The Evolution of Geographical Indications: A Global Perspective

When you pick up a packet of Darjeeling tea or a bottle of Champagne, you are not just buying a product – you are buying a promise. A promise that what is inside was made in a specific place, by specific people, using methods tied to that land for generations. This promise has a legal name: a Geographical Indication (GI). But how did the world arrive at this concept? The journey from informal regional pride to a globally recognised intellectual property right spans centuries, two continents, and some very important cheese.

What is a geographical indication? 🔗

According to WIPO, a geographical indication is a name or sign used on products that corresponds to a specific geographical location or origin, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the product is essentially attributable to that origin. Under Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, GIs are defined as indications that identify a good as originating in the territory of a WTO Member, or a region or locality within that territory, where a specific quality, reputation, or other characteristic is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. In simpler terms, a GI tells the consumer: this product is authentic, it comes from here, and that origin is inseparable from what makes it special.

The earliest roots: medieval France and the birth of origin protection 🔗

The story of GIs does not begin with international treaties or trade negotiations. It begins with blue cheese in southern France. Roquefort – aged in the natural limestone caves of Mont Combalou in Roquefort-sur-Soulzon – has been produced and protected for over six hundred years. As early as 1411, King Charles VI of France granted a monopoly for the ripening of Roquefort cheese exclusively to the people of Roquefort-sur-Soulzon, recognising a practice they had maintained for centuries.

Protection was further tightened over time. A decree of the Toulouse parliament dating from 1666 imposed heavy fines on merchants who sold cheap imitations under the Roquefort name. This was not mere commercial regulation – it was an early recognition that a product’s name carries value precisely because of where and how it is made.

France’s legislative leap: from royal decree to modern law 🔗

France’s piecemeal approach to origin protection became more systematic in the early twentieth century. The law of 1 August 1905 gave the French government authority to define official boundaries for the production of certain agricultural products. A second law passed on 6 May 1919 – the Law for the Protection of the Place of Origin – specified the region and commune in which a product must be manufactured and empowered courts to act against violations. These laws laid the groundwork for the formal system France would eventually build.

The culmination of this effort came with Roquefort cheese once again making history. On 26 July 1925, the French President Gaston Doumergue signed a law recognising Roquefort’s Designation of Origin (DO), making it the first French cheese to receive such a designation. This was a direct response to a wave of counterfeits – imitation Roquefort was being produced in Auvergne and even in Denmark – that threatened the cheese’s reputation and the livelihoods of its producers.

When France introduced the appellation d’origine contrôlée (AOC) – or “controlled designation of origin” – label to protect its food and wines in the early twentieth century, Roquefort became the first recipient of this regulation in 1925. The AOC system, which certified that a product was produced, processed, and prepared in a defined geographical area using recognised know-how, inspired other European nations. France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy were the first countries to request, in the late 1980s, that the EU protect product names – driven by a widely shared belief in these countries that a product’s geographical origin is fundamental to its quality, a concept captured in the French idea of terroir.

The international dimension: from “indication of source” to “appellation of origin” 🔗

As trade globalised in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, purely domestic laws were no longer sufficient. Two distinct legal concepts emerged at the international level to deal with origin-linked products, and understanding the difference between them is essential for any IP law student.

Indication of source 🔗

An indication of source is the broader of the two concepts. The term “indication of source” is used in Articles 1(2) and 10 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, as well as in the Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods, 1891. There is no formal definition in either treaty, but an indication of source essentially requires only that the product originates in a certain geographical area – a simple “made in…” declaration. Crucially, it does not require that the origin actually affect the product’s quality or characteristics.

Appellation of origin 🔗

An appellation of origin is a more demanding concept. Under Article 2(1) of the WIPO Lisbon Agreement, an appellation of origin is defined as the geographical denomination of a country, region, or locality which serves to designate a product originating therein, the quality or characteristics of which are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment, including natural and human factors. This is a stricter standard – the link between place and product quality must be direct and substantial. Roquefort, with its dependence on the specific caves and local sheep’s milk, fits this definition precisely.

The WIPO Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration, alongside the Paris Convention and the Madrid Agreement, form the core pre-TRIPS international framework for protecting products tied to their place of origin.

The EU framework: PDO and PGI 🔗

Throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, the European Union was completing the creation of its single internal market. Protecting producers of foodstuffs against others who might exploit the reputation of their products was a major concern, which led to the creation of a uniform EU-wide framework. The EU established three categories of protection: Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), covering products produced, processed, and prepared in a specific area using recognised know-how; Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), covering products closely linked to a geographical area where at least one stage of production occurs there; and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG), protecting traditional recipes and production methods regardless of location.

The EU introduced GIs into its legal framework in 1992. Today, the EU has more than 3,300 products registered as GIs. Products like Champagne, Parmigiano Reggiano, Parma ham, and Feta cheese all carry this protection – and their names cannot legally be used for products made outside their designated regions.

TRIPS: making GIs a global intellectual property right 🔗

The most significant milestone in the global history of GIs came in 1994, with the conclusion of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) under the World Trade Organization. In 1995, geographical indications received universal attention and protection under the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement, which remains to date the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property.

TRIPS brought GIs into the same category as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and industrial designs – firmly positioning them as intellectual property. The term “geographical indication” was adopted as a convenient means of encompassing within a single phrase both previous international expressions – “indication of source” and “appellation of origin” – used in earlier WIPO agreements including the Paris Convention and the Lisbon Agreement.

Under TRIPS, Section 3 of Part II deals specifically with GIs. Article 22 sets the minimum standard of protection for GIs identifying any type of good. Article 23 provides a higher level of protection specifically for GIs identifying wines and spirits. The decision to give wines and spirits stronger protection than other agricultural products was a matter of political compromise, not principle – and it has remained a point of debate ever since. The TRIPS definition under Article 22(1) moves beyond earlier WIPO concepts, covering not only names but any sign of geographical significance, whether composed of words, phrases, symbols or emblematic images.

India’s response: the GI Act, 1999 🔗

India’s engagement with GI protection was triggered not by choice alone, but by necessity. Three high-profile patent disputes – involving neem, turmeric, and Basmati rice – exposed how vulnerable India’s traditional products were to misappropriation abroad. In 1995, a US patent was granted to two NRIs for the use of turmeric as a wound-healing agent. India’s Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) successfully challenged this at the US Patent Office, arguing on the basis of prior art that turmeric had been used in India for centuries for that very purpose. The Basmati case, in which a Texas-based company secured a US patent on “Basmati Rice Lines and Grains,” similarly prompted India to recognise that legal protection for origin-linked products was urgent.

India, as a member of the WTO, enacted the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 to comply with the TRIPS Agreement. The GI Act came into effect on 15 September 2003 and established a Geographical Indications Registry in Chennai with all-India jurisdiction. Unlike TRIPS, the Indian GI Act does not limit higher protection to wines and spirits – it empowers the central government to determine which products warrant elevated levels of protection, a flexibility built in to provide stringent safeguards for Indian-origin GIs.

Darjeeling tea became the first GI-tagged product in India in 2004-05. Since then, hundreds of products – from Kancheepuram silk to Pochampalli Ikat to Malabar pepper – have received GI protection, cementing the law’s role in preserving India’s cultural and agricultural heritage.

From Roquefort to Darjeeling: a continuous thread 🔗

The evolution of GIs – from a medieval French royal decree protecting a cave-aged cheese, through national AOC systems, international treaties on indications of source and appellations of origin, the EU’s PDO/PGI framework, and finally the TRIPS Agreement and India’s own GI Act – represents one of the most coherent and purposeful developments in the history of intellectual property law. At every stage, the core idea remained consistent: a product’s place of origin is not just a fact on a label. It is the source of its identity, its quality, and the livelihood of the communities that produce it. Protecting that connection is not protectionism – it is intellectual property in its truest sense.

What do you think? Given that TRIPS provides stronger protection for GIs on wines and spirits than on other agricultural products like tea or handicrafts, do you think India should push harder in WTO negotiations to extend Article 23-level protection to all GI categories? And considering how the Basmati and turmeric disputes shaped India’s GI legislation, are there other traditional Indian products that remain vulnerable to misappropriation in international markets today?

References

1. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/geographical-indications
2. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm
3. https://www.roquefort.fr/en/first-pdo-history/