Source: The post GI Law Beyond Borders has been created, based on the article “GI law is ineffective against violations abroad” published in “Business Line” on 6 September 2025. GI Law Beyond Borders.
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper- 2- Governance
Context: Geographical Indications (GIs) are intellectual property rights that identify goods with specific geographical origins and attributes. In India, the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 provides protection. However, the Kolhapuri chappal versus Prada sandal controversy highlights the territorial limitations of GI law.
- Jurisprudential Issues
- Territoriality of Law: GI rights under the Indian Act are enforceable only within Indian borders. Courts in India cannot restrain foreign entities operating overseas.
- Locus Standi: The Act allows only registered producer associations to initiate action, restricting broader community or state interventions.
- Enforcement within India
- Available Remedies: The GI Act provides civil remedies (injunctions, damages) and criminal remedies (imprisonment, fines).
- Practical Scope: These protections are confined domestically; artisans cannot directly enforce their rights against foreign misappropriation.
- Foreign Violations and Legal Vacuum
- Reliance on TRIPS: WTO’s TRIPS agreement mandates GI protection, but its enforcement is left to national laws.
- Need for Foreign Registration: For example, Odisha Rasgulla would need to be separately registered under US trademark law to prevent misuse.
- No Global Harmonisation: The absence of a unified GI framework allows multinational corporations to exploit traditional designs.
- Implications for Artisans
- Cultural Appropriation: Indigenous products are replicated abroad without attribution.
- Economic Disadvantage: While luxury brands profit, original creators remain marginalised.
- Barriers to Litigation: High costs and procedural complexities abroad make enforcement inaccessible for small artisan groups.
- Larger Concerns
- Sovereignty vs. Cultural Heritage: The principle of territorial sovereignty clashes with the idea of protecting shared cultural heritage in a globalised market.
- Jurisprudential Inadequacy: Current frameworks inadequately safeguard traditional knowledge in borderless digital and trade ecosystems.
Way Forward
- Bilateral & Regional GI Agreements: India can negotiate mutual recognition of GIs through bilateral treaties and inclusion in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
- Strengthening TRIPS: Push for expanded and binding global rules on GIs within the WTO framework.
- International Registries: Advocate for a WIPO-administered international GI registry to reduce the burden of country-wise registrations.
- Capacity Building for Artisans: Support producer groups with legal literacy, funding for foreign registrations, and branding assistance.
- Leveraging Soft Power: Promote Indian GIs through international exhibitions, cultural diplomacy, and global branding campaigns.
- Domestic Strengthening: Encourage stronger enforcement within India to build credibility and act as a model for reciprocal recognition.
Question: Geographical Indication (GI) law is often ineffective against violations abroad. Discuss.
