Geographical Indications (GIs) play a crucial role in protecting goods that derive their unique qualities, reputation, and characteristics from their geographical origin. In India, GIs are governed by the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which came into force in 2003. This Act provides a robust legal framework for registration, protection, and enforcement of GI rights.

Case laws in India, developed through decisions of High Courts and the Supreme Court, have shaped the jurisprudence around GI protection. These judgments interpret the scope of GI rights, outline the responsibilities of producers, clarify the extent of protection, and address misuse or infringement.

This article discusses the key case laws on GI protection in India, analysing the factual background, legal provisions, judicial reasoning, and the implications of these decisions. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how Indian courts have approached GI protection.

I. Legal Framework for GI Protection

Before analysing case laws, it is important to understand the statutory foundation governing GIs in India.

1. Definition of GI (Section 2(1)(e))

A Geographical Indication is:

“an indication which identifies such goods as originating or manufactured in the territory of a country, region or locality, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.”

2. Registration Procedure (Sections 11–17)

Key provisions include:

• Section 11 – Who may apply for GI registration
• Section 12 – Examination
• Section 13 – Opposition
• Section 16 – Registration
• Section 17 – Authorised users

3. Protection and Infringement (Sections 21–39)

Section 21 grants exclusive rights to registered proprietors and authorised users.
Section 22 defines GI infringement, which includes:

• using GI on non-authentic goods,
• misleading consumers,
• unfair competition through false GI claims.

4. Remedies (Sections 67–75)

The Act provides:

• civil remedies (injunctions, damages, accounts of profits),
• criminal remedies (imprisonment and fines),
• confiscation of infringing goods.

With this framework, the courts interpret and enforce GI rights through various landmark judgments.

II. Landmark Case Laws on GI Protection in India

1. Tea Board of India v. ITC Limited (2011)

Calcutta High Court

Background

Darjeeling Tea was India’s first registered GI. The Tea Board of India, as the registered proprietor, objected to ITC’s use of the term “Darjeeling Lounge” for a restaurant at its Kolkata hotel.

The Tea Board argued that such usage amounted to GI infringement and dilution of reputation under the GI Act.

Key Issues

1. Does GI protection extend to services?
2. Can the word “Darjeeling” be used outside the tea trade?

Judgment

The Court held:

• GI protection under the GI Act applies only to goods, not services.
• The term “Darjeeling Lounge” for a hospitality service does not mislead consumers into believing it is selling Darjeeling Tea.
• No infringement was established.

Significance

This judgment clarified:

• GIs protect goods, not service industries.
• The scope of GI protection must be interpreted strictly based on statutory text.

2. Scotch Whisky Association v. Golden Bottling Ltd. (2006)

Delhi High Court

Background

The Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) challenged Indian manufacturers who used the term “Scotch” for locally made whisky. The GI “Scotch Whisky” is associated exclusively with whisky distilled and matured in Scotland.

Legal Issue

Whether using “Scotch” for Indian-made liquor constitutes GI infringement and passing off.

Judgment

The Court held:

• “Scotch” denotes origin; using it for Indian whisky misleads consumers.
• It constitutes unfair competition and wrongful appropriation of a GI.
• The defendants were restrained from using the term.

Significance

• Reinforced GI protection for foreign GIs in India.
• Established that GIs cannot be diluted by false association with unrelated goods.

3. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Scotch Whisky Association (2008)

Supreme Court of India

Background

Khoday Distilleries attempted to market a whisky brand using the term “Scotch.”

Judgment

The Supreme Court held:

• Misuse of “Scotch” amounts to deception.
• GI rights protect both consumer interest and producer reputation.
• Passing off principles apply alongside GI law.

Significance

The judgment emphasised consumer protection as a core principle underlying GI enforcement.

4. Tea Board of India v. I.T.C. Hotels (Earlier Proceedings)

Trademark Opposition Context

In earlier disputes related to trademark filings by ITC containing the word “Darjeeling,” the Tea Board opposed such registrations.

Holding

The GI cannot be monopolised beyond its context, and not every usage of a geographical word results in infringement.

5. Rasgulla GI Dispute – Odisha vs. West Bengal (2017)

Although not a judicial case strictly, this administrative dispute attracted national attention.

Background

Both Odisha and West Bengal claimed GI rights over “Rasgulla.”
West Bengal received the GI for “Banglar Rasogolla,” while Odisha received GI for “Odisha Rasagola.”

Legal Significance

• Demonstrated the role of regional culture in GI recognition.
• Highlighted that GI can exist separately for similar products if they meet distinct geographical and cultural criteria.

6. Krishna District Rasakala Makara Sankranti Committee v. Andhra Pradesh Government (GI Implementation Case)

Background

The dispute concerned Nabanna products and whether producers were being properly designated as authorised users.

Significance

Highlighted the importance of:

• fair procedures in declaring authorised users,
• transparent GI governance.

7. Indian Cooperatives v. Foreign Trademarks – The Basmati Case (Multiple Jurisdictions)

A series of disputes arose when foreign companies attempted to trademark the term “Basmati” for rice grown outside India.

Key Principle

• “Basmati” denotes reputation linked to the Indo-Gangetic region.
• It cannot be appropriated by growers elsewhere.
• GI rights reflect both geographical specificity and traditional cultivation methods.

Impact

These proceedings strengthened recognition of Basmati as a GI-like product internationally.

8. Tirupati Laddu GI Dispute

Background

The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams sought GI protection for the famous temple sweet “Tirupati Laddu.”

Challenges arose claiming that religious offerings should not qualify for GI.

Judgment

The GI Registry upheld the GI because:

• the Laddu has unique characteristics,
• preparation is linked intrinsically to the Tirupati temple,
• it meets GI Act requirements.

Significance

Expanded the understanding of GIs beyond handicrafts and agricultural goods.

9. Pochampally Ikat GI Enforcement Disputes

Multiple cases involved counterfeit Ikat being marketed as authentic Pochampally Ikat.

Courts upheld rights of local weavers, stating:

• GI protects traditional weaving techniques,
• machine-made imitations constitute infringement.

These cases reinforced the value of the GI community mechanism.

10. Haldiram Bhujiawala Case (Though Trademark, Relevant for GI Principles)

Supreme Court

Reason for Relevance

This case, though primarily concerning trademark and passing off, clarified:

• geographical names can acquire distinctiveness,
• misuse of such names can mislead the public.

This reasoning supports GI protection and the principles of unfair competition.

III. Principles Established Through Case Laws

Through these and many other cases, Indian courts have laid down important principles concerning GI protection.

1. GIs Apply Only to Goods, Not Services

Established definitively in Tea Board v. ITC.

2. GIs Are Origin-Based, Not Brand-Based

• Ownership lies with producer groups.
• Protection extends only to authentic producers.

3. GI Protection Prevents Misrepresentation

Courts emphasise:

• consumer protection,
• avoidance of confusion,
• safeguarding heritage.

4. GI Enforcement Works Alongside Passing Off

Established in Khoday Distilleries.

5. GIs Protect Cultural and Traditional Knowledge

Disputes like:

• Rasgulla
• Pashmina enforcement
• Banarasi Sarees against powerloom imitations

highlight cultural preservation as a central purpose.

6. GI Protection Is Territorial but Internationally Respected

Indian courts recognise foreign GIs (e.g., Scotch), demonstrating reciprocal respect for GI protection.

IV. Challenges Highlighted Through Case Laws

Judicial decisions also reveal systemic challenges.

1. Enforcement Difficulty

Imitations and counterfeits continue to proliferate, especially on:

• e-commerce platforms,
• local markets,
• international trade routes.

2. Narrow Interpretation of GI Scope

The ruling in Tea Board v. ITC reflects limits in expanding GI protection outside goods.

3. Producer Community Gaps

Cases involving Ikat, Pashmina, and Basmati highlight the need for strong producer organisations.

4. Cross-Border Conflicts

Foreign misuse of Indian GIs requires international cooperation.

V. Impact of Case Laws on India’s GI Ecosystem

The case laws discussed have significantly shaped how GI rights operate in India.

1. Strengthening Legal Awareness

Judicial interpretations help clarify:

• what constitutes GI infringement,
• who is eligible to use the GI,
• boundaries of enforcement.

2. Encouraging Producer Participation

Communities now understand the value of registering and enforcing GI rights.

3. Preventing Dilution of Famous Regional Brands

Cases involving Darjeeling Tea, Scotch Whisky, and Basmati Rice have helped preserve the integrity of famous names

4. Promoting Consumer Trust

Judicial backing increases consumer confidence in products bearing GI labels.

5. Protecting Cultural and Economic Interests

Case laws affirm that GI protection is not just about commerce but also about:

• safeguarding heritage,
• protecting livelihoods,
• promoting sustainable development.

Conclusion

Indian courts have played an essential role in shaping GI protection through a series of influential judgments. These decisions reflect the purpose and spirit of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which aims to protect the authenticity of region-specific goods, preserve cultural heritage, and prevent unfair competition.

Key judgments such as Tea Board v. ITC, Scotch Whisky Association v. Golden Bottling, and Khoday Distilleries v. Scotch Whisky Association have clarified the scope, boundaries, and enforcement of GI rights. At the same time, disputes involving Rasgulla, Pochampally Ikat, Tirupati Laddu, and Basmati Rice highlight how deeply regional identity is tied to GI protection.

These case laws collectively demonstrate that GI protection is much more than a legal mechanism—it is a vital tool for safeguarding traditional knowledge, empowering local communities, and preserving India’s rich cultural legacy. As global interest in authentic, sustainable, and region-specific products grows, the importance of robust GI protection and judicial clarity will only become more significant.