Geographical Indications as Intellectual Property Rights: A Global Protection Framework

Think about what makes Darjeeling tea different from any other tea, or why Champagne cannot legally be called Champagne if it comes from outside a specific region in France. The answer lies in a concept called a Geographical Indication (GI) – a sign or name that identifies a product as originating from a specific place, where its quality, reputation, or other characteristic is essentially attributable to that geographical origin. For much of modern history, this kind of origin-based identity was treated as little more than a marketing claim. But by the late 20th century, countries began to recognize GIs as something far more consequential: a legitimate and valuable form of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), deserving formal legal protection just like patents or trademarks. This shift gave rise to an entire global framework aimed at safeguarding GIs across borders.

What makes a GI an intellectual property right? 🔗

Intellectual property, at its core, protects the creations of the human mind – inventions, artistic works, brand identities. GIs fit into this framework, but with a distinct character. Unlike a patent (which protects an inventor’s exclusive idea) or a trademark (which protects a business’s brand identity), a GI protects the collective identity of a region and its producers. According to the International Trademark Association, GIs are a form of IPR protected under the TRIPS Agreement and governed by the World Trade Organization (WTO), and while they share some features with trademarks, they are a separate category of IP altogether.

The key distinguishing feature is that a GI is not owned by any one person or company – it belongs to the community of producers in the designated region. Anyone in that region who meets the prescribed standards can use the indication. This is why GI protection has significant implications not just for individual producers but for entire local economies, particularly in developing countries where traditional crafts and agricultural products form the backbone of rural livelihoods.

The road to formal recognition: from indications of source to IPR 🔗

The recognition of GIs as a distinct form of IPR was not immediate. It evolved over more than a century of international treaty-making.

The Paris Convention, 1883 🔗

The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed on 20 March 1883, was the first multilateral agreement to provide any form of protection for origin-based identifiers. Under Article 1(2), indications of source and appellations of origin were recognized as aspects of industrial property. Article 10 of the Convention allowed for seizure or prohibition of goods bearing false indications of source. However, the Paris Convention did not create a separate GI regime – protection was limited to preventing fraud and consumer deception, with no specific enforcement mechanism for GI holders.

The Madrid Agreement, 1891 🔗

The Madrid Agreement Concerning the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods, adopted in 1891, built on the Paris Convention’s foundation. It specifically prohibited the use of false indications of source and emphasized the importance of a product’s stated origin being genuine. However, its membership remained limited and its scope narrow – confined largely to preventing outright deception rather than proactively protecting the economic value of GIs.

The Lisbon Agreement, 1958 🔗

A more structured regime emerged with the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration, signed on 31 October 1958. This was the first treaty to establish an international register for appellations of origin, administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). A registered appellation in one member country had to be protected in all other member countries. However, the Lisbon Agreement had a narrow membership – only 30 states were party to the Agreement initially – limiting its practical impact on global trade.

These pre-TRIPS treaties laid important groundwork but suffered from fragmented participation and weak enforcement. The world needed a comprehensive, universally binding framework. That arrived in 1994.

The TRIPS Agreement: the watershed moment for GI recognition 🔗

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which came into effect on 1 January 1995, is widely regarded as the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property to date. TRIPS brought GIs squarely within the global IPR framework for the first time, making their protection mandatory for all WTO member states – currently 164 countries.

The GI provisions are contained in Section 3, Articles 22 to 24 of Part II of TRIPS.

Article 22: the standard level of protection 🔗

Article 22.1 of TRIPS defines a geographical indication as an indication that identifies a good as originating in the territory of a WTO 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 geographical origin. This definition applies to all products – agricultural, handicrafts, food items, manufactured goods, and more. Under Article 22, every WTO member must provide legal means to prevent the use of a GI that misleads the public about a product’s origin or constitutes an act of unfair competition.

Article 23: enhanced protection for wines and spirits 🔗

Article 23 goes further by providing a higher level of protection specifically for wines and spirits. Under this provision, member states must prevent the use of a GI for wines or spirits not originating in the indicated region – even if the public would not be misled, even if the true origin is disclosed, and even if the GI is accompanied by qualifiers like “kind,” “type,” or “imitation.” This absolute prohibition reflects the commercial weight of the wine and spirits industries, particularly for European nations. Article 23 also prohibits the registration of trademarks that conflict with a GI for wines or spirits.

Article 24: exceptions and flexibility 🔗

Article 24 provides certain exceptions that balance GI protection against pre-existing rights and practical realities. Key exceptions include situations where a GI has become a generic term in a country (for example, “cheddar” as a cheese type rather than a product specifically from Cheddar in the UK), and cases where a conflicting trademark was registered in good faith before the GI was protected. These exceptions acknowledge that the global adoption of GI protection must accommodate diverse legal traditions and historical market realities.

Why GIs matter: economic and cultural stakes 🔗

Economic advantages for producers 🔗

The economic case for GI protection is compelling. GI-tagged products enable producers to command premium prices because the indication signals authenticity and exclusivity – qualities consumers are willing to pay more for. When buyers know that a product carrying a specific GI label genuinely comes from the designated region and meets defined standards, they trust it. This trust translates into market demand, higher export revenues, and greater income for producers.

For developing countries, the stakes are especially high. Many of the world’s most distinctive agricultural and artisanal products come from regions in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Without effective GI protection, producers in these regions are vulnerable to imitation by large-scale manufacturers elsewhere who use the same regional names without any connection to the actual place. This practice – essentially free-riding on a region’s reputation – directly harms local producers and suppresses economic development.

Cultural preservation and social implications 🔗

GIs protect not only the legal interests of producers but also the cultural, traditional, and economic identity of a region. Many GI-tagged products are the product of generations of accumulated knowledge, skill, and tradition. When Kashmiri weavers produce a Pashmina shawl or Banarasi artisans weave a silk sari, they are not merely making a commercial product – they are practising a cultural heritage. GI protection ensures that this heritage cannot be appropriated by those with no genuine connection to it, thereby preserving local traditions and supporting communities that might otherwise be economically marginalized.

This social dimension is particularly relevant for developing countries, where most GI-registered products originate from rural and economically backward regions. The GI framework functions not just as IP protection but as a tool for rural development, employment generation, and cultural continuity.

India’s response: the GI Act of 1999 🔗

India’s compliance with TRIPS obligations led directly to the enactment of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. Before this legislation, there was no dedicated law in India to protect GIs. The Act came into effect on 15 September 2003 and established the Geographical Indications Registry to manage applications and grant GI certifications.

The GI Act seeks to protect and promote goods with a specific geographical origin, with objectives that include preventing unauthorized misuse of GIs, protecting consumers from deceptive trade practices, and promoting economic prosperity for producers of unique regionally-rooted goods. The Act also ensured reciprocal protection – Indian GIs recognized under the Act would receive corresponding protection in other TRIPS member countries.

Since its enactment, India has seen GI registrations for a wide range of products. Darjeeling Tea became one of India’s first registered GIs. Basmati Rice, Mysore Silk, Kanchipuram Silk Sarees, Alphonso Mangoes, and Kashmiri Saffron have all received GI protection, strengthening their market credibility globally. Banarasi brocades and sarees, granted GI status in 2009, brought economic benefits to thousands of handloom weavers across six districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The debate on extending enhanced protection beyond wines and spirits 🔗

One of the most contested issues within the TRIPS framework is the call by many developing countries – including India – to extend the Article 23 level of enhanced protection beyond wines and spirits to all GI-protected products. Currently, the stronger protection that prevents even non-misleading use of a GI applies only to wines and spirits, which are primarily the commercial interests of developed nations. Agricultural products like Basmati rice, handicrafts like Pashmina, and food items like Darjeeling Tea do not enjoy the same absolute protection under Article 23.

The WTO TRIPS Council has debated this “extension” question since the Doha Round launched in 2001, with no consensus reached so far. Developing countries argue that the current asymmetry is inequitable – it privileges the export interests of wine-producing nations while leaving other culturally significant products with weaker protection. This debate remains an active area of international IP law and trade negotiations.

The international ecosystem: TRIPS, WIPO, and the Geneva Act 🔗

Beyond TRIPS, the WIPO Lisbon System offers an additional mechanism for international GI protection. The Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications, which entered into force in February 2020, updated and expanded the original 1958 Lisbon Agreement. The Geneva Act extended coverage to geographical indications (not just appellations of origin) and opened participation to intergovernmental organizations, including the European Union, which acceded in November 2019.

Under the WIPO framework, protection for GIs can be sought through sui generis systems (dedicated GI laws), trademark systems (collective or certification marks), or other national legal mechanisms. WTO member countries are increasingly recognizing GIs as valuable marketing tools in the global economy, and the push for a more unified, stronger international protection regime continues to gather momentum.

The combination of TRIPS obligations, WIPO-administered treaties, and national legislation like India’s GI Act has created a layered global framework. It is not perfect – gaps in enforcement, lack of awareness among producers, and the unresolved debate on extending Article 23 protections remain real challenges. But the formal recognition of GIs as a full-fledged category of IPR represents a significant shift: what was once treated as a mere label of origin is now understood as a collective economic and cultural asset, deserving protection at par with patents and trademarks.

What do you think? Given that the stronger protection under Article 23 of TRIPS applies only to wines and spirits, is it fair that products like Basmati rice or Darjeeling tea – which are equally tied to their region of origin – receive a weaker standard of international protection? And as GIs grow in economic significance, should developing countries push for a single, unified global GI register that covers all products equally?

References

1. https://www.inta.org/topics/geographical-indications/
2. https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/apdj-16-2-3-Jain.pdf
3. http://arizonajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/06_MAKRIS_V3.pdf
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Agreement_for_the_Protection_of_Appellations_of_Origin_and_their_International_Registration
5. https://www.lawjournals.org/assets/archives/2024/vol10issue4/10173.pdf
6. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm
7. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/gi_background_e.htm
8. https://thelegalschool.in/blog/what-is-a-geographical-indication
9. https://www.ipandlegalfilings.com/geographical-indications-in-india-statutory-framework-judicial-interpretation-and-evolving-legal-developments
10. https://www.suolaw.com/geographical-indication-gi-laws-in-india-and-its-implementation/
11. https://ipindia.gov.in/act-1999.htm
12. https://www.maheshwariandco.com/blog/geographical-indications-in-india/
13. https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/the-geographical-indications-of-goods-registration-and-protection-act-1999-gi-act–14372.asp
14. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/lisbon-system
15. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/geographical-indications
16. https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/trademark-policy/geographical-indications