Rectification and Correction of the Geographical Indications Register: A Procedural Guide

India’s Geographical Indications (GI) register is only as reliable as the accuracy of its entries. A single erroneous entry – whether it involves a wrongly described product, an unauthorised registration, or an outdated detail – can undermine the legal protection that thousands of producers and communities depend on. That is precisely why Chapter VI of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (hereinafter, the GI Act) exists: to provide a structured, enforceable mechanism for rectifying and correcting the GI register. Understanding how this mechanism works is essential for anyone studying GI law in India.

What is the GI register and why does its accuracy matter? 🔗

The GI register is the official public record maintained by the Geographical Indications Registry in Chennai. Every GI recognised under Indian law – from Darjeeling Tea to Banarasi Sarees – has its details recorded here, including the name of the registered proprietor, the authorised users, the geographical territory covered, and the characteristics attributed to the product’s origin. This register serves as the primary reference point for enforcement, licensing, and dispute resolution.

Because the register carries such legal weight, any inaccuracy – a misspelt name, an overly broad territorial description, or an entry that should never have been made – has real consequences. It can lead to wrongful enforcement, denial of rightful claims, or misuse of the GI tag by parties who are not entitled to it. The rectification and correction provisions exist to fix these problems before they cause lasting harm.

The two distinct mechanisms: rectification vs. correction 🔗

The GI Act treats two types of changes to the register differently, and this distinction matters in practice.

Rectification under section 27 🔗

Rectification is the more substantive of the two processes. It involves cancelling or varying an existing registration – effectively challenging whether an entry should remain on the register at all, or in the form it currently takes. Section 27 of the GI Act sets out the grounds on which this can be triggered:

First, under sub-section (1), if a registered proprietor or authorised user has contravened, or failed to observe, a condition entered on the register in relation to their GI, an aggrieved person can apply for cancellation or variation of that registration. Second, under sub-section (2), rectification can be sought where there is an absence or omission of an entry that ought to be there, an entry made without sufficient cause, an entry wrongly remaining on the register, or any error or defect in an existing entry. The Registrar or the High Court (as the case may be) may then order the entry to be made, expunged, or varied as appropriate.

Importantly, sub-section (4) gives the authority the power to act suo motu – that is, on its own motion – without waiting for a formal application. However, even in this case, notice must be given to all interested parties, and they must be given an opportunity to be heard before any order is passed.

Correction under section 28 🔗

Correction, by contrast, is a more administrative and less adversarial process. Under section 28 of the GI Act, the Registrar can, on an application made by the registered proprietor or the authorised user, correct errors in the name, address, or description of those persons as recorded on the register, and enter any change in such details that may have occurred after registration. The Registrar can also correct clerical errors or obvious mistakes in the register itself.

This section does not require any showing of prejudice or aggrievement – it is simply a housekeeping provision to ensure that factual information on the register remains current and accurate.

Who can apply for rectification? 🔗

The central phrase in section 27 is “aggrieved person.” This term is not defined in the Act, and its interpretation has been a subject of important judicial discussion. In the landmark Supreme Court decision in Hardie Trading Ltd. v. Addisons Paint and Chemicals Ltd., the Court held that where rectification is sought on the ground that an entry was wrongly made or wrongly remains on the register, the concept of “person aggrieved” should be construed liberally. The rationale is that wrongful entries harm not just direct competitors but the public at large – and it is in the public interest that such entries be removed.

Applied to the GI context, this means that the scope of who can apply for rectification is reasonably broad. It can include producers from the relevant geographical region whose interests are affected by an erroneous registration, competitors whose market position is prejudiced, and potentially even public interest petitioners where the registration causes broader harm.

Grounds for rectification: a closer look 🔗

The grounds listed in section 27 are worth examining carefully because they define the outer boundaries of when the register can be challenged:

Contravention of conditions: Every GI registration may come with specific conditions – relating to, say, quality standards, the production process, or who may be an authorised user. If a registered proprietor or authorised user violates these conditions, that becomes a ground for cancellation or variation of the registration.

Entry made without sufficient cause: This covers situations where a GI was registered even though the legal requirements for registration were not genuinely met – for example, if the product did not actually have quality or characteristics attributable to the geographical origin claimed.

Entry wrongly remaining on the register: A registration that was valid at the time it was made may subsequently become invalid – for instance, if the geographical link on which the registration was based no longer exists, or if the GI has become a generic term. In such cases, its continued presence on the register is itself a wrong.

Error or defect in an entry: This is a broader ground covering factual or descriptive errors in the way an entry is recorded on the register, even if the registration as a whole is valid.

The procedural pathway: how an application for rectification works 🔗

The procedural rules for rectification applications are set out in detail in the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002.

Filing the application 🔗

An application for rectification or removal of an entry from the GI register is filed on Form GI-6 (or Form GI-5 for authorised users). The application must be submitted in triplicate and accompanied by a detailed statement setting out the applicant’s interest, the facts on which the case is based, and the relief sought. Where the applicant is not the registered proprietor, copies of the application must also be served on authorised users listed on the register, or notice must be published in leading national newspapers.

Notice to the registered proprietor 🔗

Once the application is received, the Registrar transmits a copy to the registered proprietor and any other person appearing from the register to have an interest in the GI. The registered proprietor then has two months (extendable by another two months) to file a counterstatement on Form GI-2. The counterstatement must set out the grounds on which the rectification application is being contested. Importantly, the Registrar will not rectify the register simply because a counterstatement was not filed – unless the failure to file was wilful and unjustified by the circumstances.

Suo motu notice by the Registrar 🔗

Where the Registrar proposes to act on their own motion under sub-section (4) of section 27, a written notice is sent to the registered proprietor and all interested parties. This notice must state the grounds for the proposed rectification and must give the parties a minimum of one month to respond. Any person who fails to submit a statement of facts or request a hearing within the specified time may be treated as not wishing to participate, and the Registrar may proceed accordingly.

Hearing and decision 🔗

After the exchange of pleadings, the Registrar conducts a hearing where both sides can present their arguments. Once a decision is reached, it is communicated to the parties in writing. If the Registrar decides to rectify the register, the necessary changes are made and recorded.

The role of the High Court 🔗

Following the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was abolished, and its powers in GI matters were transferred to the High Courts. This is an important structural change: rectification applications that were previously heard by the IPAB are now filed before the relevant High Court under section 27, read with section 34, of the GI Act.

Under section 34, the procedure for a rectification application made to the High Court follows the prescribed form. Every order passed by the High Court is communicated to the Registrar, who is then bound to give effect to it – including amending or rectifying the register as directed. The Registrar also has the right to appear and be heard before the High Court in any proceeding that involves alteration or rectification of the register.

Interaction with infringement proceedings 🔗

One procedurally significant aspect of rectification is how it interacts with ongoing infringement suits. Under section 57 of the GI Act, when a defendant in an infringement suit challenges the validity of the plaintiff’s GI registration, the court must stay the infringement suit if rectification proceedings are already pending before the Registrar or the High Court. If no such proceedings exist yet, the court gives the defendant three months to initiate them. This prevents the absurd situation where an infringement case is decided based on a registration that is subsequently found to be invalid – ensuring that questions of validity are resolved before the infringement claim proceeds.

Effect of a rectification order and the right of appeal 🔗

A successful rectification order can have significant downstream consequences. If a GI registration is cancelled, all authorised users linked to it lose their licensed status and must cease using the GI tag. If only a variation is ordered – such as a narrowing of the geographical territory – users outside the revised area are no longer covered. These consequences underscore the seriousness of rectification proceedings and why all interested parties are entitled to notice and a hearing.

Decisions of the Registrar in rectification matters are not final. Under section 31 of the GI Act, any person aggrieved by a Registrar’s order can appeal to the High Court within three months of the date on which the decision was communicated. This appellate remedy is an important safeguard, ensuring that the rectification process itself is subject to judicial oversight.

Why this framework matters for GI protection in India 🔗

India has one of the most active GI programmes in the world, with hundreds of registered GIs spanning agriculture, handicrafts, and manufactured goods. Maintaining the integrity of the GI register is not just a technical legal exercise – it is directly tied to the economic interests of producer communities, the authenticity of Indian products in global markets, and India’s compliance with its international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.

The rectification and correction framework ensures that the register does not become a static document immune to scrutiny. Errors can be fixed, invalid registrations can be removed, and the register can be updated to reflect changed circumstances. This adaptability is what gives the GI register its legitimacy as a living legal record – one that stakeholders can trust to reflect the true state of protected geographical indications at any given point in time.

What do you think? If a GI registration is found to have been granted on the basis of inaccurate geographical data, should the original producers who relied on that registration in good faith be held liable – or should the rectification process account for such reliance? And given that the IPAB has been abolished, do you think High Courts are adequately equipped in terms of resources and specialised expertise to handle the volume and complexity of GI rectification disputes?

References

1. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/128105
2. https://ipindia.gov.in/act-1999.htm
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1463915/
4. https://ipindia.gov.in/GI/act_1999
5. https://spicyip.com/2012/12/filing-rectification-application-under_25.html
6. https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPORule/1_27_1_gi-rules.pdf
7. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1981/5/A1999-48.pdf
8. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_11_60_00004_199947_1517807323972&sectionId=16849&sectionno=57&orderno=64
9. https://ruralindiaonline.org/en/library/resource/the-geographical-indications-of-goods-registration-and-protection-act-1999/
10. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm