Authored By: Sanskruti Jahagirdar
DES Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College Pune
I. ABSTRACT
India’s Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (‘GI Act’) was enacted as a sui generis statute to fulfil India’s obligations under Article 22 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS Agreement’), conferring exclusive rights on authorised producers to use registered indications in respect of ‘goods’ originating from a specified geographical territory.[1] Banarasi brocades and sarees and Kanchipuram silk sarees, among the most celebrated of India’s registered geographical indications (‘GIs’), have benefited from this framework since 2009 and 2005–06 respectively. The emergence of the metaverse and non-fungible tokens (‘NFTs’) as vehicles for digital fashion has, however, exposed a structural lacuna: the GI Act’s definition of ‘goods’ is anchored exclusively to tangible, manufactured items and does not contemplate virtual reproductions.[2] This article examines whether the existing statutory framework adequately protects traditional Indian textile GIs when those indications are appropriated in the digital sphere through NFT minting. Drawing on the GI Act, TRIPS, the Calcutta High Court’s landmark ruling in Tea Board, India v ITC Limited, and the United States judgment in Hermès International SA v Mason Rothschild, this article demonstrates that the current Indian legal framework is insufficient to address digital GI misappropriation. It concludes with targeted reform proposals, including a statutory amendment to extend the definition of ‘goods’ and the adoption of a virtual-goods classification framework aligned with the 12th edition of the Nice Classification.
II. INTRODUCTION
In October 2021, designer Manish Malhotra, the first Indian fashion designer to enter the NFT space released a collection of digital fashion collectibles on the WazirX NFT Marketplace, with pieces selling within seconds of launch. The highest-selling piece, titled ‘Illuminous Showstopper’, featuring a custom constellation sketch for Kareena Kapoor Khan, sold for approximately USD 3,753. Platforms such as Decentraland, Zepeto, and Roblox have since hosted avatars draped in digital renditions of traditional Indian weaves. The commercial logic is straightforward: the prestige of a Banarasi brocade or a Kanjeevaram saree, built over centuries of craft heritage and reinforced by GI registration, translates into demand in the digital market as much as in the physical one.
The legal question that this commercialisation immediately provokes is whether a person who mints an NFT titled ‘Banarasi Silk Saree’ without being an authorised user registered under the GI Act and without being a weaver located within the six notified districts of Uttar Pradesh commits an infringement of the registered GI. The answer, under the Act as it presently stands, is far from certain. The GI Act defines ‘goods’ as ‘any agricultural, natural or manufactured goods or any goods of handicraft or of industry.’[3] A digital file authenticated on a blockchain occupies an uncertain position within this taxonomy. As this article will demonstrate, that definitional uncertainty, compounded by judicial authority that has consistently confined GI protection to tangible goods, leaves India’s most celebrated textile heritage vulnerable to a new and rapidly growing form of misappropriation.
The article proceeds as follows. Part III sets out the background legal framework governing GIs in India and at the international level. Part IV subjects the Act’s key provisions to legal analysis, isolating the definitional gaps that create exposure in the digital context. Part V discusses the two most consequential cases, one Indian, one American that illuminate how courts have approached the intersection of IP rights and digital goods. Part VI offers a critical analysis of the gaps, judicial trends, and policy implications. Part VII concludes with reform recommendations.
III. BACKGROUND AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
A. The International Framework: TRIPS and Geographical Indications
Geographical indications are a distinct category of intellectual property, recognised at the multilateral level under Section 3 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement. Article 22.1 of TRIPS defines a geographical indication as an indication that ‘identifies a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.’[4] Critically, the TRIPS definition is oriented towards goods, not services, and the protection it mandates under Article 22.2 requires Members to provide legal means to prevent the use of any indication that misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good or constitutes an act of unfair competition.[5]
While Article 23 of TRIPS extends an enhanced tier of protection prohibiting use of a GI for wines and spirits even absent consumer confusion no equivalent heightened protection exists for textile GIs. India has consistently advocated, within the WTO TRIPS Council, for an extension of Article 23-level protection to all product categories, including handicrafts and textiles. That negotiating position remains unresolved. In the interim, Indian textile GIs depend entirely on the minimum standard set out in Article 22, which requires proof of misleading use or unfair competition, a threshold that is already difficult to satisfy in the physical market and is still more elusive in the decentralised digital environment of the metaverse.
B. The Indian GI Framework: Registration, Rights, and Authorised Users
India enacted the GI Act in compliance with its TRIPS obligations. Section 2(1)(e) of the Act defines a geographical indication as an indication that identifies goods as originating from a specific territory, region, or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of such goods is essentially attributable to the geographical origin.[6] Section 2(1)(f) defines ‘goods’ as ‘any agricultural, natural or manufactured goods or any goods of handicraft or of industry.’[7]
Registration under the GI Act vests rights in a registered proprietor typically a producers’ association or a state body and in registered authorised users, being persons from the notified geographical territory. The GI registration for Banarasi brocades and sarees, granted under Application No. 99, specifies that only producers operating within the six districts of Varanasi, Azamgarh, Chandauli, Jaunpur, Mirzapur, and Bhadohi are entitled to use the indication. Kanchipuram silk, registered in 2005–06, is similarly confined to weavers in the Kanchipuram region of Tamil Nadu.
Section 22 of the GI Act defines the infringement provision. A person infringes a registered GI by using it on goods that do not originate from the registered area, or by using it in a manner calculated to mislead consumers as to the true origin of the goods.[8] The Act provides civil and criminal remedies, including injunctions, damages, and seizure of counterfeit goods. However, the entire framework of rights and remedies is predicated on the category of ‘goods’ and it is this predication that renders the Act structurally ill-equipped for the digital frontier.
C. NFTs, Digital Fashion, and the Metaverse
A non-fungible token is a unique cryptographic certificate registered on a blockchain that authenticates the ownership of a specific digital asset whether a digital artwork, a virtual garment, or a video clip. Unlike fungible cryptocurrencies, each NFT is individually distinguishable and non-interchangeable. In the fashion context, NFTs have enabled brands and designers to offer digital-only garments wearable by avatars in virtual environments. The sale of MetaBirkin NFTs in late 2021, the Manish Malhotra saree NFT collection in 2022, and the ongoing expansion of virtual fashion on platforms such as Decentraland demonstrate that digital fashion is no longer merely speculative.
India’s existing legislative architecture does not specifically address NFTs. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as amended to introduce a 30% tax on Virtual Digital Assets) acknowledge the existence of digital assets without providing any IP framework governing their creation, designation, or misuse.[9] The GI Act is entirely silent on digital reproductions, virtual goods, or blockchain-authenticated assets. This silence is not benign. It is a structural void into which the prestige and commercial value of India’s most iconic textile GIs may disappear without legal remedy.
IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. The Definitional Barrier: ‘Goods’ Under Section 2(1)(f)
The central question for any GI infringement claim arising from digital misappropriation is whether an NFT constitutes ‘goods’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the GI Act. The provision enumerates four categories: agricultural goods, natural goods, manufactured goods, and goods of handicraft or industry.[10] A digital file, even one that purports to represent or replicate a Banarasi silk saree, does not straightforwardly belong to any of these categories. It is not grown, extracted, manufactured into a physical substrate, or produced by the hand of a craftsperson.
One might argue that an NFT constitutes a ‘manufactured good’ on the basis that it is produced through a computational process analogous to manufacturing. This argument is tenuous. The ordinary meaning of ‘manufactured’ in the context of the GI Act which envisages goods whose quality or reputation is attributable to a specific geographical environment contemplates physical production. A digital file can be created by anyone with a computer and internet access, in any jurisdiction, independently of any geographical craft tradition. The interpretive logic underlying GI protection that a good derives its character from place of origin cannot coherently attach to a digital asset whose creation is placeless.
The alternative avenue is Section 20 of the GI Act, which preserves the common law action for passing off in respect of unregistered indications. A passing-off claim requires proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. While there is considerable goodwill attached to Banarasi and Kanjeevaram indications, establishing misrepresentation and damage in the context of metaverse transactions which occur on decentralised platforms operating across multiple jurisdictions presents formidable evidentiary challenges.[11]
B. The Jurisdictional and Enforcement Puzzle
Even if a court were persuaded that an NFT bearing a traditional Indian textile GI falls within the scope of the GI Act, significant enforcement obstacles remain. NFTs are minted on blockchain platforms that are, by design, decentralised and borderless. OpenSea, Rarible, and similar marketplaces are accessible globally and are not incorporated within Indian jurisdiction. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 addresses data localisation and privacy but does not reach IP infringement on decentralised platforms.[12] An Indian GI proprietor seeking to enforce against a foreign NFT creator would face the combined difficulties of jurisdictional assertion, service of process, and execution of any injunctive relief none of which is accommodated by the current framework.
C. The TRIPS Obligation and India’s Reform Mandate
Article 22.3 of TRIPS obliges Members to refuse or invalidate the registration of any trademark that consists of or contains a geographical indication, where such use in respect of goods not originating in the territory indicated is liable to mislead the public as to the true place of origin.[13] This obligation extends to trademarks filed for virtual goods. If India’s domestic framework cannot even identify an NFT as a ‘good’ for the purposes of the GI Act, it is difficult to see how it can fulfil its obligation under Article 22.3 in the digital context. India’s own practice of seeking extended GI protection at the TRIPS Council arguing for Article 23-level protection for handicrafts and textiles is rendered procedurally inconsistent if it simultaneously fails to extend domestic GI protection to the very digital contexts in which those textiles are now commercially deployed.
V. CASE LAW DISCUSSION
A. Tea Board, India v ITC Limited (Calcutta High Court, 2019)
The most authoritative Indian judicial pronouncement on the scope of GI protection is the Calcutta High Court’s judgment in Tea Board, India v ITC Limited.[14] The facts were as follows. ITC Limited, operator of the ITC Sonar Hotel in Kolkata, named a luxury refreshment lounge within the hotel ‘Darjeeling Lounge.’ The Tea Board of India, the registered proprietor of the Darjeeling GI for tea and the holder of a certification trade mark for the same word, brought an action alleging GI infringement, trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution.
The Court dismissed the GI infringement claim at the threshold, holding that Section 22 of the GI Act confines infringement to the use of a geographical indication on goods and that ‘Darjeeling Lounge’ as the name of a hospitality service did not amount to the use of the GI on goods.[15] The judgment authoritatively establishes that the Indian GI regime is a goods-only framework. Although the facts involved services rather than virtual goods, the ratio is directly transposable: if the GI Act cannot reach the use of a GI in respect of a service, it is equally incapable under existing interpretation of reaching the use of a GI on a digital file or NFT, which equally falls outside the statutory definition of ‘goods.’
The significance of the Tea Board judgment for the present analysis cannot be overstated. The Calcutta High Court’s insistence on textual fidelity to the ‘goods’ limitation even in a case involving potential consumer confusion about the provenance of a premium Indian product demonstrates that Indian courts will not strain the statutory language to extend GI protection to new categories. Legislative intervention, rather than judicial expansion, is the only reliable corrective.[16]
B. Hermès International SA v Mason Rothschild (SDNY, 2023)
In the absence of Indian authority on digital fashion NFTs, the United States judgment in Hermès International SA v Mason Rothschild provides the most instructive comparative precedent.[17] In late 2021, artist Mason Rothschild created and sold 100 ‘MetaBirkin’ NFTs digital images of fur-covered versions of Hermès’ iconic Birkin handbag generating sales in excess of USD 1.1 million on platforms including OpenSea. Hermès filed suit in January 2022, alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and cybersquatting.
After three days of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favour of Hermès on 8 February 2023, finding that Rothschild was liable for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and cybersquatting, and awarding Hermès USD 133,000 in damages.[18] Judge Rakoff subsequently issued a permanent injunction on 23 June 2023, restraining Rothschild from promoting or profiting from the MetaBirkins NFTs. The jury also rejected Rothschild’s First Amendment defence, finding that the NFTs were commercial speech rather than protected artistic expression.[19]
The Hermès case is instructive for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that existing intellectual property frameworks in this case trademark law can be adapted to reach digital misappropriation of iconic fashion indications, provided the right cause of action is identified. Second, and more pertinently, it illustrates the limits of that adaptation: the Hermès litigation succeeded under trademark law, which attaches to the commercial use of distinctive signs in trade, rather than under any GI-specific provision. India’s GI Act has no equivalent cause of action for the unauthorised use of a GI as a mark in respect of digital goods, precisely because it does not recognise digital goods as ‘goods’ at all.
C. Yuga Labs, Inc v Ryder Ripps (CD Cal, 2023; Ninth Circuit, 2025)
The third and most recent judicial development in this area is Yuga Labs, Inc v Ryder Ripps, which provides the clearest statement yet that NFTs constitute ‘goods’ under a major domestic IP statute.[20] Yuga Labs is the creator of the Bored Ape Yacht Club (‘BAYC’) NFT collection of 10,000 algorithmically generated digital images registered on the Ethereum blockchain. In 2022, artist Ryder Ripps and his collaborator Jeremy Cahen launched the RR/BAYC project, a near-identical collection of NFTs using the same imagery and marks as the original BAYC collection. Ripps characterised the project as ‘expressive appropriation art’ amounting to satirical commentary. Yuga Labs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging false designation of origin and cybersquatting under the Lanham Act.
In April 2023, Judge John F. Walter granted partial summary judgment in favour of Yuga Labs. On the threshold question of whether the Lanham Act could apply to NFTs at all, the district court held that the Act applies to intangible goods where consumer confusion arises from the intangible goods themselves not merely from the underlying idea and that NFTs satisfy this criterion.[21] The court found Yuga’s BAYC marks to be valid, conceptually arbitrary, and commercially strong, and that the defendants’ use was likely to cause consumer confusion in the NFT market. Following a bench trial on remedies, Yuga Labs was awarded over USD 8 million in disgorgement of profits, statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs, with Ripps ordered to surrender the infringing NFTs.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the central holding confirming that NFTs qualify as ‘goods’ under the Lanham Act because they are experienced by consumers as commercial products with tangible value while remanding the consumer confusion question for further proceedings.[22] The parties subsequently settled in April 2026. The enduring doctrinal significance of the case lies in the Ninth Circuit’s unequivocal affirmation: NFTs are not merely digital authentication codes or intangible abstractions; they are goods capable of bearing enforceable IP rights and attracting the full range of Lanham Act remedies.[23]
Read alongside Hermès v Rothschild, the Yuga Labs litigation consolidates a consistent United States judicial position: both the Second and Ninth Circuits now treat NFTs as goods under federal IP law. That judicial consensus is conspicuously absent from India’s GI Act, which as demonstrated in Part IV does not extend its ‘goods’ definition to digital assets at all. The doctrinal gap is therefore not merely theoretical; it is a gap that major common law jurisdictions are actively closing, while India’s GI framework remains anchored to a pre-digital statutory text.
VI. CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Three structural deficiencies emerge from the foregoing analysis. First, the definitional gap in Section 2(1)(f) of the GI Act which tethers ‘goods’ to physical production renders the Act inapplicable to NFTs and virtual garments as a matter of statutory interpretation, with no credible basis for judicial expansion.[24] The Tea Board judgment confirms that Indian courts will not strain this language. The consequence is a protection vacuum precisely where the prestige value of Indian textile GIs is increasingly monetised.
Second, the international classification infrastructure has moved decisively beyond this position. The 12th edition of the Nice Classification, which entered into force on 1 January 2023, incorporates ‘downloadable digital files authenticated by non-fungible tokens’ within Class 9.[25] The European Union Intellectual Property Office has adopted this classification and issued guidance specifying that virtual goods must be identified with the same precision as physical goods for instance, ‘downloadable virtual clothing authenticated by NFTs’ in Class 9.[26] India’s GI Act contains no equivalent modernisation. The GI framework thus operates in a state of regulatory anachronism relative to the jurisdictions in which Indian textile NFTs are likely to be minted and traded.
Third, there is a policy inconsistency at the heart of India’s GI negotiating position. India advocates at the WTO for elevated, Article 23-level protection for textile and handicraft GIs on the ground that these indications represent centuries of traditional knowledge deserving the highest protection afforded to IP. Yet, domestically, the framework offers no protection for those same indications in the digital context, the context in which global luxury consumers increasingly encounter and transact in Indian craft heritage. This inconsistency undermines both the credibility of India’s multilateral position and the legitimate economic interests of Indian weavers and artisan communities.
The enforcement dimension compounds these concerns. Even if a rights-holder could establish that a digital GI misappropriation occurred, the borderless and decentralised architecture of NFT marketplaces makes injunctive relief practically difficult to execute. The absence of a specific legal mechanism equivalent to the customs seizure provisions available for physical counterfeit goods under the GI Act for taking down infringing NFT listings represents a further gap that legislative reform must address.[27]
VII. CONCLUSION
The intersection of India’s GI Act, 1999 and the emergent market for traditional textile NFTs reveals a legal framework that is structurally incapable, in its current form, of protecting the digital manifestations of some of India’s most economically and culturally significant geographical indications. The goods-centric architecture of the Act, confirmed by the Tea Board judgment, excludes digital files and NFTs from its protective ambit. The Hermès precedent demonstrates that such protection is achievable through IP law when the domestic framework is fit for purpose but India’s GI regime is not.
Legislative reform is both necessary and achievable. At minimum, three amendments are proposed. First, Section 2(1)(f) should be amended to include ‘virtual goods, downloadable digital files, and non-fungible tokens that represent or are designated by reference to goods of handicraft or of industry’ within the definition of ‘goods’, aligned with the 12th Nice Classification.[28] Second, a dedicated enforcement mechanism should be introduced, enabling GI proprietors and authorised users to seek take-down orders against infringing NFT listings on digital marketplaces operating within Indian jurisdiction or accessible to Indian consumers. Third, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry should issue regulations under the GI Act specifying that the use of a registered GI in respect of a virtual or digital representation of the corresponding goods constitutes infringement under Section 22, thereby providing courts with an authoritative interpretive guide pending full legislative amendment.
The weavers of Varanasi and Kanchipuram have woven their indications into the fabric of global luxury for centuries. As that fabric is increasingly rendered in pixels and minted on blockchains, the law must follow and at present, it does not.
VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Legislation
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, Act No. 48 of 1999 (India).
Information Technology Act, 2000, Act No. 21 of 2000 (India).
Income Tax Act, 1961, s 115BBH (as amended by Finance Act, 2022) (India).
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Act No. 22 of 2023 (India).
Trade Marks Act, 1999, Act No. 47 of 1999 (India).
International Instruments
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, opened for signature 15 April 1994, 1869 UNTS 299 (entered into force 1 January 1995).
Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, opened for signature 15 June 1957, 550 UNTS 45, as revised, 12th edition (entered into force 1 January 2023).
Cases
Tea Board, India v ITC Limited, CS No. 250 of 2010 (Calcutta High Court, 2019).
Hermès International SA v Mason Rothschild, No. 1:22-cv-00384 (SDNY, 8 February 2023).
Yuga Labs, Inc v Ryder Ripps, No. 2:22-cv-04355 (CD Cal, 21 April 2023), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2025); settled April 2026.
Secondary Sources
Official and Institutional Reports
European Union Intellectual Property Office, ‘Guidance on the Classification of Virtual Goods and Non-Fungible Tokens’ (EUIPO, 2022).
World Trade Organization, ‘Geographical Indications: Background and the Current Situation’ (WTO, 2023).
Intellectual Property India, GI Registry, Application No. 99 Banaras Brocades and Sarees (IP India, 2009).
Journal Articles
Scafidi S, ‘Intellectual Property and Fashion Design’ (2007) 1 Intellectual Property and Fashion Design 115.
Lapatoura I, ‘Fashion Beyond Physical Space: NFTs and Intellectual Property Challenges in the Metaverse’ (2022) 33(6) Entertainment Law Review 197.
[1]Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, opened for signature 15 April 1994, 1869 UNTS 299 (entered into force 1 January 1995) (‘TRIPS Agreement’), art 22.1.
[2]Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, Act No. 48 of 1999 (India), s 2(1)(f).
[5]TRIPS Agreement (n 2), art 22.2.
[6]Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, s 2(1)(e).
[7]Ibid, s 2(1)(f).
[8]GI Act (n 1), s 22.
[9]Information Technology Act, 2000, Act No. 21 of 2000 (India); Income Tax Act, 1961, s 115BBH (as amended by Finance Act, 2022), imposing a flat 30% tax on Virtual Digital Assets including NFTs.
[10]GI Act (n 1), s 2(1)(f). The provision defines ‘goods’ as ‘any agricultural, natural or manufactured goods or any goods of handicraft or of industry.’
[11]GI Act (n 1), s 2(1)(f). The statutory text does not contemplate digital or virtual reproductions.
[12]Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Act No. 22 of 2023 (India). While focused on data privacy, it signals India’s willingness to legislate for the digital environment.
[13]TRIPS Agreement (n 2), art 22.3. Members must refuse or invalidate trademark registrations that use a GI in a misleading manner.
[14]Tea Board, India v ITC Limited, CS No. 250 of 2010 (Calcutta High Court, 2019).
[15]Ibid. The Court held that Section 22 of the GI Act confines the scope of geographical indication protection to ‘goods’ and does not extend to services.
[16]Tea Board, India v ITC Limited (n 7). The Calcutta High Court’s restriction of GI protection to tangible goods underscores the difficulty of stretching the Act to cover digital analogues.
[17]Hermès International SA v Mason Rothschild, No. 1:22-cv-00384 (SDNY, 8 February 2023).
[18]Ibid. The jury found Rothschild liable for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and cybersquatting, awarding Hermès USD 133,000 in damages.
[19]Hermès International SA v Mason Rothschild (n 10). See also Judge Rakoff’s permanent injunction issued 23 June 2023, restraining Rothschild from promoting or profiting from the MetaBirkins NFTs.
[20]Yuga Labs, Inc v Ryder Ripps, No. 2:22-cv-04355 (CD Cal, 21 April 2023), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2025).
[21]Ibid. The district court held that ‘the Lanham Act applies to intangible goods if consumer confusion arises from the intangible goods for sale, and not just the idea underlying such goods,’ concluding that NFTs qualify as ‘goods’ for the purposes of the Act.
[22]Yuga Labs, Inc v Ryder Ripps (Ninth Circuit, 2025). The appellate court affirmed the ‘goods’ holding while remanding the consumer confusion question for further proceedings. The parties subsequently settled in April 2026.
[23]Ibid. Both the Second Circuit (Hermès v Rothschild) and the Ninth Circuit (Yuga Labs v Ripps) now provide persuasive authority that NFTs constitute ‘goods’ under the Lanham Act.
[25]EUIPO, ‘Guidance on NFTs and Virtual Goods’ (2022); Nice Classification, 12th edition (entered into force 1 January 2023), Class 9 ‘downloadable digital files authenticated by non-fungible tokens’.
[26]Nice Classification, 12th edition (n 12), Class 9.
[27]GI Act (n 1), s 11(1) (‘authorised user’) read with s 22 (infringement).
[28]GI Act (n 1), s 2(1)(f). A statutory amendment expanding ‘goods’ to include ‘virtual goods, digital files, and non-fungible tokens’ would bring India into alignment with the 12th Nice Classification.
