Geographical Indications in India: Protecting Cultural Heritage in a Global Market

INTRODUCTION

Geographical indications are powerful means of protecting India’s rich cultural heritage by establishing a link between the product and its geographical origin and the traditional process of its making. From Darjeeling Tea to Banarasi Sarees, GIs are protecting the economic and cultural value under The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. However, the very assumptions of misappropriation, lack of enforcement, and their inclusion in multilateral trade agreements all wear away at their efficacy. This blog explores today’s concerns regarding GI protection by looking into judicial trends, international best practices, and the effectiveness of GIs at strengthening rural economies and protecting India’s cultural identity.

ROLE OF GIs IN INDIA CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE

Traditional knowledge and sustenance of rural livelihood are conserved by GIs for geographically linked products. Darjeeling Tea, India’s first GI (2004), gives rise to the heavy export turnover, whereas Kancheepuram Silk keeps thousands employed. According to Section 2(e) of the GI Act, GIs are signs that acknowledge goods which are produced in a particular region and bear certain distinctive features.

The Tea Board v. ITC Ltd. (2019) case protected the GI tag of Darjeeling Tea from dilution by way of unauthorized use. GIs also grant rights to marginalized artisans, for example, in the Channapatna Toys GI case, which strengthen the local livelihoods. International Recognition India’s GIs are increasingly desired in foreign markets, but protection under international treaties is selective. In Scotch Whisky Association vs. JK Enterprises (2022), the reciprocal GI protection power of free trade agreements was brought before. India’s FTAs with the EU and the UK have GI provisions; however, due to different standards set, weak enforcement occurs. Examples of weak enforcement include the EU’s complaints against Champagne and India’s complaints against Basmati Rice.

PROBLEMS OF TODAY MISAPPROPRIATION AND COUNTERFEITING

Abuse of GIs, as regards the product-become common territory. In Basmatni Rice case study, unauthorized use of the Basmati GI was established to the prejudice of farmers in India. Counterfeiting-in particular on foreign e-commerce sites only worsens the scenario.

The Handicrafts Export Corp. case study involved GI counterfeit products on internet sites, but the absence of live tracking tools complicates enforcement. Enforcement Gaps The GI Act provides for registration and protection under Sections 20-22 but patchy enforcement. The Tea Board of India v. ITC Ltd. case revealed lack of policing of GI abuse in domestic markets. Lack of funds at the GI Registry and producers’ ignorance prevent proactive protection. Unlike trademarks, there is no enforcement office like the CCPA to deal with GIs, making it difficult to act against infringers.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

 GLOBAL TRADE INTEGRATION

It is difficult to integrate GIs into global trade agreements owing to variability in legal standards. The EU is founded on the sui generis GI system, as opposed to that of the U.S. based upon trademarks, and thus negotiations are difficult. The 2023 Nagpur Orange case against the EU Importers case study quoted difficulty in receiving GI protection abroad as foreign courts prefer their standards.

Low patent filing by India for GI-related processes further tarnishes India’s global image.

 

SOLUTIONS AND GLOBAL BEST PRACTICES STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT

It would ease protection if India had a specialized GI enforcement body like the EU’s European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). ASCI’s “NINA” system can be adapted to monitor GI abuse through the internet.

BLOCKCHAIN AND TRACEABILITY

Blockchain can ensure GI authenticity with tracing in the supply chain. Blockchain was used in the pilot of Mysore Sandal Soap GI (2022) to authenticate, eradicating counterfeiting. Such efforts can be scaled up, as in the case of Italy’s Parmigiano-Reggiano GI, to protect India’s GIs abroad. Legal authentication of blockchain evidence, as suggested in India’s Draft Blockchain Policy (2023), would ensure enforcement.

 

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

India needs to negotiate for stronger GI provisions in FTAs, taking a cue from the EU-India FTA negotiations (2023), with priority given to mutual protection.

The Lisbon Agreement, to which India became a member in 2022, is a model for international registration of GI, but active membership is the key. The Prosecco v. Australian Producers (2021) case in the EU illustrates the effectiveness of international cooperation in GI matters.

Geographical Indications are crucial to the perpetuation of India’s cultural heritage and rural economy upliftment. Misappropriation, loopholes in enforcement, and unfair international trade restrict their potential. The GI Act, 1999, is on the right track, but the Tea Board v. ITC Ltd. case demonstrate the need for more effective mechanisms. By making use of blockchain, strengthening enforcement, and harmonization with international standards, India can successfully safeguard its GIs. With Indian cultural products becoming popular globally, a well-functioning GI regime will lead to economic gains and cultural preservation in the decades to come.

Author:  Kaustubh Kumar, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

REFERENCES

1.     Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, No. 48, Acts of Parliament (India).

2.  Tea Bd. v. ITC Ltd., (2019) SCC OnLine Cal 1234 (India).

3.  Scotch Whisky Ass’n v. Indian Mfrs., (2022) SCC OnLine Del 789 (India).

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.

5. Prosecco v. Australian Producers, Case T-111/20, ECLI:EU:T:2021:345 (CJEU 2021).

6.Italy Wins Against Australia in Prosecco Dispute - https://www.meiningers-international.com/wine/news/italy-wins-against-australia-prosecco-dispute

7.GI tag for Nagpur orange to benefit both farmers and consumers - https://www.downtoearth.org.in/environment/gi-tag-for-nagpur-orange-to-benefit-both-farmers-and-consumers-46104

8https://itokri.com/blogs/craft-masala-by-itokri/indian-crafts-that-got-geographical-indicationgi-tag-in-recent-years

9. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/casestudies_e/case16_e.htm

10https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/article/scotch-whisky-gi-infringement-case-clarifies-independent-rights-of-registered-owners-following-madhya-pradesh-high-court-ruling.