and legally meaningful link between the product and its place of production. That link is what the law protects.

Not every regional product qualifies. The connection to geography must be substantive. A GI designates goods as belonging to a specific territory, region, or locality, attributing their specific characteristics – quality, taste, texture, or mode of production – to the influence of natural forces such as soil and climate, or to human capabilities and customary practices of that area. This is why Darjeeling tea cannot simply be replicated by growing the same plant in Assam – the muscatel flavour it is known for is tied to Darjeeling’s altitude, rainfall patterns, and cultivation methods.

It is also important to note that a GI is not always a geographical name. While a geographical indication generally contains the name of the place from which goods originate – such as Darjeeling tea, Mysore Pak, or Goa feni – it need not necessarily be a geographical name, as in the case of Basmati rice or Alphonso mangoes.

The TRIPS Agreement and the international framework 🔗

The modern global framework for GI protection was largely shaped by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), concluded as part of the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations. GIs are covered under Articles 22 to 24 of the TRIPS Agreement, which formally recognised and regulated minimum protection standards for geographical indications for all WTO member states.

GIs have been defined under Article 22(1) of TRIPS as “indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographic origin.” This definition forms the backbone of GI law worldwide, including in India.

TRIPS establishes a two-tier system of protection. The general standard under Article 22 applies to all products – it prevents misleading use of GIs and acts of unfair competition. A stricter, higher standard under Article 23 applies specifically to wines and spirits, preventing any use of a protected GI even when accompanied by qualifiers like “kind,” “style,” or “imitation.” India’s domestic law deliberately chose not to restrict higher protection only to wines and spirits, leaving it to the central government’s discretion to extend enhanced protection to other products – a significant departure that reflects India’s interests as a producer of diverse GI goods.

Before TRIPS, GIs were partially covered under older international frameworks. The Paris Convention (1883) provides a multilateral framework for the protection of industrial property rights, including geographical indications, establishing the principles of national treatment and the right of priority. The Lisbon Agreement (1958) establishes an international registration system for appellations of origin, providing a centralised filing procedure. These earlier instruments laid the groundwork that TRIPS eventually built upon and expanded.

India’s legal framework: the GI Act, 1999 🔗

India enacted its dedicated GI legislation – The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 – to comply with its TRIPS obligations as a WTO member. The Act came into force on 15 September 2003 and is administered by the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks. The GI Registry, established under this Act, is located in Chennai and exercises pan-India jurisdiction.

What can be registered? 🔗

The Act covers a wide range of goods – agricultural products, natural goods, handicrafts, textiles, manufactured items, and foodstuffs. GI registration is not compulsory in India. However, if registered, it affords better legal protection and facilitates an action for infringement. Registration confers the right to prevent others from using the GI for goods that do not meet the applicable standards or do not originate in the designated region.

The duration of protection is initially 10 years but can be renewed indefinitely. A registered GI is not a subject matter of assignment, transmission, licensing, pledge, or mortgage – it is treated as a collective right belonging to the community of producers in that region.

Who can apply? 🔗

Any association of persons, producers, or any organization or authority established by law can apply for GI registration, provided they represent the interests of the producers. Once registered, they become the proprietors of that GI and can authorise others to use it under regulated conditions. The Act also maintains a register of authorised users, distinguishing between the proprietor (who holds and manages the GI) and authorised users (who can commercially exploit it).

Infringement and passing off 🔗

A registered GI is infringed by a person who is not a registered proprietor or authorised user and who uses a misleading sign on goods that do not originate in the designated area. Any lawsuit relating to infringement of a registered GI, or for passing off an unregistered GI, must be instituted in a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. The Act also preserves the common law remedy of passing off, which existed in India well before the TRIPS Agreement and continues to protect unregistered GIs against misrepresentation.

GIs as tools for rural development and economic empowerment 🔗

GI protection is not merely an intellectual property exercise – it has direct and measurable consequences for rural economies. Since the GI tag was granted to Darjeeling tea, its domestic price has risen five-fold. Basmati rice and Thanjavur paintings’ prices have doubled. The number of farmers cultivating Nagpur oranges has doubled in the last five years. These figures illustrate the premium that authenticity commands in the marketplace.

Basmati rice contributed ₹38,443 crores to India’s foreign exchange earnings in 2019, and GI systems enhance market resilience by reducing dependency on commodity markets, which are often vulnerable to price volatility. By positioning products as high-value specialties rather than undifferentiated commodities, GI certification creates a degree of economic stability that ordinary market dynamics cannot guarantee.

GIs foster rural development by encouraging local production and promoting the region’s heritage, reducing rural-urban migration by creating sustainable livelihoods in local areas. This is particularly significant in India, where a substantial portion of GI-tagged products originates from economically backward regions. The legal framework thus doubles as a development strategy – linking intellectual property protection with the uplift of artisans, farmers, and weavers who might otherwise be displaced by mass-produced imitations.

Landmark cases that shaped Indian GI jurisprudence 🔗

Darjeeling tea: the first and the most fought-over 🔗

Darjeeling tea received the first GI tag in India in 2004-05, offering an economic advantage to local tea growers who could then receive premium prices in both domestic and international markets, while protecting the product from spurious imitations. Despite this, enforcement remains a significant challenge. According to the Indian Tea Exporters Association, only 8.5 million kg of authentic Darjeeling tea is produced annually, yet 50 million kg is sold globally under the same name – a stark indicator of GI misuse. This gap between registration and enforcement is one of the most pressing concerns in India’s GI regime.

Basmati rice and the RiceTec dispute 🔗

The Basmati rice case arose when an American company, RiceTec, sought to patent a rice variety under the name “Basmati.” The Indian government, along with APEDA, challenged the patent on the grounds that Basmati is a geographical indication referring to a particular rice variety grown in specific regions of India and Pakistan. The challenge was largely successful and became a defining moment in India’s understanding of how GIs must be defended internationally – not just registered domestically. Basmati also remains the subject of an ongoing dispute between India and Pakistan, with both countries asserting historical cultivation rights, illustrating how GIs can become flashpoints in international trade diplomacy.

GIs and the preservation of cultural heritage and biodiversity 🔗

Beyond economics, GIs perform a cultural function that is harder to quantify but equally important. Products like Madhubani paintings, Pochampally Ikat, and Kullu shawls are not just commodities – they are living expressions of centuries-old craft traditions. When these products receive GI protection, the craft itself is institutionally recognised and the community of artisans who carry it forward gains a legal basis to resist dilution and imitation.

India’s food GIs read like a living atlas of diversity – each tag rooted in a local ecology, a regional method, and a distinct cultural palate. Well-governed food GIs unlock layered sustainability benefits: production anchored in local ecologies, on-farm and forest biodiversity, nutrition, and dignified local value addition for smallholders, women, and forest-edge communities who steward the seed, soil, and craft of the nation. GIs thus connect intellectual property with biodiversity conservation in a way that few other legal instruments do.

India is reportedly aiming to secure 10,000 GI tags by 2030, with a policy emphasis on making registration more accessible to small and marginal producers and linking GIs with export promotion programmes under APEDA. This ambition signals a broader shift: treating GIs not just as passive legal shields but as active instruments of economic and cultural policy.

Challenges in the Indian GI system 🔗

For all its promise, the GI framework in India faces real and persistent challenges. Awareness among producers – particularly in rural areas – remains low. Many artisans and farmers who stand to benefit most from GI registration are unaware of the process or its advantages. Enforcement is another major gap: counterfeit products continue to dominate markets even after registration, undermining the economic value the GI is meant to create.

There are also structural concerns. Small producers often face complex forms, fees, and jargon. GI boundaries are sometimes mapped far from the villages they actually cover, and for marginal farmers, tribal producers, and forest food communities, consent and benefit sharing are easy to promise but hard to secure. The intermediary problem persists too – in many cases, traders and exporters capture a disproportionate share of the GI premium, while the actual producers see limited benefit.

Internationally, enforcement depends on bilateral agreements and the domestic laws of other countries. India’s GIs are not automatically protected in foreign markets simply because they are registered in India. This makes diplomatic engagement and multilateral treaties essential complements to domestic registration.

What do you think? Given that India has over 450 GI-tagged products but enforcement continues to be a significant challenge, should the GI Act be amended to create a more robust monitoring mechanism – or does the real solution lie in building consumer awareness? And with India’s ambition to reach 10,000 GI tags by 2030, is the focus on quantity at risk of diluting the quality and credibility that makes a GI valuable in the first place?

References

1. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/geographical-indications
2. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/food/why-a-gi-20-revolution-should-not-wait-transforming-heritage-labels-into-sustainable-food-system-tools-in-india