Fake Gi Products Enforcement India.
1. Background: Geographical Indications (GI) in India
Definition: GI indicates that a product originates from a specific geographic location and possesses qualities, reputation, or characteristics essentially linked to that origin.
Legal Basis:
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
Enforced under civil, criminal, and administrative remedies
Examples: Darjeeling Tea, Pochampally Ikat, Alphonso Mango, Kanchipuram Silk, Basmati Rice.
Fake GI products: Products sold under a GI name but not originating from the registered location or not conforming to GI specifications.
Enforcement challenges:
Identifying fake products in local and online markets.
Proving origin and quality standards.
Coordinating with authorities for seizures and prosecutions.
2. Legal Provisions for Enforcement
Section 28: Registered GI owner can restrain unauthorized use.
Section 30: Civil remedies include injunction, damages, and accounts of profits.
Section 61-63 (Criminal Offences): Use of fake GI with intent to deceive is punishable.
Customs Act: Import of fake GI products can be blocked.
Consumer Protection Act: Misrepresentation of GI can attract liability.
3. Key Cases on Fake GI Product Enforcement in India
Case 1: Tea Board of India vs Various Sellers (Darjeeling Tea)
Facts: Sellers marketed tea as “Darjeeling Tea” without meeting GI standards or originating from Darjeeling region.
Legal Issue: Misuse of GI under Section 28 and 30.
Court/Authority Action:
Civil injunctions granted.
Seizures of mislabeled products in retail markets.
Tea Board filed complaints against online platforms selling fake Darjeeling tea.
Significance: First large-scale enforcement action on a GI product; set precedent for proactive GI policing.
Case 2: Basmati Growers Association vs Traders
Facts: Non-GI rice sold as “Basmati Rice” by traders in Punjab and Haryana.
Legal Issue: Civil and criminal enforcement against misrepresentation and passing off.
Outcome:
Civil injunctions granted.
Traders required to withdraw mislabeled products.
High Court upheld Tea Board principles for rice GI protection.
Significance: GI protection extends beyond local markets; civil and criminal remedies are enforceable.
Case 3: Pochampally Ikat Weavers vs Fake Manufacturers
Facts: Weavers discovered imitation Ikat sarees sold under the GI “Pochampally Ikat.”
Legal Issue: Enforcement under civil remedies and criminal misrepresentation.
Outcome:
Andhra Pradesh High Court granted injunction and seizure of fake sarees.
Criminal complaints filed under Section 63 of GI Act.
Significance: Reinforced local artisan protection and criminal liability for fakes.
Case 4: Kanchipuram Silk Sarees Enforcement
Facts: Silk manufacturers outside Kanchipuram sold sarees labeled as Kanchipuram Silk.
Legal Issue: Misuse of GI; public deception.
Court Action:
Tamil Nadu Police coordinated with Department of Handlooms.
Seizure of hundreds of fake silk sarees at trade fairs.
Civil injunctions to prevent further sale.
Significance: Demonstrates coordination between GI owners and state enforcement agencies.
Case 5: Alphonso Mango GI Enforcement (Maharashtra / Goa)
Facts: Mangoes from Maharashtra and Goa sold as “Alphonso” in Gujarat and Delhi markets.
Legal Issue: Misrepresentation of GI.
Outcome:
Temporary injunctions issued against distributors.
Criminal notices issued to violators under Section 63 of GI Act.
Online platforms instructed to remove fake listings.
Significance: Shows territorial enforcement and online platform regulation in GI protection.
Case 6: Kesar Mango (Madhya Pradesh) vs Maharashtra Traders
Facts: Traders sold non-Kesar mangoes as GI-protected Kesar mangoes.
Outcome:
Gujarat High Court upheld GI protection.
Mislabeled stocks seized; fines imposed.
Significance: Reinforces state-level GI enforcement against cross-state counterfeit products.
Case 7: Coorg Arabica Coffee vs Fake Sellers
Facts: Coffee sold under “Coorg Coffee” GI by traders outside Karnataka.
Outcome:
Karnataka Coffee Board initiated civil action and criminal complaints.
Court granted injunctions; fines imposed.
Significance: GI enforcement protects premium agricultural products; requires state-level regulatory support.
4. Enforcement Mechanisms and Lessons Learned
Civil remedies: Injunctions, damages, accounts of profits (Sections 28, 30).
Criminal enforcement: Fines and imprisonment for misrepresentation (Section 63).
Customs and online enforcement: Prevent import and e-commerce listing of fake GI products.
Coordination with State Agencies: Local artisan groups + police + GI authorities enhance enforcement.
Consumer awareness campaigns: Educating buyers reduces demand for fake GI products.
5. Summary Table of Key GI Enforcement Cases in India
| Case | GI Product | Offending Party | Enforcement Action | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tea Board vs Sellers | Darjeeling Tea | Tea sellers/online sellers | Civil injunction, seizure | Fake products removed | Landmark GI enforcement |
| Basmati Growers vs Traders | Basmati Rice | Traders in Punjab/Haryana | Civil & criminal action | Withdrawal of mislabeled rice | GI extends to food crops |
| Pochampally Weavers vs Manufacturers | Pochampally Ikat | Imitation sarees | Injunction + seizure | Criminal complaints filed | Artisan protection |
| Kanchipuram Silk | Silk manufacturers outside TN | Trade fairs, retailers | Seizure, injunction | Fake sarees removed | State-agency coordination |
| Alphonso Mango | Alphonso Mango | Traders outside origin | Injunction + online removal | Fake listings blocked | Online GI protection |
| Kesar Mango | Kesar Mango | Traders mislabeling | Civil & criminal remedies | Stocks seized, fines imposed | Cross-state GI enforcement |
| Coorg Coffee | Coorg Arabica | Non-GI sellers | Civil & criminal action | Fines, injunctions | Protect premium agricultural GI |
6. Key Takeaways
Fake GI enforcement is active in India, particularly for agricultural products, textiles, and luxury goods.
Protection is multi-layered: civil injunctions, criminal penalties, and regulatory interventions.
Online marketplaces are a growing enforcement frontier.
Coordination between GI owners, state authorities, and police is critical.
Awareness and consumer education are essential to maintain GI integrity.
RELATED Blog
comments