The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (GI Act)1 stands as a testament to India's ambition to preserve and promote its rich heritage, culture and artistry. The Act is intended to protect products whose unique quality, reputation and attributes often precede them and are intrinsically linked to a particular geographical origin, from Darjeeling tea to Kolhapuri chappals. However, the true test of any law lies not in how well drafted it is but in its ability to address real world grievances. The GI Act, though with a plausible intent, exposes significant lacunae when faced with the dynamic landscape of global luxury fashion and domestic players.
Recent events notably the controversy involving the Italian luxury house Prada's 2025 collection, which drew striking inspiration from the GI-tagged Kolhapuri chappals has resurfaced the debate over the sufficiency of the GI Act to protect traditional knowledge and artisanal communities. An examination of the GI Act reveals a regime which, while being comprehensive on paper, falters badly in protecting against cultural appropriation, design imitation and exploitation by market giants who rarely need to use the protected GI name itself to capture the commercial value embedded in centuries-old traditions.2
Scope and Promise of the GI Act
The GI Act, 1999 was enacted to safeguard products whose distinctive qualities, reputation or other characteristics are essentially linked to their geographical origin. Section 2(e)3 defines a geographical indication as an indication identifying goods as originating in a particular territory, region or locality in India, where the quality, reputation or characteristic of those goods is attributable to their geographical environment.
Registration u/s 114 and 175 is structured around two complementary roles: the registered proprietor which is often an association of producers, a cooperative or government body representing respective community's interests and authorised users, namely individual producers who meet the criteria and apply separately. Once entered in the register, these users obtain u/s 216 the exclusive right to use the registered GI in relation to the goods covered.
The Act sets out an explicit list of what constitutes infringement u/s 227. Simply put:
- Using the GI in a manner that misleads consumers as to the true geographical origin of goods;
- Acts of unfair competition, including passing off, likely to cause confusion or damage to the reputation of the GI;
- Use of another GI which falsely suggest goods being originated in the protected region.
These rights are reinforced by procedural safeguards and u/s 238 registration itself serves as prima facie evidence of validity and thereby shifts the evidentiary burden to alleged infringers.
There is a register of geographical indications-maintained u/s 69 comprising of two parts. Part A contains details of registered GIs and proprietors and Part B comprises of authorised users. The registration initially lasts for ten years and is renewable thereafter in further ten-year blocks u/s 1810.
It also addresses potential conflict with trademarks u/s 2511 which prohibits registration of trademarks that mislead or conflict with a registered GI, while Section 2612 preserves earlier trademarks acquired in good faith.
Enforcement is two-legged. Civil suits for infringement must be brought before a district court u/s 6613, with remedies including injunctions, damages or account of profits u/s 6714. Alongside, the Act provides for criminal sanctions pertaining to applying false GIs, selling goods bearing false GIs and repeat offences attracting enhanced penalties u/s 39, 40 and 41 respectively.
Judicial Interpretation and Persisting Gaps
One of the leading cases to interpret unfair competition under the GI Act is Tea Board, India v. ITC Ltd.15 of 2011 in the Calcutta High Court. Here, the plaintiff argued that ITC's 'Darjeeling Lounge' within its hotel infringed the Darjeeling GI by creating false association. The court held that mere reference to 'Darjeeling' did not constitute infringement u/s 22 if it did not mislead consumers about the origin of tea itself. The court's reliance on traditional trademark passing off principles showed that GI protection is strictly tied to misuse of the name, not broader cultural or symbolic use.
Similarly, in Scotch Whisky Association v. Golden Bottling Ltd.16, the Delhi High Court restrained Indian distillers from using 'Red Scot' for whisky, as it evoked the registered GI 'Scotch Whisky'. The court applied Section 22(1)(a) to prohibit use that could mislead consumers about origin but again, only when the GI name or a confusingly similar variant was used.
These cases show that even when courts actively enforce GIs, the law remains cantered on misuse of the GI name, not on design, cultural themes or inspiration. In simple terms, the courts in lieu of interpreting the letter of the GI Act, neglected the spirit of it.
The Prada-Kolhapuri Chappals Recent Illustration
In June, 2025 Prada launched luxury sandals in their Spring Summer Men's Collection at Milan being visibly inspired by Kolhapuri chappals originating in Maharashtra and Karnataka, priced over INR 1 lakh without labelling them 'Kolhapuri'.
Thereafter, a PIL was filed in the Bombay High Court17 which sought to restrain Prada. The court dismissed the PIL holding:
- Only registered proprietors LIDCOM18 and LIDKAR19 or authorised users had the locus standi u/s 21 and 22 to bring infringement actions.
- Questions of infringement cannot be adjudicated through PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The court also clarified that because Prada did not use the GI name and merely took design inspiration, there was no infringement u/s 22. This also underlined existing GI Act's narrow scope. Design imitation or cultural misappropriation alone is not actionable unless the GI itself is used to mislead consumers.
Why Design Imitation Falls through the Cracks
The fundamental limitation, as seen in these cases, lies in the law's letter. The GI Act protects the name or indication that denotes geographical origin, not the underlying design, style or cultural aesthetic.
This weakness becomes clearer when contrasted with Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement20 on additional protection granted to GI for wines and spirits wherein expressions such as 'kind', 'type', 'style', 'imitation' or the like are also prohibited.
Enforcement Challenges: Procedural and Structural
The GI Act creates a model based on collective ownership and enforcement by registered proprietors and authorised users. Yet it has been evident that in practice there are several shortcomings with this model.
- Artisan groups may lack resources and skill set to detect or act against infringements particularly by large multinationals.
- There is no explicit mention or prevailing jurisprudence on application of effects doctrine which makes extraterritorial jurisdiction solely reliant on treaties like TRIPS.
- The Bombay High Court in Hingmire v. PRADA21 rightly pointed out that government bodies like LIDCOM and LIDKAR as owners of the GI have the capacity to sue. However, in reality more often that not they are not prompt and inclined to neither monitor markets nor sue. This enforcement gap makes the system vulnerable to appropriation by market giants who know that small producers even if legally empowered may never litigate.
Towards Reform
Existing jurisprudence shows Indian courts have diligently applied the GI Act adhering closely to its letter. However, the text does not do justice in upholding the intent of the Act. Prevailing inability of the Act to check design imitation, cultural appropriation and exploitation by global and domestic players highlights the fundamental problem, the scope of the Act itself is too narrow. Its doctrinal framework is rooted in the understanding of geographical indications as mere signs indicating respective place of origin whereas the complexities of markets demand exhaustive protection that covers design, craft methods, cultural context and elements which give these goods their true value and positioning in markets.
- One significant reform would be to systematically expand the scope of protection u/s 22 of the GI Act as reflected in Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement22 and extend beyond wines and spirits.
- Enforcement too requires structural reform. Currently, only registered proprietors and authorised users may bring infringement suits. While this preserves clarity over locus standi, it leaves enforcement entirely on small producers and cooperatives who often lack the resources and intent necessary. Allowing representative actions by trade associations, industry bodies or carefully regulated public interest organisations and individuals could help bring prompt and effective implementation of the Act's intent. Proper safeguards such as requiring notice to registered proprietors or pre-filling approvals could prevent abuse while ensuring collective enforcement truly serves community interests as intended.
- Economic asymmetry prevalent in these disputes must be addressed. Establishing dedicated legal aid cells supported by contributions from industry or state would ensure that legitimate claims are not abandoned for lack of resources. Further, investing in education and capacity building among artisan communities could help them recognise infringements early and assert their rights effectively.
In a Nutshell
The GI Act was a revolutionary legislation for collective intellectual property in India, yet judicial interpretation from Tea Board v. ITC to Hingmire v. PRADA shows its real-world effect is confined to the use of the protected name. When global or domestic giants imitate design, style or cultural essence but conveniently avoid using the GI name — the law is silent.
In an age where cultural appropriation can be global, subtle and lucrative, the GI Act as it stands at present is not fully equipped to protect traditional artisans. Closing this gap will require rethinking not just who may sue, but also what aspects of heritage deserve protection. Moving beyond the mere tag and to safeguard the pith of community identity GIs are meant to preserve.
Footnotes
1. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
3. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, § 2(e)
4. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, § 11
5. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, § 17
6. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, § 21
7. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, § 22
8. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, § 23
9. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, § 6
10. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, § 18
11. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, § 25
12. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, § 26
13. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, § 66
14. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, § 67
15. MANU/WB/0277/2019
16. 129(2006)DLT423
17. Hingmire v. PRADA Group, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2681
18. Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd.
19. Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd.
20. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04b_e.htm
21. ibid
22. ibid
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
