DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE:

GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION LAW OF INDIA

SUBJECT:

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

NAME OF THE FACULTY:

PROF. Dr. NEELIMA

SUBBAREDDY

NAME OF CANDIDATE:

LAKSHYA VYAS

ROLL NO.:

22LLB068

SEMESTER:

1|P age
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE ..................................................................................................................... 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ....................................................................................................... 4

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... 5

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................... 5

SCOPE OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................. 5

RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................... 6

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 6

LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 6

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 8

INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION FOR GI UNDER TRIPS .......................................... 8

HISTORY OF THE TRIPS PROVISIONS ON GI ............................................................ 8

THE INDIAN GI ACT.......................................................................................................... 9

REGISTRATION............................................................................................................ 10

RIGHTS OF ACTION AGAINST PASSING-OFF ......................................................... 11

CASE STUDY: HYDERABADI HALEEM ....................................................................... 12

GI OF INDIA AND EU: COMPARATIVE STUDY ........................................................... 14

CHALLENGES FACED BY INDIAN PRODUCERS UNDER THE GI ACT .................... 16

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 18

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 19

2|P age
 CERTIFICATE

Title of the subject: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Name of the faculty: PROF. Dr. NEELIMA SUBBAREDDY

I, LAKSHYA VYAS, hereby acknowledge that this project submitted by me, entitled
Geographical Indication Law of India, is original research carried out by me. All the references
from which the suggestions and excerpts have been drawn have been properly recognized by
me. The project is Free from plagiarism.

Signature of the candidate:

LAKSHYA VYAS

3|P age
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Any venture's success has always depended heavily on presentation, inspiration, and
motivation. Inspiration and sweat are necessary for the creation of anything tangible. There
are no words to describe how deeply I am grateful and obliged to the guiding lights that
illuminated my path during the thesis. However, I am still incredibly grateful to my IPR
faculty member, Prof. Dr. Neelima Subbareddy, for pushing me to the limit and giving me the
chance to prepare my research project on the subject of "Geographical Indication Law of
India."I would also like to express my gratitude to the personnel of the Damodaram
Sanjivayya National Law University Library for their invaluable assistance, as well as for
giving me the information I needed and their gracious supervision during the project. I also
want to express my gratitude to my classmates for their helpful suggestions and support in the
development of this project.

4|P age
 ABSTRACT

Geographical Indication (GI) is a tag given for products originated or created in a particular
place or region having special qualities that are due to that region. The geographical Indication
as an Intellectual Property Right is important in a world of modernisation and globalisation to
preserve a particular region’s uniqueness whether it be handicraft or food and help the small
businesses and traditional workers get the benefit of their work and recognition at the same
time. The uniqueness and reputation a particular product have due to its geographical origin
make it eligible for a GI tag along with certain other criteria to be fulfilled.

In India, the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 is in
force for the registration and better protection of GI relating to goods. As most of the Indian
food industry being a part of unorganized sector, the GI tag helps to preserve their products
and get the best price for the same. Similarly, the Hyderabadi Haleem which got its GI tag in
2010 is the first meat product to attain the tag. It is due to the procedure and ingredients used
to cook it that makes it unique. Hyderabad as known for its Nizam Culture from rituals to food,
is famous for its food items including Biryani and Haleem.

The project hence would study the development of the geographical indication concept, criteria
for attaining the GI tag and the laws which protect it in India. It would further comparatively
analyse the GI law in India with that of EU. The same provides a scope of exploration for the
reader to discover.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 To understand the concept of Indian GI laws and its development.
 To examine the concept using the case study of Hyderabadi Haleem.
 To comparatively analyse the Indian and International GI laws.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scope of the study is limited to recognize the relevance of Geographical indication tag
w.r.t. Hyderabadi Haleem and to compare the Indian GI laws with that of EU.

5|P age
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Whether the Hyderabadi Haleem deserved the GI tag?
2. Whether there is any need to incorporate international GI laws in Indian GI in order to
strengthen it?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher has used distinct primary and secondary sources to collect and present relevant
data, employing the Doctrinal Method of research. Further, the methodology adopted is
explanatory and descriptive in nature. The bluebook 20th edition is the uniform mode of citation
used in the following project.

Primary Sources:

 The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1994.

 The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
 The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002.
 The Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their
International Registration, 1958.

Secondary Sources:

 Books on GI as Intellectual Property Rights.

 Articles on Geographical Indication laws.

LITERATURE REVIEW
The researcher has collected knowledge from numerous books, sources, articles, documents,
online sources such as;

1. Law relating to Intellectual Property Rights1 - In this book, the author has vividly discussed
the concept of geographical indication. This book helped the researcher in getting the
abstract idea of GI tags along with the history and need for protection of the same, with the
help of catena of judgements.

1
VK Ahuja, LAW RELATING TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (LexisNexis; 2nd edition, 2015).

6|P age
2. Intellectual Property Rights Infringement and Remedies 2 - This book is good to get a basic
understanding of the law of Geographical indication. Ananth Padmanabhan, the author, in
this book gave a comprehensive and thorough understanding of the aforementioned concept
with its legal analysis. It proved to be informative for me as it solved my various queries
and gave me an easy understanding of the topic with its legal position and interpretation.

3. Sudhir Ravindran, The Protection of Geographical Indication in India3 – The article

discusses about the legal framework existing in India for the protection of goods and its
accordance with the TRIPS agreement. It examines the issues relating to TRIPS agreement
the law in practice in India and explains related concepts of the registration process.

4. E-Book On Geographical Indications of Telangana- Government of Telangana – The book

introduced by the government of Telangana highlights the food items, handicrafts etc which
have been conferred with the Geographical Indication tag by the state government. This
helped the researcher in understanding the history and importance of GI tag to Hyderabadi
Haleem.

5. Sachin Chaturvedi, India, the European Union and Geographical Indications: Convergence
of Interests and Challenges Ahead4 – This article gives a detailed analysis of GI laws of
European Union and its comparison to Indian GI laws. It also provides a brief
understanding on the Lisbon agreement and its role in promoting GI laws worldwide. This
helped the researcher in getting a comprehensive understanding of EU laws and the
challenges that are ahead of Indian Producers w.r.t GI laws.

2
Ananth Padmanabhan, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES (LexisNexis; 1st
edition, 2012).
3
Dr. Sudhir Ravindran, The Protection of Geographical Indication in India, INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
INDEX 2009 REPORT (Anne Chandima Dedigama, 2008).
4
Sachin Chaturvedi, India, the European Union and Geographical Indications: Convergence of Interests and
Challenges Ahead, SOUTH ASIA ECONOMIC JOURNAL, Vol. 4 (March 2003).

7|P age
 INTRODUCTION

Protection of Geographical Indication has, over the years, emerged as one of the most
contentious Intellectual Property Rights issues in the realm of the WTO’s Agreement on Trade
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The TRIPS prescribes minimum
standards under Article 22 to 24 of Section III to protect geographical indications 5. India in
compliance with TRIPS, enacted the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and
Protection) Act, 19996, which came into effect on 15th September 2003, and the Geographical
Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 20027.

Required Legal Protection of GI: Legal protection of GI is crucial given its commercial
potential. Competitors without any legal claim to the GI may profit freely from its reputation if
it is not well protected. Unfair business methods like these defraud customers and cost the
legitimate GI right-holders money. Additionally, these actions could gradually damage the GI's
reputation and goodwill. International Protection for GI Under Trips

At the international level, TRIPS sets out minimum standards of protection that WTO members
are bound to comply with in their respective national legislations. However, as far as the scope
of protection of GI under TRIPS is concerned, there is a problem of hierarchy. This is because,
although TRIPS contains a single, identical definition for all GI, irrespective of product
categories, it mandates a two-level system of protection: (i) the basic protection applicable to
all GI in general, and (ii) additional protection applicable only to the GI denominating wines
and spirits.

History of the Trips Provisions on GI

The Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations began in 1986, precisely when India’s
development policy making process was at a watershed. By the time India launched its massive
economic reforms package in 1991, marking a paradigm shift in its policy, the Uruguay Round
negotiations were well under way, paving the path towards Marrakesh in 1994 and the
establishment of the WTO. India remained a cautious and somewhat passive player during the

5
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1994, art. 22-24.
6
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
7
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002.

8|P age
initial years of the Uruguay Round negotiations, given its long legacy of inward-looking
development strategy and protectionist trade policy regime8.

However, at Doha India wanted to extend protection under ‘geographical indication’ (GI)
beyond wine and spirit, to other products. A number of countries wanted to negotiate extending
this higher level of protection to other products as they see a higher level of protection as a way
to improve marketing their products by differentiating them more effectively from their
competitors and they object to other countries “usurping” their terms. Some others opposed the
move, and the debate has included the question of whether the Doha Declaration provides a
mandate for negotiations.

Those opposing extension argue that the existing level of protection is adequate. They caution
that providing enhanced protection would be a burden and would disrupt existing legitimate
marketing practices. India, along with a host of other likeminded countries pressed an
‘extension’ of the ambit of Article 23 to cover all categories of goods. However, countries such
as the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Argentina, Chile, Guatemala and
Uruguay are strongly opposed to any ‘extension’. The ‘extension’ issue formed an integral part
of the Doha Work Programme, 2001. However, as a result of the wide divergence of views
among WTO members, not much progress has been achieved in the negotiations and the same
remains as an ‘outstanding implementation issue’.

THE INDIAN GI ACT

India has put in place a sui generis system of protection for GI with enactment of a law
exclusively dealing with protection of GIs. The legislations which deal with protection of GI’s
in India are ‘The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 9’
(GI Act), and the ‘Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules,
200210 (GI Rules). India enacted its GI legislations for the country to put in place national
intellectual property laws in compliance with India’s obligations under TRIPS. Under the
purview of the GI Act, which came into force, along with the GI Rules, with effect from 15

8
Dr. Sudhir Ravindran, The Protection of Geographical Indication in India, INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
INDEX 2009 REPORT (Anne Chandima Dedigama, 2008).
9
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999.
10
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002.

9|P age
September 2003, the central government has established the Geographical Indications Registry
with all-India jurisdiction, at Chennai, where right-holders can register their GI.

Unlike TRIPS, in the GI Act does not restrict itself to wines and spirits. Rather, it has been left
to the discretion of the central government to decide which products should be accorded higher
levels of protection. This approach has deliberately been taken by the drafters of the Indian Act
with the aim of providing stringent protection as guaranteed under the TRIPS Agreement to GI
of Indian origin. However, other WTO members are not obligated to ensure Article 23-type
protection to all Indian GI, thereby leaving room for their misappropriation in the international
arena.

The definition of GI included in Section 1(3) (e) of the Indian GI Act 11. It clarifies that for the
purposes of this clause, any name which is not the name of a country, region or locality of that
country “shall” also be considered as a GI if it relates to a specific geographical area and is
used upon or in relation to particular goods originating from that country, region or locality, as
the case may be12. This provision enables the providing protection to symbols other than
geographical names, such as ‘Basmati’.

Registration
While registration of GI is not mandatory in India, Section 20 (1) of the GI Act states that no
person “shall” be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent, or to recover damages for, the
infringement of an “unregistered” GI13. The registration of a GI gives its registered owner and
its authorized users the right to obtain relief for infringement. The GI Registry with all India
jurisdictions is located in Chennai with the Controller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade
Marks is the Registrar of GIs, as per Section 3(1) of the GI Act14.

A GI may be registered in respect of any or all of the goods, comprised in such class of goods
as may be classified by the Registrar. The Registrar is required to classify the goods, as far as
possible, in accordance with the international classification of goods for the purposes of
registration of GI (Section 8 of the Act)15. A single application may be made for registration of

11
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999, § 1 (3) (e).
12
Suresh C. Shrivastava, Geographical Indications and Legal Frameworks in India, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL
WEEKLY, 4022, 4022 (2003).
13
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999, § 20 (1).
14
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999, § 3 (1).
15
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999, § 8.

10 | P a g e
a GI for different classes of goods and fee payable is to be in respect of each such class of
goods.

In India a GI may initially be registered for a period of ten years, and it can be renewed from
time to time for further periods of 10 years. Indian law place certain restrictions in that a
registered GI are not a subject matter of assignment, transmission, licensing, pledge, mortgage
or any such other agreement.

Rights of Action Against Passing-Off

The GI Act in India specifies that nothing in this Act “shall” be deemed to affect rights of
action against any person for passing off goods as the goods of another person or the remedies
in respect thereof. In its simplest form, the principle of passing-off states that no one is entitled
to pass-off his/her goods as those of another. The principal purpose of an action against passing
off is therefore, to protect the name, reputation and goodwill of traders or producers against
any unfair attempt to free ride on them. Though, India, like many other common law countries,
does not have a statute specifically dealing with unfair competition, most of such acts of unfair
competition can be prevented by way of action against passing-off. Notably, Article 24.3 of
TRIPS clearly states that in implementing the TRIPS provisions on GIs, a member is not
required to diminish the protection of GIs that existed in that Member immediately prior to the
date of entry16. This flexibility has been utilized by India in the GI Act in maintaining the right
of action against passing-off, which has been a part of the common law tradition of India, even
prior to the advent of the TRIPS Agreement.

Any lawsuit relating to infringement of a registered GI or for passing of an unregistered GI has

to be instituted in a district court having jurisdiction to try the suit. No suit shall be instituted
in any court inferior to a district court.

16
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1994, art. 24.3.

11 | P a g e
 CASE STUDY: HYDERABADI HALEEM

Haleem is a Hyderabadi great dish, a rich broth of wheat, lentils and meat that the city feasts
on during the month of Ramadan, and it hit the headlines in 2010, because it was granted a
geographical indication (GI) certificate. It got the Geographical Indication (GI) tag in 2010 17,
which makes the delicacy exclusive to Hyderabad, when the Hyderabad Haleem Makers
Association filed for GI. The National Research Centre on Meat and IP consultants were
approached to provide nutritive value to the Haleem. Its storage stability and quality were also
reviewed before filing for the GI. Hence, it was accepted and GI tag was granted on 4th August,
2010 to Hyderabadi Haleem making it the first meat product to get the GI certification in
India.18

Why Protect “Hyderabadi Haleem” as Geographical Indication?

Haleem is a meat preparation unique to Hyderabad. It is an aromatic stew-like dish made from
finely pounded meat, lentils and wheat mixed with spices, and is preferred for breaking the fast
during Ramzan due to its high nutritional value and porridge-like texture. It is usually served
garnished with a spicy ‘shorba’ (meat broth), caramelized onions, coriander and slices of
lemon. Originally an Arabic dish, it is said to have come to Hyderabad during the Mughal
period via Iran and Afghanistan. During Ramzan, Haleem stalls are set up throughout the city
and the dish is sold in many restaurants, mainly catering to Muslims for breaking their fast in
the evening. But Haleem is also extremely popular among those from non-Muslim
communities in Hyderabad. The word ‘Haleem’ means patience, and it attributed to the dish
because it takes around 12 long hours using traditional earthen structure to cook it. It is cooked
on a slow flame by grinding the meat along with wheat, rice and other ingredients. It is then
garnished with ghee, coriander, fried onion and dry fruits

Popular joints do brisk business during the Ramzan season with techies, businessmen, families
and even tourists relishing the piping hot delicacy at many outlets. Famous eateries like Pista
House, Shah Ghouse and Sarvi open dozens of temporary outlets across Hyderabad and the IT
clusters of Hitec City and Gachibowli.

Haleem sales had been affected during the last two years due to COVID-19 restrictions. The
price of the dish has gone up in recent years, along with rising costs of ingredients. There are

17
Government of India, Geographical Indication Registry,
https://search.ipindia.gov.in/GIRPublic/Application/Details/193.
18
‘Hyderabadi Haleem’ gets Geographical Indication Certificate, https://icar.org.in/node/543.

12 | P a g e
an estimated 6,000 Haleem makers in Hyderabad and other cities, most of them mainly
depending on the business during Ramzan.

History:

The history of Haleem begins from the era of the Asaf Jahin dynasty which began from the
year 1794.19 The dynasty had 7 prominent nizams and during the regime of Mir Osman Ali
Khan, the 7th Nizam the Arab diaspora had introduced Haleem to them which resulted in it
becoming a part of the Hyderabadi cuisine. It is said that Haleem is similar to the Arab dish
Harees which was introduced during reign of Humayun and was mentioned by Ibn-Batuta and
also in Ain-i-Akbari referring it as a part of persian hospitality, but due to its ingredients and
method of cooking it is now made into a hyderabadi dish.20

Renewal:

The Haleem Makers Association, which received the GI tag in 2010, had it renewed for another
ten years, until December 2029. The GI tag had expired in December 2019, and the association
had applied for its renewal, which was renewed in May 2022.

Further, recently in October 2022, Hyderabadi Haleem emerged as the winner by beating 17
food items from across India with a Geographical Indication (GI) status, including Rasogulla,
Bikaneri Bhujiya, and Ratlami Sev21.

19
Ebook on Geographical Indications of Telangana, (2020), https://tsonline.gov.in/TGPortal/TG-
Images/EBook%20on%20Geographical%20Indications%20of%20Telangana.pdf.
20
Syed Akbar, Haleem Delight: Asaf Jah Legacy to GI tag, TIMES OF INDIA, (Jun. 11, 2018)
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/haleem-delight-asaf-jah-legacy-to-gi-
tag/articleshow/64538536.cms.
21
Hyderabadi Haleem wins the 'Most Popular GI' Award defeating Rasgulla and Bikaneri Bhujia, THE TIMES OF
INDIA (18 October 2022) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/food-news/hyderabadi-haleem-wins-the-
most-popular-gi-award-defeating-rasgulla-and-bikaneri-
bhujia/photostory/94949679.cms?UTM_Source=Google_Newsstand&UTM_Campaign=RSS_Feed&UTM_Me
dium=Referral&from=mdr#:~:text=Apparently%2C%20it%20was%20in%202010,the%20dish%20for%2010%
20years.

13 | P a g e
 GI OF INDIA AND EU: COMPARATIVE STUDY

Europe’s legal regime for protection of Geographical Indications (GI) primarily comprises of
highly evolved, multi-sectoral regulations pertaining to products and produce - from
agricultural products to wines & spirits, and more such items. In contrast, the legal evolution
of GI in India is still at a nascent stage.

Lisbon system:

In the absence of a similar international consensus in the field of GIs, the protection of reputed
GIs has not risen globally to the same or similar high standards. There are, however, the WIPO-
administered Lisbon Agreement of 195822 and its latest incarnation, the Geneva Act (together
known as ‘the Lisbon System’) which provide for a very high level of protection to registered
appellations of origin and/or GIs. Under the Lisbon System, the eligible appellations/GIs enjoy
protection not only against goods of the same kind but also those that are not of the same kind.
But the Lisbon System is currently of limited territorial reach. While the Lisbon Agreement
currently has 55 contracting parties (including the 27 EU member states), the Geneva Act offers
protection to 37 contracting parties. India is not yet a member of the Lisbon System.

European GIs Faring in Europe:

The EU geographical indications system protects the names of products that originate from
specific regions and have specific qualities or enjoy a reputation linked to the production
territory. Three European Union schemes of geographical indications and traditional
specialties, known as protected designation of origin (PDO), protected geographical indication
(PGI), and traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG), promote and protect names of agricultural
products and foodstuffs23. The protection of geographical indications was extended to
foodstuffs and other agricultural products in 1992.

Protection and enforcement: In countries where laws on protected geographical status are
enforced, only products which meet the various geographical and quality criteria may use the
protected indication. It is also prohibited to combine the indication with words such as style,
type, imitation, or method in connection with the protected indications or to do anything which
might imply that the product meets the specifications, such as using distinctive packaging

22
The Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration, 1958.
23
Sachin Chaturvedi, India, the European Union and Geographical Indications: Convergence of Interests and
Challenges Ahead, SOUTH ASIA ECONOMIC JOURNAL, Vol. 4 (March 2003).

14 | P a g e
associated with the protected product. Protected indications are treated as intellectual property
rights by the Customs Regulation 1383/2003 (Regulation concerning customs action against
goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken
against goods found to have infringed such rights), and infringing goods may be seized by
customs on import. Within the European Union, enforcement measures vary: infringement may
be treated as counterfeit, misleading advertising, passing off or even as a question of public
health. Outside Europe, the protection of PGS products usually require bilateral agreements
between the EU and the importing countries, while protected indications may not always
supersede other intellectual property rights such as trademarks.

Special regimes:

The protection of geographical indications for wines and other alcoholic drinks was historically
the first to be developed at both national and Community level. It is also the only protection
which is recognised by the Agreement on TRIPS, administered by the World Trade
Organization, although the European Union is pushing for other geographical indications to be
included in the Doha Round of world trade negotiations.

1. Wines: European Union rules governing the production of wine are considerably longer
than EU trade mark law. To be considered as a “quality wine”, the wine must come from a
specified region and be associated with a “geographical indication”. Wines which do not
meet this requirement may only be marketed as table wine.
2. Spirits: The Regulation laying down general rules on the definition, description,
presentation, labelling and protection of spirit drinks provides for a double system of
protection of spirit descriptions. Spirits are divided into 46 categories, which each have
rules for fabrication and minimum strength. Within these categories, certain names are
reserved for drinks from particular countries, for example ouzo (aniseed-flavoured spirit
drink which must have been produced exclusively in Greece or Cyprus). The Regulation
also defines a number of geographical designations, which are reserved for drinks which
“acquired their character and definitive qualities” in the area denominated.
3. Aromatised drinks: The Regulation laying down general rules on the definition, description
and presentation of aromatised wines, aromatised wine-based drinks and aromatised wine-
product cocktails institutes a system of protected denominations for aromatised drinks
which is very similar to that for spirits. The association of general names with specific
countries is weaker: a drink labelled simply “Sangria” must have been produced in Spain

15 | P a g e
 or Portugal, for example, but it is permissible to label a drink “Sangria produced in the
United Kingdom: aromatised wine-based drink” if the drink meets the other requirements
to be described as sangria.

CHALLENGES FACED BY INDIAN PRODUCERS UNDER THE GI ACT

A recent study conducted with the producers of GI products revealed a number of other
challenges that the producers/manufacturers of the products face. The same can be categorized
as shown below:

1. No protection for technology or know-how: GI products attain fame and reputation

through the collective efforts of people over generations. This leads to collective ownership
of the unique method and processes. However, GI laws do not protect the technology,
method or know-how used in the making of the product. Protection is limited to only the
name-place. Consequently, markets get flooded with cheaper machine-made imitations.
For instance, one can make and sell the famous Banarasi saree anywhere in the world under
a different name, despite being a registered GI in India. As a result, most weavers of the
Banarasi saree are being forced out of work because identical sarees from Surat and China
are available on the market at a much lower price. Thus, any price-conscious consumer will
be attracted to buying the cheaper alternative available in the market. This takes away the
level playing field from artisans24.
2. Term: Unlike in the European Union, where GIs are granted permanent protection, in
India, a GI is granted registration for only ten years, after which it may be renewed for
another ten years. This procedure, which is inspired by the trademark system, is
inappropriate for products like Darjeeling tea, which has enjoyed a stellar reputation for
centuries.
3. Ambiguous laws for GI protection: Under Article 1.1 of TRIPS, each member country
is free to determine the appropriate method to protect GI in their legal systems25. This leads
to different levels and types of protection among countries and may result in a subject
matter mismatch in international trade. For instance, the European Union does not
recognize non-agricultural products such as handicrafts for GI protection. However, some
EU countries, such as France, do have domestic laws to protect non-agricultural GI

24
Abhishek Mishra, Can geographical indications support the Indian village Economy impacted by the ongoing
economic crisis caused by covid-19, BRICS LAW JOURNAL, Vol. IX, Issue 2 (2022).
25
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1994, art. 1.1.

16 | P a g e
 products. The recognition of non-agricultural GIs is a significant issue for India.
Approximately three-fourths of GIs registered in India are from the non-agricultural
handicraft industry, such as Madhubani paintings and Banarasi sarees 26. Moreover, the
multiplicity of legal systems can create hurdles even for experienced traders. For instance,
in Europe, Darjeeling tea is registered as a PGI, despite meeting the more stringent
requirements of a PDO. Thus, harmonization of GI-related regulations is required to fully
exploit the benefits of the artisans’ and producers’ unique skills and traditional knowledge.
4. Post-registration follow-up: The government seldom extends its assistance post
registration of products. Simply registering GIs is not enough for the producers. In a
globalized world, the government needs to assist in a variety of ways to protect GI,
including capacity-building programs; assistance and reimbursement upon registration of
GI in a foreign country; and protection of GI in a foreign market by hiring the services of
an international watchdog. Sustained measures are required to maintain a presence in the
market. Such measures vary according to the product and the dynamics of the consumer
market, whether domestic or international. There is a need to maintain the quality and
standard of goods produced by all of its manufacturers, as well as a marketing strategy to
build the brand value of the goods and reduce information asymmetry between the
producers and the consumers by informing the consumers about the distinguishing features
and qualities of the GI product. In addition, there is a need to continue to develop and
enhance the skills and knowledge of the stakeholders, such as producers, dealers, traders
and retailers.

26
Id. at 22.

17 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

In India, GI is at the intersection of three significant fields – intellectual property, trade and
socio-economic policy. Indeed, in addition to their various advantages, including quality, GIs
are an easy way of helping the underprivileged producers and artisans in India. As a result, it
has significant socio-economic and public policy implications. GI can provide local
employment, protect the heritage and traditions of the local community and ultimately play a
significant role in rural development and self-sufficiency, as was seen through the case study
of Hyderabadi haleem. Without a doubt, the benefits of GI can only be realized when the
products are effectively marketed and protected from imitations in the market.

Perhaps, the jurisprudence developed in other parts of the world, especially in Europe (as
discussed above) would provide the Indian courts with much-needed guidance in unravelling
the complexities of this important form of intellectual property and thus advance the twin
objectives of consumer protection and producers’ competitive position underlying the scheme
of the GI Act.

18 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

STATUTES:

 The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1994.

 The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
 The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002.
 The Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their
International Registration, 1958.

BOOKS:

 Law relating to Intellectual Property Rights by VK Ahuja

 Intellectual Property Rights Infringement and Remedies by Ananth Padmanabhan

ARTICLE:

 Dr. Sudhir Ravindran, The Protection of Geographical Indication in India, International

Property Rights Index 2009 Report (Anne Chandima Dedigama, 2008).
 Sachin Chaturvedi, India, the European Union and Geographical Indications:
Convergence of Interests and Challenges Ahead, South Asia Economic Journal, Vol. 4
(March 2003).
 Suresh C. Shrivastava, Geographical Indications and Legal Frameworks in India,
Economic And Political Weekly, 4022, 4022 (2003).
 Abhishek Mishra, Can geographical indications support the Indian village Economy
impacted by the ongoing economic crisis caused by covid-19, Brics Law Journal, Vol.
IX, Issue 2 (2022).

WEB SOURCES:

 Government of India, Geographical Indication Registry,

https://search.ipindia.gov.in/GIRPublic/Application/Details/193

19 | P a g e
 ‘Hyderabadi Haleem’ gets Geographical Indication Certificate,
https://icar.org.in/node/543
 Ebook on Geographical Indications of Telangana, (2020),
https://tsonline.gov.in/TGPortal/TG-
Images/EBook%20on%20Geographical%20Indications%20of%20Telangana.pdf
 Syed Akbar, Haleem Delight: Asaf Jah Legacy to GI tag, times of india, (Jun. 11, 2018)
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/haleem-delight-asaf-jah-legacy-to-
gi-tag/articleshow/64538536.cms
 Hyderabadi Haleem wins the 'Most Popular GI' Award defeating Rasgulla and Bikaneri
Bhujia, The Times of India (18 October 2022) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-
style/food-news/hyderabadi-haleem-wins-the-most-popular-gi-award-defeating-
rasgulla-and-bikaneri-
bhujia/photostory/94949679.cms?UTM_Source=Google_Newsstand&UTM_Campai
gn=RSS_Feed&UTM_Medium=Referral&from=mdr#:~:text=Apparently%2C%20it
%20was%20in%202010,the%20dish%20for%2010%20years

20 | P a g e
IPR
ORIGINALITY REPORT

19 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
18%
INTERNET SOURCES
9%
PUBLICATIONS
15%
STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1
www.altacit.com
Internet Source 8%
2
pure.jgu.edu.in
Internet Source 2%
3
thelawbrigade.com
Internet Source 2%
4
Submitted to Damodaram Sanjivayya
National Law University
1%
Student Paper

5
www.origin-gi.com
Internet Source 1%
6
iprlawindia.org
Internet Source 1%
7
www.scribd.com
Internet Source 1%
8
Nidhi Buch, Hetvi Trivedi. "Geographical
Indications of Indian Handlooms - Between
<1 %
Legal Right and Real Right", Routledge, 2021
Publication
9
Submitted to WIPO World Intellectual
Property Organisation
<1 %
Student Paper

10
Submitted to UC, Boulder
Student Paper <1 %
11
louisdl.louislibraries.org
Internet Source <1 %
12
researchpaedia.in
Internet Source <1 %
13
Priyanka Sunjay. "How to define ‘article of
manufacture’: a comparative study of the
<1 %
United States and India", Journal of
Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2020
Publication

14
vdocuments.mx
Internet Source <1 %

Exclude quotes On Exclude matches < 14 words

Exclude bibliography On