Weaving Legal Identity: Geographical Indications as a Tool for Protecting India’sTraditional Textile Heritage in the Global Fashion Market

Abstract

While India’s traditional textile industry, which includes famous handlooms such as Banarasi silk, Pashmina, Pochampally Ikat, and Kanjivaram, can be considered not only a business asset but also the repository of culture, identity, and heritage craftsmanship developed over the years, in today’s globalized market for fashion products, the same Indian traditional textiles are increasingly facing cases of cultural misappropriation and appropriation by both domestic and foreign companies and individuals who earn profits out of their imitation of these textiles without any liability or accountability towards the culture they have borrowed. This paper seeks to discuss whether India’s Geographical Indication laws, based on the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999[1], when read along with the TRIPS Agreement[2], provide sufficient protection to Indian traditional textiles against such misappropriation. After conducting a doctrinal legal research along with a comparative analysis of the EU sui generis geographical indication regime, this article shall argue that while a GI registration does give rise to a collective identity based on origin, it remains structurally insufficient to address the full spectrum of threats faced by Indian textile heritage, including technique replication, design imitation, and cross-border enforcement failures.

Introduction

Walk through any crowded street market in Varanasi, and there is every chance that you will come across someone selling what they confidently say is “genuine Banarasi silk”  fine and heavy fabric that comes at an oddly low price. Anyone who knows about textiles would be able to tell right away the difference, especially anyone from the Madanpura weaving community itself. What is being sold is not hand-woven silk but rather machine-made fabric, probably made in the factories of Surat, devoid of the 1,200-year-old history of Banarasi silk. This is not an isolated anecdote. It reflects an endemic flaw at the nexus of intellectual property laws and cultural preservation efforts, which India’s judiciary has been unable to wholly address.

There exist over 35 recognized GIs in India in the field of textiles and handloom products alone, positioning India as among those countries richest in GIs for their traditional crafts. It is in recognition of such exploitation, and protection of rights for local producers, that the Government of India had enacted the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act[3], 1999, which seeks to provide the producers community with an entity defined by geographic location. While on paper the law seems comprehensive enough, in real it is a more complicated story. In other words, the fashion world has an uncomfortable relationship towards the culture and history of the products. Luxury brands have constantly borrowed elements of traditional South Asian weaving, printing and embroidery techniques, launching them in their collections worldwide without recognition, compensation or legal repercussions. On a national level, meanwhile, mass-produced copies of registered GIs keep flooding the local market and threatening to deprive generations of artisans of their source of income. In this way, the effectiveness of the GI protection in India is only as high as the level of enforcement provided for by the respective legislation.

Thus, the main question addressed in this article is rather clear does the GI system in place in India offer sufficient legal protection to Indian textiles in the international fashion market? The proposed answer to this question is that it does not, but not because of any flaws in the system itself, but rather due to a lack of consideration for the contemporary reality of the modern fashion economy.

Background & Conceptual Framework

The number of Geographical Indications in India is more than 658 till date. The GI’s in India are classified into five categories: handicrafts, agricultural products, foods, manufactures, and natural products. To register the geographical indication, a triplicate application has to be made first, which is further examined for any shortcomings or discrepancies. If there are any objections raised by the Registrar regarding the application, then the applicant will be notified accordingly and he has to reply to the notice within two months of receipt of the notice or can file a petition for hearing. After the acceptance of application it needs to be published in the geographical indications journal and any third party can raise objection for the application. After hearing both the parties, registrar shall decide whether to accept the application with or without limitations or conditions. Registration of the GI will be done after correction and amendment of the GI. It is valid for 10 years from the date of application and can be renewed by paying the renewal fee. According to section 21 of the Act, an authorized user (A producer of the goods in respect of which geographical indication has been registered) is allowed certain rights in terms of indication i.e. in case of infringement , they can seek relief but these rights are with certain limitations[4]. Despite the GI Act of 1999 allowing the exclusive use of geographical indications only to the proprietor and authorized users, the need for each artisan to independently submit GI form GI-2 for such designation is an exercise which many grassroots weavers are unaware of or cannot afford. Before 1999 there was no particular law regulating geographical indication. In 1999 it was in fulfillment of its obligation under TRIPS Agreement that India enacted the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act[5], 1999. This law aims to provide for the registration and proper protection of geographical indication with respect to goods. The Indian Judiciary has played an important role especially in the absence of any legislation which may protect geographical indication. It has used common law principle of passing off as suits Indian conditions in cases of geographical indication. The courts have granted injunction against the defendant restraining him from advertising and selling or distributing in any country goods (including wines and spirits) when he engages in colorable imitation and unfair trading to gain profits through exploitation of goodwill of goods which belong to a particular geographical location. Thus the Indian judiciary fulfills the purpose of articles 22 and 23 of the TRIPS Agreement even before its creation.[6] The international regime governing geographical indication protection pre-dates the fashion industry by many decades. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property[7],1883 is one of the early international intellectual property instruments to which India is a party which represents the basis of the international regime for geographical indication protection. Under Article 10 of the Convention, goods which bear false indications of origin may be subject to sequestration upon their entry into the country. Article 10 bis further obligates the member countries to protect against unfair acts of competition within their jurisdictions. This would certainly apply to situations where foreign fashion houses replicate Indian fashion labels abroad. Nevertheless, like all other international laws of a considerably older vintage, the Paris Convention was framed in a time when no one could envision the extent of globalization and hence does not contain any provisions to address the unique issues arising from the use of traditional Indian textiles in today’s fashion industry. In light of the modern WIPO system, two issues stand out. The first is the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin which came into effect in 1958 but has been amended significantly in 2015 via the Geneva Act. The Geneva Act allows for an easier way of registering geographical indications in an international capacity via a single application through WIPO. India’s membership in 2018 to the Geneva Act provided India the opportunity to register its geographical indications such as Darjeeling Tea, Basmati, and certain textile geographical indications in all Lisbon members. This brings us to our second issue. While India can now protect its geographical indications in all the Lisbon members, the US is one of the largest market destinations for Indian textiles which remain outside of the scope of this agreement. Additionally, the Intergovernmental Committee of WIPO on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, has been involved in discussions in a bid to reach a legally binding international agreement for the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, both of which have direct relevance to Indian textiles. India has been one of the most vociferous participants in this discussion, pushing for greater commitment at the multilateral level. As of 2024, however, these negotiations have not yet borne fruit, and India still does not have any internationally binding instrument governing the protection of traditional textile designs.[8] In Imperial Tobacco Co v Registrar[9], Trade Marks the Calcutta High Court explained to the following concept of ‘geographic term’ namely: “Geographical terms and words in common use designate a locality, a country, or a section of country which cannot be monopolized as trademarks; but a geographical name not used in geographical sense to denote place of origin, but used in an arbitrary or fanciful way to indicate origin or ownership regardless of location, may be sustained as a valid trademark.”[10] India’s GI registry includes many major textiles:

Legal analysis

It would not be fair to say that the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999[12] was an entirely ineffective piece of legislation for the purpose of providing legal protection to textile artisans. On the contrary, the scheme has made some positive contributions to the Indian producers in a number of ways. Most importantly, the geographical indication provides the community of the producers with a common legal entity which enables them to make, in unity, a claim against any commercial competitor regarding the uniqueness of the product.[13] It is especially important in the textile industry because an individual artisan will be unable to take legal steps against an imitating business due to his/her inability to cover the costs of litigation. The rights granted by the GI are vested in the proprietor, who acts as an umbrella institution.[14]

Nevertheless, there are inherent weaknesses in the GI approach, acutely visible when examined against the realities of the contemporary fashion industry. First, the scope of protection under the Act is too narrow, in the sense that a geographical indication covers the link between the name of a fabric and its geographical origin, but it does not cover the weaving process used, the pattern employed, or the artistic vocabulary embedded within the textile itself[15]. In effect, this implies that an industrial unit manufacturing textiles outside the region covered by the geographical indication can lawfully reproduce all the aesthetic and technical qualities of a Banarasi saree right down to its zari brocade, kadwa weave, and specific silk content as long as it does not describe the product as “Banarasi Silk.” Such lacunae have brought about adverse effects, both in the domestic sphere as well as internationally. Chinese companies have been manufacturing machine-made replicas of Banarasi silk and Pashmina shawls for decades now, selling the same at a much lower price than the genuine product without violating the GI Act in any way.[16] The artisan communities of India are left with little choice when it comes to legally dealing with this problem, which deprives them of their traditional products without ever amounting to a recognizable legal wrong. What is especially disconcerting about this scenario is that of genericization; an eventuality that has been recognized in legal scholarship as the end result of inadequate protection of GI’s. As per the literature available on GI law, genericization occurs when a GI comes to be used as a description for the entire category of the product and not for its particular geographic origin.[17] Such a use renders the GI ineffective as a legal protection, rendering it incapable of distinguishing genuine goods from their imitations through common usage in the market. The same indicia which were meant to be protected by legislation themselves, due to consistent misuse, become unable to fulfill the role of GI’s, a scenario which the Act does not provide any means to avoid. If the names of Banarasi and Pashmina become the common terms for all zari woven fabric and fine woolen fabric respectively, then the registration itself will become meaningless. The criminal penalties provided in Section 39 of the Act, which include imprisonment of three years or more and monetary penalties for violations of GI rights, have not been enforced to any significant degree in the textile sector.[18] The Act does not appoint any enforcement mechanism, and there is no requirement for the GI Registry to proactively monitor any activity. There is a complete lack of proactivity in the enforcement of the Act since all enforcement is complaint-based, requiring the producer association itself to bring a complaint.

The limitations of protection provided by GIs independently point towards the necessity of having an alternative legal mechanism to assist in protecting these textile heritage. Trademark certification, as provided in the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (such as the trademark “India Handloom”), can be used in conjunction with GIs to give active market protection based on quality.[19] Copyright, under the Copyright Act, 1957, provides limited protection, being applicable only to certain specific artistic expressions of the textile traditions rather than the tradition itself.[20] The Designs Act, 2000 is also limited by its novelty requirement, since the textile patterns, as mentioned earlier, have been in existence for many generations already.[21] Thus, together, these limitations make it evident that there exists no existing legal mechanism to address all the problems faced by Indian textiles effectively.

International Enforcement Problem

Indeed, the weaknesses of the GI regime within India’s national law become even more evident when the perspective changes from the domestic to the international level. Through the TRIPS Agreement, Articles 22 and 23, member states are bound to ensure a minimum level of GI protection within their laws.[22] However, as stated above, the TRIPS Agreement sets a minimum standard for IP protection, and there is room for discretion on part of the member states regarding the extent of GI protection that is provided. In relation to the special protection of a GI as stipulated in Article 23, the prohibition against using any GI for products not originating from that area, even if the true origin is indicated, is applicable to wines and spirits only, an aspect that has been harshly criticized by developing nations due to its clear bias toward Europe and its wine-producing industries.[23]

The EU’s sui generis GI scheme represents a striking contrast. According to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012[24] concerning quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and the larger EU framework of protection of geographical indications, GIs registered within the EU are granted a form of protection which goes beyond mere identification, evocation, imitation, and any exploitation of the reputation of the indicated product.[25] Such a form of protection surpasses the standard set by TRIPS and the GI Act itself. In fact, in order to be protected under the GI Act, Indian textile GIs would need to register their indication in the foreign country with no assurance of recognition or equivalency within the foreign registration.

Even with its bilateral trade agreements, India has been unsuccessful in closing this loophole. While ongoing negotiations with the EU for a Free Trade Agreement in which the recognition of geographical indications remains a controversial issue have taken place without resulting in the conclusion of any kind of bilateral agreement on GI mutual recognition that would protect Indian textile GIs in the major international fashion industry markets,[26] artisan communities in India risk legal exposure abroad.

Case Law Discussion

Tea Board of India v ITC[27] Limited (2011)

Facts:

The Tea Board of India, the proprietor of the registered Geographical Indication (GI) “Darjeeling,” initiated legal action against ITC Limited, which had set up a “Darjeeling Lounge” in its Kolkata hotel. It was argued that usage of the term “Darjeeling” in association with a hospitality service without authorization infringed on the said registered GI by passing off through exploitation of the reputation and goodwill of the Darjeeling brand name.

Judgment Delivered:

The Calcutta High Court ruled that a registered geographical indication under the Geographical Indications of Goods Act, 1999 would be applicable only to goods and would not extend to services. As such, inasmuch as the defendant’s lounge provided a service and not a product, the plaintiff’s registered GI was not infringed. The Court observed, however, that considering the goodwill and reputation associated with the Darjeeling indication, a case of passing off could still be pursued separately before an appropriate forum.[28]

Legal Principle Established:

In this case, it has been made clear through an interpretive limitation that under the present laws in place in India, goods but not services are covered under the Geographical Indications regime of the country, as per Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. In addition, it was established in this case that even without being able to make a claim for infringement of Geographical Indication, goodwill associated with GI may still constitute passing off.[29]

The relevance of this case to the Geographical Indication in textiles lies in its highlighting a loophole in the legislation process. It has been observed that in the modern fashion economy,  luxury brands and hospitality companies increasingly exploit the cultural cachet of heritage textile names  using terms like “Banarasi,” “Kashmiri,” or “Pashmina” in branding, interior design, and marketing  without association with any products. Such cases clearly fall outside the ambit of the Act, which goes to highlight the importance of this article’s main argument that Geographical Indications in themselves cannot provide adequate protection.[30]

Scotch Whisky Association v Golden Bottling Ltd (2006)[31]

Facts:

In relation to its claim of passing off its product called Scotch Whisky which is a geographical indication in accordance with the laws of UK as well as internationally, the Scotch Whisky Association instituted a suit against Golden Bottling Ltd., a company operating in India which markets the product “Red Scot.” In this case, it was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the product in question was made in such a way that it imitated the reputation of Scotch Whisky and gave an impression to customers that it is a product of Scotch Whisky.

Judgment Delivered:

The Delhi High Court granted relief to the Scotch Whisky Association by passing an order of permanent injunction against the use of the name “Red Scot” and similar denominations of Scotch Whisky. In passing this decision, the Court concluded that the defendant’s act amount to passing off since the name “Red Scot” was used to create false impression among consumers and to trade upon the reputation of Scotch Whisky.[32]

Legal Principle Established:

In this case, the doctrine has been established beyond doubt that passing off constitutes a parallel and supplementary remedy when GI registration fails to grant sufficient statutory remedies. In this regard, it has been held that goodwill in the context of a geographical indication, including a foreign registered GI, can be protected by passing off if three fundamental criteria[33] i.e. goodwill, misrepresentation and damage, are proved.[34]

For Indian textile GIs, this case holds enormous importance. This case implies that artisan groups and producer organizations do not have to depend solely on the complaint-based system provided under the GI Act. Rather, a case for passing off can be filed in the Indian court of law even if the defendant has used an identical mark but not the actual name of the GI, making use of the reputation built around that particular textile GI. For example, Banarasi silk and Pashmina producers who find domestic counterfeiters that do not use the registered name but copy everything else in their products will benefit from this case considerably.[35]

Critical Analysis and Findings

The journey of GIs in India is marked by an interesting paradox which has been highlighted all through this article. While there has been an increase in the number of registered geographical indications today, over 400 registered GIs in textiles, handicrafts, and agricultural goods can be found in India, marking the legislative intent behind origin-based protection.[36] However, there is more to the issue of GI registration than meets the eye. It is the fact that registering without enforcing does not serve any real purpose, particularly in the textiles industry.

At the ground level, there is a serious discrepancy between rights and realities. It is likely for most of the weavers who practice in Varanasi, Kanchipuram, or Kutch to have no idea about the existence of the registered GI or even the necessity for registering themselves as authorized users, in accordance with Section 17 of the GI Act.[37] A related structural issue is that the GI Act 1999 is not a law geared towards protecting cultural heritage. The law simply fails to match up with the speed and sophistication of today’s fashion industry, which commercializes ethnic cultures and employs aesthetics in a complex process. The act itself does not adequately cover such complexities.[38]

A brief look at the EU’s approach in Protected Designations of Origin and Protected Geographical Indication provides an idea of how the issue might be approached if more care were taken by the legislature  including not only protecting the name, but the entire method and reputation cultivated throughout generations.[39] In a number of recent cases in India, the doctrine of passing off has been creatively used in court by judges to address some of the issues left behind by the law, as seen in the Scotch whisky case.[40]

Recommendations

Four key proposals for reform are put forward in this Article:

The first is that the GI Act 1999 be revised to protect more than just geographical names, but also weaving processes and design language integral to any registered textile GI thus bringing India’s legislation closer in line with that of the EU, which features a sui generis approach.

Secondly, there should be the creation of a GI Enforcement Authority that actively monitors and enforces GI rights, rather than relying solely on reactive complaints brought by underfunded producer associations.

Thirdly, a mandatory artisan awareness programme across India must become a requirement for renewing GI registration so that artisans themselves are aware of their rights and can register as authorized users.

Finally, India should expedite its bilateral negotiations on mutual GI recognition in textiles especially with the European Union and the UK to protect its GIs abroad in international fashion markets without having to register again abroad.

Collectively, such measures will ensure that GI registration in India does not simply become a passive process, but rather an active means of cultural and economic protection, one that will actually protect the invaluable textile heritage that the current system nominally preserves.[41]

Conclusion

The Indian system of geographical indications based on the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999[42] provides an example of an honest legal effort to ensure the protection of the traditional textile heritage of India that remains structurally flawed in its execution. As shown above, while registration grants collective legal identity to the producer communities, only the geographic origin receives legal protection leaving open the issue of the protection of the technique used, the design vocabulary employed and the cultural knowledge embodied in the fabric. Thus, it is clear that the answer to the research question, ‘Is there sufficient protection of traditional Indian textiles within the existing Indian system of protection of GIs in the global fashion market?’, should be provided in the negative. Protection that can never become enforceable due to lack of awareness, protection that leaves producers unprotected in the international arena as compared to wines, is definitely not an example of sufficient legal protection for India’s unique textile heritage.

References and Bibliography

Books

1. Dev Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (Cambridge University Press 2012)

 Cases

1. Imperial Tobacco Co of India Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks AIR 1977 Cal 413 (India)

2. Perry v Truefitt (1842) 6 Beav 66

3. Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 All ER 873 (HL)

4. Scotch Whisky Association v Golden Bottling Ltd [2006] FSR 58 (Delhi HC)

5. Tea Board of India v ITC Limited (2011) Calcutta High Court, CS No 250 of 2010

Journal Articles

1. Biswajit Dhar and Kasturi Das, ‘Protection of Geographical Indications: The Indian Experience’ (UNCTAD-ICTSD, 2007)

2. Dwijen Rangnekar, ‘The Socio-Economics of Geographical Indications: A Review of Empirical Evidence from Europe’ (UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No 8, 2004)

3. Lisa P Lukose, ‘Rationale and Prospects of the Protection of Geographical Indication: An Inquiry’ (2007) 12 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 212

4. Madhavi Sunder, ‘IP3’ (2006) 59 Stanford Law Review 257

5. Malladagudda Sangeetha and Manjusha RS, ‘Twenty Years of Geographical Indications in India: Progress, Problems, and Policy Recommendations’ (2025) 25(3) Archives of Current Research International 365 <https://doi.org/10.9734/acri/2025/v25i31128>

6. Suresh C Srivastava, ‘Geographical Indications under TRIPS Agreement and Legal Framework in India: Part II’ (2004) 9 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 105

 Legislation

1. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999 (India)

2. Trade Marks Act 1999 (India)

3. Copyright Act 1957 (India)

4. Designs Act 2000 (India)

5. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) 1994

6. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 1883

7. Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications 2015

8. Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs [2012] OJ L343/1

Online Sources and Official Documents

1. European Commission, ‘EU-India Free Trade Agreement Negotiations’ (Trade, European Commission, 2024) <https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/india_en> accessed 5 June 2026

2. Geographical Indications Registry, ‘GI Tag Registered Applications’ (Intellectual Property India, Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Ministry of Commerce and Industry) <https://ipindia.gov.in/geographical-indications.htm> accessed 5 June 2026

3. Ministry of Textiles, ‘India Handloom Brand’ (Government of India, 2015) <https://texmin.nic.in> accessed 5 June 2026

4. Nehal Wagle, ‘Step by Step Guide for Registration of Geographical Indication’ (iPleaders, 26 October 2019) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/geographical-indication-registration/> accessed 5 June 2026

[1] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999 (India).

[2] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (15 April 1994) 1869 UNTS 299.

[3] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999 (India).

[4] Nehal Wagle, ‘Step by Step Guide for registration of Geographical Indication’ (iPleaders, 26 October 2019) https://blog.ipleaders.in/geographical-indication-registration/ accessed 5 June 2026.

[5] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999 (India).

[6] Suresh C Srivastava, ‘Geographical Indications under TRIPS Agreement and Legal Framework in India: Part II’ (2004) 9 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 105.

[7] Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (20 March 1883, as revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967) 828 UNTS 305.

[8] Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 1883, arts 10, 10bis; Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications 2015; WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, ‘About the IGC’ (WIPO, 2024) https://www.wipo.int/tk/en/igc/ accessed 5 June 2026.

[9] The Imperial Tobacco Co of India Ltd v The Registrar of Trade Marks AIR 1977 Cal 413 (India).

[10] Id.

[11] Geographical Indications Registry, ‘GI Tag Registered Applications’ (Intellectual Property India, Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Ministry of Commerce and Industry) https://ipindia.gov.in/geographical-indications.htm accessed 5 June 2026.

[12] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999.

[13] Dev Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (Cambridge University Press 2012) 45.

[14] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, ss 17–21.

[15] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, s 2(1)(e).

[16] Biswajit Dhar and Kasturi Das, ‘Protection of Geographical Indications: The Indian Experience’ (UNCTAD-ICTSD, 2007) 34–37.

[17] Lisa P Lukose, ‘Rationale and Prospects of the Protection of Geographical Indication: An Inquiry’ (2007) 12 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 212.

[18] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, s 39.

[19] Trade Marks Act 1999, s 2(1)(zb); Ministry of Textiles, ‘India Handloom Brand’ (Government of India, 2015) https://texmin.nic.in accessed 5 June 2026.

[20] Copyright Act 1957, s 2(c).

[21] Designs Act 2000, ss 4, 11.

[22] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) 1994, arts 22–23.

[23] Dwijen Rangnekar, ‘The Socio-Economics of Geographical Indications: A Review of Empirical Evidence from Europe’ (UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No 8, 2004) 18–22.

[24] Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs [2012] OJ L343/1, art 13.

[25] Id.

[26] European Commission, ‘EU-India Free Trade Agreement Negotiations’ (Trade, European Commission, 2024) https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/india_en accessed 5 June 2026.

[27] Tea Board of India v ITC Limited (2011) Calcutta High Court, CS No 250 of 2010.

[28] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, s 2(1)(e).

[29] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) 1994, art 22(1); Dev Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (Cambridge University Press 2012) 178–180.

[30] Madhavi Sunder, ‘IP3’ (2006) 59 Stanford Law Review 257, 291.

[31] Scotch Whisky Association v Golden Bottling Ltd [2006] FSR 58 (Delhi HC).

[32] Supra at 25 para 24.

[33] Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 All ER 873 (HL)

[34] Perry v Truefitt (1842) 6 Beav 66.

[35] Biswajit Dhar and Kasturi Das, ‘Protection of Geographical Indications: The Indian Experience’ (UNCTAD-ICTSD, 2007) 38.

[36] Geographical Indications Registry, ‘GI Tag Registered Applications’ (IP India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry) https://ipindia.gov.in/geographical-indications.htm accessed 5 June 2026.

[37] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, s 17.

[38] Dev Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (Cambridge University Press 2012) 201.

[39] Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs [2012] OJ L343/1, art 13.

[40] Scotch Whisky Association v Golden Bottling Ltd [2006] FSR 58 (Delhi HC).

[41] Dwijen Rangnekar, ‘The Socio-Economics of Geographical Indications’ (UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No 8, 2004) 29.

[42] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999.