LANDMARK

CASES ON
GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATION
(GI)

LEGALVIDHIYA.COM
WHAT IS A GI TAG?

A GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION (GI) IS A SIGN

USED ON PRODUCTS THAT HAVE A SPECIFIC
GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN AND POSSESS
QUALITIES OR A REPUTATION THAT ARE DUE
TO THAT ORIGIN. IN ORDER TO FUNCTION AS
A GI, A SIGN MUST IDENTIFY A PRODUCT AS
ORIGINATING IN A GIVEN PLACE

GI TAGS ARE ISSUED AS PER THE

GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS OF GOODS
(REGISTRATION AND PROTECTION) ACT,1999.
THIS TAG IS ISSUED BY THE GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATION REGISTRY UNDER THE
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY PROMOTION
AND INTERNAL TRADE, MINISTRY OF
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.
EXAMPLES OF GI TAGS
PRODUCTS CATEGORIES STATES/UTS

KASHMIR SAFFRON AGRICULTURE JAMMU & KASHMIR

MANIPURI BLACK
FOOD STUFF MANIPUR
RICE

KANDHAMAL
AGRICULTURAL ODISHA
HALADI

KODAIKANAL MALAI
AGRICULTURAL TAMIL NADU
POONDU

GULBARGA TUR
AGRICULTURAL KARNATAKA
DAL

KHOLA CHILLI AGRICULTURAL GOA

AMROHA DHOLAK HANDICRAFT UTTAR PRADESH

DARJEELING TEA CASE

A GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION (GI) IS A SIGN

USED ON PRODUCTS THAT HAVE A SPECIFIC
GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN AND POSSESS
QUALITIES OR A REPUTATION THAT ARE DUE
TO THAT ORIGIN. IN ORDER TO FUNCTION AS
A GI, A SIGN MUST IDENTIFY A PRODUCT AS
ORIGINATING IN A GIVEN PLACE

GI TAGS ARE ISSUED AS PER THE

GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS OF GOODS
(REGISTRATION AND PROTECTION) ACT,1999.
THIS TAG IS ISSUED BY THE GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATION REGISTRY UNDER THE
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY PROMOTION
AND INTERNAL TRADE, MINISTRY OF
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.
TEA BOARD OF INDIA
VS. ITC LTD (2011)

IN ONE OF THE LANDMARK CASES OF TEA

BOARD OF INDIA VS. ITC LTD (2011). THE
DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY USED THE
WORD ‘DARJEELING’ FOR NAMING ONE OF
ITS PREMISES AND MISLED THE CUSTOMERS
TO BELIEVE IT WAS THE PLACE OF ORIGIN
WHICH WAS NOT TRUE. THE COURT HELD
THAT USING THIS NAME COULD POSE A
GREAT THREAT TO THE TEA BUSINESS OF
THAT PLACE AND HENCE THE PLAINTIFF
MOVED AN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION
FOR GRANTING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
FOR USING THE NAME.
COMITÉ INTERPROFESSIONNEL
DU VIN DE CHAMPAGNE
V. M/S. CHINAR AGRO FRUIT
PRODUCTS (2011)

IN COMITÉ INTERPROFESSIONNEL DU VIN

DE CHAMPAGNE V. M/S. CHINAR AGRO
FRUIT PRODUCTS (2011), SECTION 22 OF GI
ACT CAME INTO THE PICTURE WHERE THE
DEFENDANT WAS RESTRAINED FROM
USING THE WORD ‘CHAMPAGNE’ FOR THE
NON-ALCOHOLIC SPARKLING DRINK. THE
WORD ‘CHAMPAGNE’ WAS REGISTERED BY
THE PLAINTIFF UNDER THE GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATION (REGISTRATION AND
PROTECTION) ACT, 1999. THE USE OF THAT
WORD LED TO THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE
PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT UNDER SECTION 22(3).
BIKANERWALA V. NEW
BIKANERWALA (2005)

IN ONE OF THE FAMOUS CASES OF BIKANERWALA V.

NEW BIKANERWALA (2005) THE COURT HELD THAT
USING A SIMILAR DECEPTIVE NAME FOR SELLING
THE PRODUCT IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT
OF THE PLAINTIFF. THE DEFENDANT NAMED THE
SHOP ‘AGARWAL BIKANERWALA’ AND USED TO
DEAL IN SWEETS AND SNACKS AND ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE PETITIONER WAS USING THE WORD
‘BIKANERWALA’ SINCE 1981 AND GOT REGISTERED
IN 1992. SO, THE COURT RESTRAINED THE
DEFENDANT FROM SELLING, ADVERTISING ANY
FOOD MATERIAL UNDER THE UNIQUE MARK/NAME.
SCOTCH WHISKY
ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS
V. THE LORD ADVOCATE
AND ANOTHER

IN CERTAIN CASES A MANUFACTURER

INTENTIONALLY ADDS CERTAIN WORDS
WHICH BELONG TO THE ORIGINAL
PRODUCT AND SELL THEM IN THE MARKET
UNDER A WRONG IMPRESSION LIKE IN
ONE OF THE FOREIGN CASE POPULARLY
KNOWN AS SCOTCH WHISKEY
ASSOCIATION CASE, A WHISKEY
COMPANY WAS RESTRAINED FROM USING
THE WORD ‘SCOT’ IN ITS NAME AS IT WAS
A DECEPTION FOR THE CONSUMERS AND
CREATED A CONFUSION BETWEEN THE
ORIGINAL AND IMITATED PRODUCT
THE CASE OF NAVARA
RICE – TAMIL NADU
V. KERALA

NAVARA RICE IS ONE OF THE MANY TYPES OF RICE

FOUND IN INDIA AND IS A UNIQUE GRAIN PLANT IN
THE ORYZA GROUP. IT ORIGINATED FROM KERALA
AND IS WELL KNOWN FOR ITS MEDICINAL
PROPERTIES. THE GRANTING OF GI OF THIS
PRODUCT IN 2007 TO NAVARA RICE FARMERS’
SOCIETY HAS INCENSED OTHER GROWERS OF THE
CROP IN KERALA AND TAMIL NADU. HOWEVER, IT
IS STATED THAT ONLY FARMERS BELONGING TO
THIS SOCIETY CAN SELL THEIR PRODUCE AS
NAVARA RICE.
SRIDHAR, FROM KERALA-BASED NGO THANAL,
WHO WORKS WITH FARMERS ON SUSTAINABLE
AGRICULTURE, SAYS, “NOBODY HAS EVIDENCE ON
THE HISTORICAL ORIGIN OF NAVARA RICE.
BESIDES, YOU CANNOT GRANT GI ON SEEDS,
BECAUSE WITH MIGRATION, SEEDS ALSO MIGRATE
AND ADAPT TO LOCAL ECOLOGY WITH GENETIC
CHANGES.” HE CALLS FOR MORE CLARITY IN GI
LAWS.
TIRUPATHI LADDU – THE
SAVOURY FROM ANDHRA
THE TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAM APPLIED FOR
REGISTRATION OF THE TIRUPATHI LADDU, FOR GI TAG
UNDER CLASS 30. IT RECEIVED THE GI TAG IN 2009.
THE LADDU DERIVES ITS SANCTITY, REPUTATION, AND
UNIQUENESS FROM IT BEING OFFERED AS NAIVEDYAM
TO THE LORD. THIS LADDU IS USUALLY OFFERED AS
PRASADAM TO THE DEVOTEES AFTER THEY WORSHIP
LORD VENKATESHWARA, THE PRESIDING DEITY AT SRI
VARI TEMPLE IN TIRUPATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH.
IN 2009, A PIL WAS FILED BEFORE THE MADRAS HC
AGAINST THE GI TAG FOR THE ‘TIRUPATI LADDU’ BY
MR. R.S. PARVEEN RAJ, A RESIDENT OF TRIVANDRUM.
HE PROVIDED HIS SUIT ON THREE CONTENTIONS. THE
FIRST ONE BEING THAT THE GI WAS GRANTED TO A
SINGLE PRODUCER, THE SECOND WAS THAT THERE IS A
LACK OF DISTINCTIVENESS AND THIRD WAS THE
GENERIC NATURE OF THE NAME. THE PETITION WAS
DISMISSED ON THE GROUNDS THAT AN ALTERNATIVE
AND EFFICACIOUS FORUM WAS AVAILABLE FOR
ADJUDICATION OF SUCH A DISPUTE. UNDER THE G.I.
ACT, SUCH A PETITION COULD’VE BEEN FILED EITHER
BEFORE THE G.I. REGISTRY OR THE IPAB.
ANTON PILLER V.
MANUFACTURING
PROCESSES (1976) R.P.C. 719

THE COURT MAY ON AN APPLICATION BY

THE PLAINTIFF PASS AN EXPARTE
ORDER REQUIRING THE DEFENDANT TO
PERMIT THE PLAINTIFF ACCOMPANIED
BY SOLICITOR OR ATTORNEY TO ENTER
HIS PREMISES AND TAKE INSPECTION OF
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND ARTICLES
AND TAKE COPIES THEREOF OR REMOVE
THEM FROM THE CUSTODY. THE
NECESSITY FOR SUCH AN ORDER ARISES
WHERE THERE IS A GRAVE DANGER OF
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND INFRINGING
ARTICLES BEING REMOVED OR
DESTROYED SO THAT THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE WILL BE DEFEATED.
 THE FAMOUS
KOLHAPURI CHAPPALS
IN THE YEAR 2019, THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF
PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS (CGPDTM)
GRANTED GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION (GI) TAG FOR
KOLHAPURIS, THE ETHNIC LEATHER CHAPPAL TO
KOLHAPUR, SANGLI, SOLAPUR AND SATARA DISTRICTS OF
MAHARASHTRA AND BELGAUM, DHARWAD, BAGALKOT AND
BIJAPUR DISTRICTS OF KARNATAKA. THERE WAS A JOINT
BID FOR GI TAG OF KOLHAPURI CHAPPALS BY THE SANT
ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES & CHARMAKAR
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED OF MAHARASHTRA
(LIDCOM) AND THE DR. BABU JAGJEEVAN RAM LEATHER
INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KARNATAKA
(LIDKAR) IN 2009, WHICH FRUCTIFIED IN 2018 INTO
GI TAG BEING GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THE ARTISANS OF
THE TWO STATES.
THE REASON FOR GRANTING THE GI FOR KOLHAPURI
CHAPPALS TO TWO STATES AND 8 DISTRICTS WITHIN
THEM WAS BECAUSE OF THE LARGE DEMAND FOR
KOLHAPURIS AND THE REDUCTION OF SUPPLY OF LEATHER
IN MAHARASHTRA. THE SECOND PROBLEM HAS BEEN OF
CHANGE OF TASTE AMONGST THE YOUTH IN INDIA AND
ACROSS THE GLOBE. THE LAST REASON WAS THE RISE IN
COMPETITION. THE MOST PROVERBIAL THREAT OF
‘CHINESE IMITATION’ ALWAYS LOOMS LARGE.

DISCLAIMER: THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR REFERENCE AND RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY.

LEGAL VIDHIYA MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OR REPRESENTATIONS
AS TO THE COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF CONTENT OR REFERENCES PROVIDED.
 FOLLOW US
ON OUR SOCIALS

WWW.LEGALVIDHIYA.COM
JOIN OUR
WHATSAPP
CHANNEL

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR
YOUTUBE CHANNEL

FOLLOW US ON
OUR INSTAGRAM
FOLLOW US ON
LINKEDIN

LEGALVIDHIYA.COM