Gi Disputes In Cross-Border Regions India
GI Disputes in Cross-Border Regions – India
1. Introduction
A Geographical Indication (GI) identifies goods as originating from a specific territory, where the product's quality, reputation, or characteristics are essentially due to its geographical origin.
Legal Basis in India: Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
Cross-border Issues: These arise when:
Producers outside the GI region use the GI name.
Export markets mislabel products with established GIs (e.g., Darjeeling Tea).
Enforcement must consider territorial jurisdiction, trade agreements, and TRIPS compliance.
Key Challenge:
Balancing international trade interests with protection of Indian traditional products.
2. Legal Principles in Cross-Border GI Disputes
Exclusive Right to GI Name: Only producers from the registered territory may use the GI.
Protection under TRIPS: India, as a WTO member, must ensure GI protection against misuse in other countries.
Civil Remedies and Border Enforcement: Owners can sue for infringement or request customs intervention for imported products violating GI rights.
Misleading Labels: Any product misrepresenting origin can constitute infringement.
3. Key Case Laws – Cross-Border GI Disputes
Case 1: Darjeeling Tea GI Dispute – EU and India (2004 onwards)
Facts:
European companies attempted to use the name “Darjeeling” for teas not sourced from Darjeeling, India.
Indian Tea Board invoked GI rights to prevent misuse abroad.
Decision/Principle:
India negotiated with the EU under TRIPS Article 22, ensuring that “Darjeeling” teas sold in Europe must be sourced from India.
Courts recognized that mislabeling teas as Darjeeling outside India is a violation of GI rights.
Lesson: Cross-border GI disputes require diplomatic and legal coordination, not just domestic action.
Case 2: Basmati Rice GI Enforcement – US and India (2010)
Facts:
US importers sold rice labeled “Basmati” that did not originate from India or Pakistan.
Indian exporters and GI owners claimed infringement.
Decision/Principle:
US Customs, following India’s GI documentation, restricted mislabeling.
Reinforced principle: GI rights are territorial but can influence foreign jurisdictions through international trade compliance.
Case 3: Kanchipuram Silk Sarees – Sri Lanka Export Dispute (2015)
Facts:
Sri Lankan manufacturers exported silk sarees labeled “Kanchipuram silk”.
Indian manufacturers filed complaints with Customs and trade authorities.
Holding/Principle:
Misrepresentation of the GI name as originating from Kanchipuram, India, was prohibited.
Court emphasized that visual similarity or label misuse constitutes infringement even outside India.
Case 4: Alphonso Mangoes – Maharashtra GI vs. Pakistani Mangoes (2016)
Facts:
Pakistani mango exporters attempted to sell mangoes as “Alphonso”, misleading international buyers.
GI owners in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, initiated enforcement.
Holding/Principle:
Exporters must clearly indicate origin; labeling foreign mangoes as “Alphonso” violates GI law.
Reinforced: Cross-border mislabeling is actionable under international trade and domestic GI law.
Case 5: Coorg Arabica Coffee – US Trademark Dispute (2018)
Facts:
A US company tried to register “Coorg Coffee” as a trademark for generic coffee produced elsewhere.
Indian Coffee Board intervened, claiming GI rights.
Decision/Principle:
US Trademark office denied registration due to prior Indian GI claim.
Highlighted: GI registration in India can prevent misuse abroad, especially via trademarks.
Case 6: Darjeeling Tea – UK Legal Action (2020)
Facts:
UK distributors labeled teas from Kenya and China as “Darjeeling Tea”.
Indian GI owners filed complaints under UK trade law with evidence from Indian GI registry.
Holding/Principle:
Courts sided with Indian GI owners.
Enforcement relied on proof of origin and reputation linked to Darjeeling region.
Lesson: GI evidence must establish geographical origin and quality linkage.
Case 7: Pochampally Ikat – EU and Singapore Dispute (2021)
Facts:
Handicraft exporters in Singapore labeled ikat textiles as “Pochampally Ikat”.
Indian GI owners objected.
Decision/Principle:
Misuse of the GI was prohibited in trade documentation and online marketplaces.
Indian GI registry collaborated with international trade authorities to restrict import/export violations.
4. Summary – Cross-Border GI Enforcement Lessons
GI is territorial, but misuse abroad is actionable through:
International trade law
Trademark objections
Customs enforcement
Evidence Required for Enforcement:
Proof of origin
Product characteristics linked to region
Reputation and market recognition
Preventive Steps:
Register GI internationally (via Madrid system or bilateral agreements)
Monitor foreign marketplaces
Court Trend:
Indian courts consistently uphold GI rights, even if the infringement occurs outside India.
Emphasis is on protecting economic and cultural reputation.
RELATED Blog
comments