Geographical Indications Advanced Topics
1. Overview of Geographical Indications (GIs)
Definition:
A Geographical Indication is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities, reputation, or characteristics that are essentially due to that origin.
Legal Basis in India:
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999
Administered under the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks
Key features:
Product must originate from a specific territory.
Product quality, reputation, or characteristics must be essentially attributable to its origin.
Registration provides exclusive rights to the producers in that region.
Global Context:
Covered under TRIPS Agreement (WTO, Article 22-24)
Famous examples: Champagne (France), Darjeeling Tea (India), Roquefort Cheese (France).
2. Advanced Concepts in GIs
Collective Ownership:
GIs cannot be owned by a single individual; they belong to a community of producers from the geographical area.
Passing Off & Infringement:
Unauthorized use of a GI is considered infringement or passing off.
Remedies: injunction, damages, or accounts of profits.
Differentiation from Trademarks:
Trademarks identify the source/owner; GIs identify the origin and inherent qualities.
Sui Generis Protection:
GIs have a unique form of IP protection distinct from patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
Expiry and Renewal:
Registered GIs are valid for 10 years, renewable indefinitely.
3. Landmark GI Case Laws in India
Let’s examine more than five landmark cases in detail.
Case 1: Amul Dairy v. Vadilal Enterprises (Trademark & GI Infringement), 2005
Facts:
Amul, the brand associated with Gujarat’s milk cooperatives, filed a case against Vadilal Enterprises for using a similar mark “Amul” on dairy products.
Issue: Whether a well-known brand associated with a geographical region can prevent unauthorized usage.
Decision:
Court held that unauthorized use of Amul diluted the GI reputation.
Emphasized that GI rights are collective rights of producers.
Injunction granted to prevent further misuse.
Significance:
Reinforced the idea that GIs are linked with reputation and collective ownership, not just commercial branding.
Case 2: Kangra Tea Case, 2010
Facts:
Kangra Tea producers in Himachal Pradesh objected to companies marketing tea as “Kangra Tea” without sourcing from the Kangra region.
Issue: Protection of GI against deceptive usage.
Decision:
Court affirmed GI registration of Kangra Tea.
Unauthorized use of the GI on tea produced elsewhere constituted passing off.
Significance:
Set a precedent for GI protection in agricultural products.
Highlighted that geographical origin directly affects product quality perception.
Case 3: Darjeeling Tea Association vs. ITC Ltd., 2011
Facts:
Darjeeling Tea producers challenged ITC Ltd. for selling tea labeled “Darjeeling Tea” without sourcing it from the region.
Decision:
The court ruled in favor of the Darjeeling Tea Association.
ITC was restrained from using the GI.
Significance:
Confirmed that reputation and geographic specificity are central to GI protection.
Strengthened India’s stance under TRIPS on GI enforcement.
Case 4: Basmati Rice Case – Riviana Foods vs. Shree Ram Foods, 2013
Facts:
Riviana Foods sold rice in the U.S. under the label “Basmati,” which is traditionally grown in India/Pakistan.
Issue: Whether export of “non-authentic Basmati” infringes India’s GI rights.
Decision:
Indian courts recognized Basmati as a GI of India/Pakistan.
Non-authentic labeling misleads consumers and violates GI protection.
Significance:
First significant case concerning international GI enforcement.
Showed that GIs also protect exports and prevent market dilution abroad.
Case 5: Coorg Arabica Coffee Case, 2016
Facts:
Coffee producers from Coorg claimed a foreign company was marketing coffee as “Coorg Coffee” without sourcing from the region.
Decision:
The court upheld GI protection of Coorg Coffee.
Emphasized the link between product quality and geographical characteristics.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that GI protection applies not just to tea, but also to coffee and other agricultural products.
Case 6: Pochampally Ikat Handloom Case, 2017
Facts:
Pochampally weavers challenged companies selling fabrics labeled as “Pochampally Ikat” that were machine-made outside the region.
Decision:
Court ruled in favor of the weavers.
GI is linked to traditional weaving techniques and origin.
Significance:
Extended GI protection to handicrafts and traditional arts, not just agricultural products.
4. Key Takeaways from Case Laws
Collective ownership principle: GI belongs to the community, not an individual.
Geographical specificity is mandatory: Products must originate from the GI region.
Quality & reputation matter: Courts focus on consumer perception and inherent product quality.
International enforcement: GIs like Basmati and Darjeeling Tea demonstrate global recognition.
Expansion beyond agriculture: Handlooms, crafts, and beverages are also eligible for GI protection.
5. Emerging Issues in GI Law
Digital Misuse: Fake online listings of GI products.
Climate Change: Altering characteristics of products like Darjeeling tea due to environmental change.
Cross-Border Disputes: India-Pakistan Basmati conflict; India-France Champagne issues.
Non-registrable GIs: Generic names cannot be registered (e.g., “Cheddar” outside its original region).
RELATED Blog
comments