Geographical Indications for Indian Food Products: Helping Rural Producers, Countering International Infringement
Introduction : The regional cuisine and spices of India have their own unique agro-climatic specificity that is not found anywhere else in the world. There is the uniqueness of the Darjeeling hills' terroir, the alluvial soil of the Indo-Gangetic plain that gives Basmati its distinct aroma, the altitude and volcanic soil that give unique characteristics to the Coorg's Arabica coffee beans. This specificity has received its legal recognition through the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which allows a particular community of producers to protect their name that now legally belongs to a place and not to a particular manufacturer. The Geographical Indications Registry in Chennai has become the custodian of several hundred GIs since the first one was registered - Darjeeling Tea in 2004-05.
For rural producer cooperatives, cooperative societies, and government marketing boards, a GI designation is now considered an economic asset which needs management, not just a decorative accolade. Merely registering a product as a GI cannot halt the sale of counterfeit “Darjeeling” tea in India, nor a foreign applicant from claiming the use of the GI name in another country, nor even the operation of online marketplaces which allow the use of protected names in the description of totally unrelated products. Capturing the value of a GI requires, therefore, the twin processes of enforcement and brand building.
The purpose of this blog post is to examine recent registrations for GI’s of Indian regional foods and spices, what benefits they can expect from their GI status, how they can contest misuses of their names abroad and in their own countries, and online, and also the branding and licensing possibilities they have as producer groups.
Legal Provisions
A. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
According to Section 2(1)(e), geographical indications are an indication which identifies goods as originating in the territory, region or locality in which a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of those goods is essentially attributable to its origin. As per Section 11, an association of persons, producers or a body corporate of persons constituted by law to represent producers can apply for registration; an individual producer cannot apply in his/her own name. After registering, individual producers have to individually file application for recording themselves as authorised user under Section 17, through Form GI-3 along with the registered proprietor. Section 21 provides for exclusive rights resulting from registration and Section 22 describes the act of infringement, including unauthorised use implying a false origin or unfair competition. Geographical Indications are registrable for a period of ten years and can be renewed perpetually under Section 18.
B. International Legal Framework
The GIs system in India works in the face of the TRIPS Agreement 1994, whereby Article 22 obligates members to prohibit any misleading use of the GIs while Article 23 provides an additional absolute protection of wine and spirits irrespective of confusion. India is not a signatory to the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin, and hence, an Indian GI does not have an automatic protection abroad but associations have to seek protection for their products in each export market either through EU regulation No. 1151/2012, which permits non-EU applicants to apply for Protected Geographical Indication, provided they can withstand three months of opposition, or via bilateral trade treaties providing for certain Indian GIs.
Legal Analysis
A. New GI Registrations are Increasing Coverage of States that are Not Traditionally High on GIs
During the first ten years of operations, the registrations have largely been in those states where there was existing GI infrastructure. However, the trend is changing; among the latest additions are Kandhamal Haldi, a form of turmeric cultivated by tribal farmers in Odisha known for its high level of curcumin, and Karbi Anglong Ginger from Assam, along with North-Eastern products such as Naga Mirchi, a spicy Bhut Jolokia chilli and Manipur Black Rice, a pigmented rice with great export prospects in health food market. The increase in GI registrations in Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and the North-East regions is bridging a gap in which these regions lagged behind other states like Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.
Another example illustrates the registry’s capacity for handling overlapping regional claims to a common culinary heritage. West Bengal obtained a GI for ‘Banglar Rasogolla’ in 2017, while Odisha filed its own GI for ‘Odisha Rasagola’ in 2018, having established through documentation that there are a unique recipe and process of manufacture associated with their product, which predates the Bengali version and has roots in temple-town confectionery. The acceptance by the Registry of both the applications indicates that it is possible to have two GIs for related regional foods when the traditions are unique.
B. The Benefits of GI Registration for Rural Growers and Exporters
The economic advantage of GI registration lies in changing a name that could be used by all into one that is exclusively owned by all. According to Department of Commerce reports, GI labelled goods can fetch a premium price ranging from 20 to 30 percent more than other goods without such labels. GI labelled Darjeeling Tea, for example, sells for three to four times the price of normal Indian tea internationally. This premium can be claimed only by the growers of the registered region because outside producers cannot use the name, according to Section 21.
The two-tiered system consisting of the registered proprietor and authorised user is key to how the intended benefit will be received by individual farmers instead of just the topmost organisation. The registered proprietor who would most often be the cooperative, the Board or any other government corporation will own the GI and safeguard the rights of the community which produces the commodity while individual farmers or processors will register themselves as authorised users under Section 17 for the use of the GI mark through bodies like APEDA and Spices Board for export purposes. But in reality, many small artisans and farmers do not have enough money and know-how to register as authorised users even after registering the GI of their community and thus downstream traders get more than their fair share of the premium value of the GI.
C. Enforcement Against Misuse Abroad
In the absence of any extraterritorial force of Indian GIs, protection of the food GI abroad may involve resisting competing foreign trademark applications or seeking protection through the GI system of the receiving country. This is best exemplified by Basmati rice in the EU. India filed an application for the registration of Basmati rice as a Protected Geographical Indication in July 2018. This was subsequently published in the Official Journal in September 11, 2020, providing for a three-month opposition period under Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012. The Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan raised opposition in December 2020 and then filed its own Basmati GI in January 2021.
The example of Darjeeling Tea demonstrates an enforcement strategy that is complementary and soft in nature. Unlike depending on any inherent international right, the Tea Board of India has taken direct action with respect to foreign trademark offices and foreign applicants. Specifically, it managed to object to the registration of the mark ‘Darjeeling’ by a French company for lingerie and clothing. It has also convinced a Swiss fragrance company to remove from the market its fragrance intended to be used by men as a ‘Darjeeling Tea’ fragrance after informing the company about the prior rights of the Tea Board of India.
D. Implementation in Domestic Courts and for Online Infringement
Internally, GI rights have been found more limited than producer organizations tend to believe. In the case of Tea Board, India v. ITC Limited, the Calcutta High Court ruled that ITC’s use of the phrase ‘Darjeeling Lounge’ in relation to a hotel lounge did not constitute infringement of the Board’s GI rights or certification mark because Section 2(1)(f) defines ‘goods’ in the context of the Act to mean “agricultural, natural or manufactured articles, including foodstuffs” while Sections 22 and 75 apply only to goods and not services. The litigation, which commenced in 2010 regarding the opening of the lounge way back in 2003, was further dismissed on the basis that it was barred by the time limit of five years contained in Section 26(4).
This is a different form of misuse which cannot be handled by the GI Act which was formulated to deal with physical markets. There have been cases of misuse of protected GI names like “Pochampally” for products not linked to the protected region through listing of GI terms which can help gain visibility from search engines despite the anonymity of the sellers and lack of any intermediary liability provisions in the GI Act in contrast with trademark and copyright takedown measures. Actions against such forms of misuse would only be available through complaints and civil lawsuits against the specific seller or through trademark or certification mark protection of the same name.
E. Branded Marketing and Licensing Approaches of Producer Associations
As Section 11 confers registration on an association and not on individual producers, the internal structures of the association will be responsible for the degree to which commercial benefit flows to the producers. Associations whose GIs for foods have generated sustainable value have managed to integrate three features: a unique collective logo, which can complement but not substitute for individual producers’ own logos, thereby ensuring that whereas the GI serves the purpose of verifying authenticity, the individual logo carries the reputation of the individual producer, much like in Darjeeling Tea where the package uses both the board’s logo and the producer’s own trademark; an agreed licence or authorized user agreement detailing the quality standard requirements and other conditions for the use of the logo, because authorized user status conferred under Section 17 amounts to a license; and an internal monitoring mechanism in the association, due to the fact that under Section 21, the registered proprietor enjoys an enforcement mechanism regardless of being an authorized user.
The significance of independent standing for enforcement actions was clarified in the case of Scotch Whisky Association vs. J.K. Enterprises, wherein a trial court ruled that the infringement suit filed by the Association could not proceed without the filing of an authorized user as a co-plaintiff. This decision was overturned by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, ruling that Section 21 did not mandate that the registered proprietor include an authorized user in an infringement action and that both right-holders could take action independently. For a producer association that manages a GI for Indian foods, the implication is that such an association must be established in such a manner that it can file its infringement action on its own, rather than relying on individual authorized users, who may lack resources. In conjunction with export-oriented support by APEDA and Spices Board, and registration of parallel trademarks in key export countries, this will ensure that a food GI operates as a brand.
Relevant Case Laws
Tea Board, India vs. ITC Limited, Calcutta High Court (2019): The use of GI under the Act is restricted to the goods, and the claim made by the Board against ITC’s ‘Darjeeling Lounge’ was anyway barred due to Section 26(4)’s five-year limitation period.
Scotch Whisky Association vs. J.K. Enterprises, Madhya Pradesh High Court (2023): A registered proprietor can file an action on the ground of infringement under Section 21 without making the authorized user a necessary party in the suit.
Madhya Kshetra Basmati Growers Association Samiti v. Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Supreme Court of India (2021): In this case, the Supreme Court of India has opined that it was an erroneous decision on the part of the High Court of Madras to have disposed of the writ petitions filed against the APEDA application regarding the Basmati GI without examining the issue raised by the petitioners that thirteen districts of Madhya Pradesh were incorrectly excluded from the demarcated area of the GI.
Practical Implications
As far as producer cooperatives, marketing boards of the government, and export organizations are concerned, the example of the increasing GI registry in India suggests that the process of registration itself does not mark the end; it marks the beginning. The premium associated with GI-labelled products is enjoyed only if the registered proprietor makes efforts for enrolling authorized users and ensures no misappropriation. It becomes important for associations managing recently registered GIs from Odisha, North East, and other emerging zones to focus on authorized user enrolment right from the start in order to prevent the situation like in case of other GIs in the registry.
For exporters and their counsels, the cases of Basmati rice and Darjeeling tea serve as a lesson that protection of export markets should be done actively and independently of domestic registration, through filing PGI or PDO abroad, trademark opposition, and dealing with APEDA and the Spices Board. For domestic purposes, the case of the Tea Board shows that while protection through GI and certification mark is less extensive than a normal trademark and limited only to goods, it is still crucial to protect parallel trademarks and initiate proceedings against the identified misuse. Lack of intermediary liability framework for protection of GIs online is an open issue that needs a solution.
Conclusion
Geographical Indications in India has evolved over time from being a limited form of protection for a few select names into something much more, including protection for tribal turmeric, chillies from the North-East, and coloured rice varieties. Fulfilling the promise that the Geographical Indications system holds lies in considering the registration as a starting point for an effective branding and enforcement strategy, which includes getting the actual producers to join as authorized users, developing a credible collective logo along with individual logos of the producer, seeking recognition and defending against misuse abroad where registration in India has no effect, and retaining the freedom of action of the registered proprietor to take action for infringement at home and online.
In the cases of the Tea Board, Scotch Whisky, and Basmati, there is another dimension of the same truth: that the rights afforded by the GI Act are indeed tangible but limited in terms of subject matter, geographic area, and the time limits in which they must be used. Producer collectives that combine registration with proper licensing and monitoring, especially regarding exports, have the potential to turn India's increasing number of GIs into a source of sustained rural revenue; those who treat the certificate as self-enforcing do so at their own peril.
Author: Khushi Gupta in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney
Endnotes / References
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, s. 2(1)(e) (India).
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, s. 11 (India).
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, s. 17 (India).
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, s. 21 (India).
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, s. 22 (India).
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, s. 26(4) (India).
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1994, arts. 22–23.
Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs.
Tea Board, India v. ITC Limited, Calcutta High Court (India).
Scotch Whisky Association v. J.K. Enterprises, Madhya Pradesh High Court, CS No. 07/2020 (India).
Geographical Indications Registry, Registration of ‘Banglar Rasogolla’ (2017) and ‘Odisha Rasagola’ (2018), Chennai (India).
European Commission, Official Journal of the European Union, Publication of Application for Registration of ‘Basmati’ as a Protected Geographical Indication (11 September 2020).
Bombay High Court, Public Interest Litigation concerning use of Kolhapuri Chappal design by Prada S.p.A. (2025) (India).
Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), Trade Notifications on GI-Registered Branded Spice Exports.
World Intellectual Property Organization, Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration.
Comments