A Judicial Analysis Of Geographical Indication Protection
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Intellectual Property
Published:
Updated:
A JUDICIAL ANALYSIS OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION
PROTECTION
Dr. Basavaraj M. Kubakaddi, Associate Professor & Dean, School of Legal Studies, Central University of Karnataka KM Krishna Sekhar Sarma, Research Scholar, Department of Law, Central University of Karnataka
ABSTRACT
This article examines the pivotal role of the judiciary in shaping the contemporary landscape of Geographical Indication (GI) protection. Through a comparative analysis of landmark case law from India, China, and the European Union, it argues that courts have become the primary arbiters in resolving the inherent tensions between the legislative text of GI statutes, the obligations of international treaties like TRIPS, and the complex realities of global commerce and cultural preservation. The analysis reveals distinct judicial trends: an evolution in Indian jurisprudence from procedural gatekeeping to substantive rights adjudication; a strong, trade-oriented enforcement posture in China; and an expansive, extraterritorial application of GI principles by the European Court of Justice.
The article synthesizes these judicial responses to identify key themes in the delineation of GI boundaries, the conflict between GIs and trademarks, the mechanics of enforcement, and the challenges of cross-border protection. It concludes that while a globally harmonized GI jurisprudence remains elusive, judicial dialogue and precedent are forging a de facto international common law that is increasingly vital for the protection of cultural heritage and the promotion of fair trade in a globalized economy. Keywords: Geographical Indication; Sue-generis Legislation; Judicial Precedents
I. Introduction:
Geographical Indications (GIs) are a distinct and growing form of intellectual property. GIs are not like patents which protect inventions, or trademarks which protect the character of the brand because, as a collective, GIs protect a community's intellectual and cultural capital, expressed in products that gain their distinctive elements from a geographical origin. The nature of GIs is complex and at once dual. GIs are sold as economic tools that can drive rural development, provide producers with a premium price, and distinguish their products in an international marketplace; on the other hand, GIs protect a community's cultural heritage, preserving traditional knowledge, production processes, and the relationship that a people has with a place and a product.
From Darjeeling tea in India to Champagne from France; GIs tell a story of identity, heritage and quality, providing consumers with the assurance of authenticity that cannot be achieved with brands alone. Indeed, the aforementioned globalization has legitimized the use of GIs but has also increased the legal and commercial pressures. Once entered into international trade, local products face a multitude of regulations, competing commercial forces and risks of misappropriation and dilution. 1 In response, nations have developed legal frameworks to protect these valuable assets, often spurred by international obligations under agreements like the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
2 These frameworks, whether sui generis systems, extensions of trademark law, or hybrids of the two, provide the statutory architecture for GI protection. However, the legislative text alone is often insufficient to resolve the intricate disputes that arise at the intersection of trade, culture, and law. While legislatures enact these frameworks and international bodies set minimum standards, it is the judiciary that performs the crucial, nuanced task of breathing life into them. Courts have become the ultimate forum for defining the practical scope and limits of GI protection, balancing the competing interests of traditional producers, new market entrants, commercial competitors, and the public. It is through judicial interpretation that abstract statutory concepts like "reputation," "origin," and "likelihood of confusion" are given concrete meaning.
The judiciary fills legislative lacunae, clarifies ambiguities, and adapts static legal texts to the dynamic realities of a globalized economy. This
1 Justin Hughes, Champagne, Feta, and Bourbon, 58 Hastings L.J. 299 (2006).
2 TRIPS Agreement, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.
article posits that courts are not merely passive enforcers of GI law but are, in fact, its primary architects in practice, shaping its evolution and defining its real-world impact. By tracing the contours of this judicial function through a comparative analysis of seminal cases from India, China, and the European Union, this article will demonstrate how the gavel is shaping the GI globe, forging a complex, and at times divergent, jurisprudence that is fundamental to the future of this unique intellectual property right. The analysis will proceed in a structured manner to build this argument. It will first outline the foundational international and national legal architecture that provides the context for judicial action. It will then delve into a series of thematic analyses; each centered on a core legal conflict that courts have been called upon to resolve.
These themes include the judicial role in delineating the geographical and communal boundaries of a GI; navigating the contentious interface between GIs and trademarks; defining the mechanics of enforcement, including the right to sue and the scope of infringement; and addressing the challenges of cross-border protection. Through this comparative examination, the article will synthesize the key principles emerging from judicial decisions, identify persistent challenges, and offer a forward-looking perspective on the development of a more coherent global GI jurisprudence. II. The International and National Legal Architecture of GI Protection
The judicial response to GI disputes does not occur in a legal vacuum. It is profoundly shaped by the architecture of international treaties and national statutes that define the rights and obligations of stakeholders. The specific legal puzzles and tensions that reach the courts are often a direct consequence of the structure of these underlying legal frameworks. 3 A sophisticated analysis of judicial decisions, therefore, requires a foundational understanding of this architecture, particularly the influential TRIPS Agreement and its varied implementation across key jurisdictions like India, China, and the European Union. The TRIPS Agreement Framework The TRIPS Agreement, a cornerstone of the World Trade Organization, established the first global minimum standards for the protection of GIs, bringing them firmly into the mainstream of international intellectual property law.
However, in a compromise that continues to fuel
3 Dev Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications, 2 WIPO J. 98, 100–04 (2010).
international debate, the agreement created a contentious two-tiered system of protection. Article 22: The General Standard of Protection Article 22(1) of TRIPS provides the canonical international definition of a GI as an indication "which identify 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". This definition establishes the crucial link between the product's qualities and its place of origin. The standard of protection under Article 22 is primarily focused on preventing consumer deception and unfair competition.
Article 22(2) obligates member states to provide legal means for interested parties to prevent the use of a GI in a manner that "misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good" or any use that "constitutes an act of unfair competition". This is often referred to as the "misleading test. " A producer of cheese in a country outside Greece, for example, could potentially use the term "Greek-style Feta" under this standard, provided the true origin is clearly marked and it is argued that consumers are not misled. These standard forms the baseline protection for all GIs, from agricultural products to handicrafts. Article 23: Additional Protection for Wines and Spirits In contrast, Article 23 provides a significantly higher, more absolute level of protection, but exclusively for GIs identifying wines and spirits.
This "additional protection" moves beyond the "misleading test" of Article 22. Article 23(1) requires members to provide legal means to prevent the use of a wine or spirit GI on products not from that origin, even where the true origin of the goods is indicated and even if the GI is accompanied by expressions such as "kind", "type", "style", or "imitation". This provision effectively creates a per se rule against the unauthorized use of GIs for wines and spirits. Under this standard, a sparkling wine produced in California cannot be called "Champagne style" or "American Champagne" in a member country that protects the "Champagne" GI. This heightened protection reflects the significant lobbying efforts of European nations with strong economic interests in these specific sectors during the TRIPS negotiations.
The TRIPS Dichotomy This two-tiered system is a source of persistent international friction. Developing countries, including India, have long argued for the extension of Article 23-level protection to other products, such as handicrafts and agricultural goods, for which they have a strong heritage. 4 The legal distinction creates a hierarchy of value and protection that is not based on the inherent cultural or economic importance of the product, but on its classification as a wine or spirit. This structural tension within TRIPS is the direct predicate for legal battles like the Champagne case in India, where the plaintiff leverages the special status of its GI to argue for a scope of protection that might not be available to, for instance, a textile or foodstuff GI under the general standard of Article 22.
National Implementation: The Indian Sui Generis Model In fulfillment of its TRIPS obligations, India enacted a specialized, or sui generis, legal framework: The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which came into force in 2003. This Act created a comprehensive and self-contained system for the registration and protection of GIs, distinct from trademark law. Key Definitions and Procedures The Indian Act largely adopts the TRIPS definition of a GI, covering agricultural, natural, and manufactured goods, including handicrafts. The registration process is managed by the Geographical Indications Registry in Chennai. An application can be filed by "any association of persons or producers or any organization or authority established by or under any law... representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods".
5 This provision underscores the collective nature of the right. The application must include a statement of case detailing the product's unique qualities, the link to its geographical origin, a map of the area, and particulars of the producers. Once accepted and advertised, the application is open to opposition. Upon registration, the GI is valid for ten years and is renewable. 6 The Act creates two key legal entities: the "Registered
4 Daniel Gervais, The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis 240–44 (4th ed. 2012)
5 Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, No. 48 of 1999, § 11(1), India Code (1999) 6 Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, No. 48 of 1999, §§ 13–18, India Code (1999
Proprietor" (the association or body that registers the GI) and the "Authorised User" (an individual producer who applies and is permitted to use the registered GI). This statutory division of roles was the direct cause of the locus standi dispute in the Scotch Whisky Association case7, requiring the court to interpret the relationship between these two entities to determine the right to sue for infringement. The Act provides for both civil and criminal remedies against infringement, which includes using the GI in a way that misleads the public as to the true origin or constitutes an act of passing off. Understanding the Indian judicial response is enriched by comparing it with the approaches in other major jurisdictions.
Feta case8, where the European Commission itself initiated infringement proceedings against a member state, an action structurally inconceivable in a more decentralized system. This legal architecture international, national, and regional sets the stage upon which judicial dramas unfold. The specific provisions, definitions, and structural choices within these laws pre-determine the battlegrounds for litigation, and it is to the courts' responses on these battlegrounds that this analysis now turns. III. Delineating the Protected Territory: Judicial Scrutiny of Geographical Boundaries
and Producer Representation At the heart of every Geographical Indication lies a defined territory and a community of producers. The legitimacy and integrity of a GI depend entirely on the authenticity of these two pillars: the "where" and the "who. "9 While legislative frameworks provide the criteria for registration, they often leave the specific application of these criteria to administrative bodies. As demonstrated by key Indian jurisprudence, courts have assumed a critical supervisory role, intervening to ensure that the geographical and communal boundaries of a GI are not drawn arbitrarily but are grounded in evidence, history, and the fundamental principle of protecting the actual producers.
A close examination of the Basmati and Payyannur decisions reveals a consistent judicial philosophy: the courts are actively defining the foundational pillars of a GI's legitimacy, positioning themselves not merely as enforcers of the statute but as guardians of its core principles.
7 Scotch Whisky Ass’n v. Golden Bottling Ltd., 2006 (32) PTC 656 (Del. HC)
8 Case C‐465/02, Commission v. Germany, 2005 E.C.R. I‐9115 (CJEU).
9 Irene Calboli, Expanding the Protection of Geographical Indications: Old Debate or New Opportunity? 10 WIPO J. 57, 58–60 (2018).
The Basmati Rice Conundrum: Defining the "Where" of a GI The legal battle over the GI for Basmati rice is a seminal case in Indian IP law, directly confronting the challenge of defining the geographical scope of a product cultivated across vast and evolving territories. The dispute arose when the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) filed an application for a GI for "Basmati," defining the production area as the Indo-Gangetic plains, specifically covering parts of Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and Uttarakhand. 10 This application was vehemently opposed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, which argued that farmers in several of its districts had been cultivating Basmati rice for decades and that their exclusion from the GI-protected area was arbitrary and detrimental to their livelihoods.
The core legal conflict was thus between a narrowly defined, reputationbased territory advocated by APEDA and a more inclusive, historically cultivation-based territory championed by Madhya Pradesh. The initial administrative decision by the Assistant Registrar of GIs sided with the objectors, finding that APEDA had not sufficiently demarcated the actual cultivation area and directing it to file an amended application including the "uncovered area" in states like Madhya Pradesh. However, on appeal, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) overturned this, directing the Registrar to grant the GI certificate for the areas specified in APEDA's original application, while remanding the specific issue of including Madhya Pradesh's claimed areas for fresh consideration. This led to a writ petition before the Madras High Court.
11 The judicial intervention, culminating in the High Court's decision, was crucial. While the court did not definitively order the inclusion of Madhya Pradesh, its reasoning established a vital principle of balance. The court upheld the concept of GI protection for genuine Basmati but simultaneously acknowledged the need for fair market access for producers outside the designated zone. The judgment clarified that the GI protection applied to the commercial use of the "Basmati" name, not to the act of cultivation itself. This meant farmers in Madhya Pradesh could continue to grow the rice variety, but they could not label and sell it as "Basmati". The significance of this judicial response cannot be overstated. The courts acted as a crucial check on the power of an administrative and quasi-governmental body like APEDA.
They refused to accept a geographical demarcation at face value, instead forcing the issue back for
10 Agricultural & Processed Food Prods. Export Dev. Auth. v. Krbl Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine IPAB 53
11 Krbl Ltd. v. Union of India, W.P. No. 19324 of 2010, Madras High Court (pending disposal)
reconsideration based on robust evidence of both historical cultivation and, critically, reputation. The judiciary insisted that the boundaries of a GI must reflect a verifiable reality of origin and quality, not just the commercial interests of a particular region's exporters. This prevents a GI from becoming a tool of arbitrary regional monopoly and ensures that its geographical scope is defensible, thereby strengthening the integrity of the entire GI system in India. The Payyannur Pavithra Ring Controversy If the Basmati case centered on the "where," the dispute over the Payyannur Pavithra Ring revolved around the "who. " This case tested the fundamental principle that a GI is a collective right belonging to a community of producers.
The Payyannur Pavithra Ring is a unique gold ornament with deep cultural and mythical significance, crafted with a special knot and adhering to specific dimensions and rituals. A GI application was filed and granted to the "Payyannur Pavithra Ring Artisans and Development Society,"12 which claimed to represent the producers of this traditional craft. The registration was challenged by Subhash Jewellery and other artisans, who argued that the applicant society was a sham entity that did not genuinely represent the interests of the actual artisans who possessed the traditional knowledge. The challengers contended that the society was composed primarily of businessmen, not the craftspeople themselves, and that the application had been made "behind their back".
This challenge went to the IPAB after an initial writ petition in the Madras High Court was dismissed on the grounds of an available alternative remedy. The IPAB's decision was a landmark in defining the communal authenticity required for a GI. The Board sided with the challengers and ordered the removal of the respondent society's name from the GI register, remanding the matter to the Registrar for fresh consideration. The IPAB's reasoning was incisive. It stated, "A mere claim that the society is called Payyannur Pavithra Ring Artisans and Development Society will not suffice. There should be evidence to show that the producers are desirous of coming together to protect the Geographical Indication, that is clearly absent". The Board emphasized that the "main object of the Act is to protect those
12 Geographical Indications Journal, No. 145, at 38–39 (July 1, 2020)
persons who are directly engaged in exploiting, creating or making or manufacturing the goods". This ruling established a vital judicial precedent: the locus standi of a GI applicant is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive requirement that goes to the very heart of the GI's purpose. The judiciary will pierce the corporate veil of an applicant society to determine if it is a true and legitimate representative of the producer community. This prevents the "capture" of a valuable collective, cultural right by a few individuals or commercial entities who are not the custodians of the traditional knowledge.
The IPAB's decision to preserve the GI tag for the product itself, while removing the improperly registered proprietor, and directing the Registrar to facilitate a "meeting of minds" among all genuine artisans, underscores the judicial commitment to the communal nature of the GI right. It serves as a powerful reminder that procedural integrity and authentic community representation are non-negotiable prerequisites for obtaining and retaining a GI registration in India. From Goods to Services: The Darjeeling Lounge Dispute The case of Tea Board, India v. ITC Limited13 presented the Calcutta High Court with a novel question: can a GI registered for a good be infringed by the use of the geographical name in connection with a service?
The Tea Board, the registered proprietor of the "Darjeeling" GI and certification trademark for tea, sued ITC Limited, a major hospitality company, for naming an exclusive area in its Kolkata hotel the "Darjeeling Lounge". The Tea Board argued that this constituted infringement, passing off, and dilution of the "Darjeeling" brand, which is exclusively associated with tea from that region. ITC countered that its use was purely descriptive, intended to evoke the theme and ambiance of the Darjeeling region, not to suggest an origin for any goods. It argued that since the lounge was a service, and not tea, there was no likelihood of consumer confusion. The single judge of the Calcutta High Court, in a decision later upheld by the Division Bench, dismissed the Tea Board's suit. The court's reasoning was grounded in a traditional, confusioncentric view of infringement.
It observed that the plaintiff's GI registration was for tea and related products, not for hotel services, which were distinct and dissimilar categories. The pivotal factor was the unlikelihood of consumer confusion. The court opined that there was
13 Tea Board, India v. ITC Ltd., 2011 (48) PTC 52 (Cal. HC)
"scarcely any likelihood of deception or confusion in the lounge being named 'Darjeeling'" because high-end hotel customers would not be misled into believing the lounge itself was a product of the Tea Board or that it exclusively sold tea. The Division Bench affirmed this, stating that the GI Act's purpose is to give protection relating to goods, and this does not confer a right over the geographical name "Darjeeling" so as to prevent its use for hospitality services. This decision delineates a critical boundary for GI protection in India under its current sui generis law. It indicates that protection does not automatically extend to prevent the use of a geographical name on dissimilar services, especially where direct consumer confusion is deemed improbable.
The court treated "Darjeeling" as a multifaceted geographical term with associations beyond tea, such as tourism and culture, and was unwilling to grant the Tea Board an exclusive monopoly over the word in a non-tea context. This ruling raises significant questions about the adequacy of the Indian framework to tackle more subtle forms of dilution or tarnishment, where the harm is not confusion of source but the gradual erosion of the GI's unique association with a specific product. In stark contrast to the narrow, confusion-based approach in the Darjeeling Lounge case, other judicial decisions, particularly those involving globally famous GIs, have demonstrated a much more proactive stance against the risks of dilution and genericization. The Champagne Precedent in India A prime example is the Delhi High Court's ruling in Comite Interprofessionnel Du Vin De
Champagne v. Chinar Agro Fruit Products. 14 The plaintiff, the French body representing Champagne producers, sued an Indian company for using the name "champagne" on its nonalcoholic sparkling drinks. The defendant's product bottles also mimicked the shape and style of traditional Champagne bottles. Despite the defendant not appearing in court, the case proceeded ex-parte, and the court granted a permanent injunction. The court's reasoning moved far beyond a simple test of consumer confusion about the product's nature (alcoholic vs. non-alcoholic). Instead, it focused squarely on the threat of dilution to the GI's prestige and distinctiveness. The court held that allowing the defendant's use "is also likely to dilute the distinctive character of the well-known Geographical Indication 14 Comite Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v. Chinar Agro Fruit Products, 2010 (44) PTC 469 (Del.
HC).
champagne" and that this "would ultimately lead to the registered Geographical Indication champagne becoming generic in India". This judgment affirms a robust, trademark-like protection against dilution for well-known GIs, even when the infringing product is noncompeting and dissimilar. The court was not just protecting consumers from being misled about origin; it was protecting the very brand equity and exclusivity of the "Champagne" GI itself, a right reinforced by the higher protection afforded to wines under TRIPS Article 23. The Jinhua Ham Case in China15 A similar protective stance was taken by Chinese courts in the Jinhua Ham case. Jinhua ham
is a traditional dry-cured ham from Zhejiang province with a history spanning over a thousand years, registered as a GI in China. A dispute arose when a leading producer, Zhejiang Jinhua Ham Co. , Ltd. (ZJHC), was accused by the Jinhua Ham Association (JHA) of violating the GI by using non-local pigs and chemical additives. A key part of the defense was the argument that the term "Jinhua Ham" had become generic, referring to a style of dry-cured ham rather than an origin-specific product, and that producers outside the region should be able to use the term. The Jinhua Intermediate People's Court, in a decision upheld on appeal, rejected this argument and ruled in favor of the JHA. The court was faced with the classic challenge of determining whether a term maintains its geographically specific meaning or has transitioned into a common descriptor.
By finding for the JHA, the court reinforced the specificity of the GI, balancing the preservation of a historically rooted regional specialty against arguments for broader market use. This decision signaled China's increasing alignment with international standards in protecting the integrity of GIs against the threat of genericization. A comparative analysis of these cases reveals a fascinating judicial dynamic. The proactive,
anti-dilution stance in the Champagne and Jinhua Ham cases contrasts sharply with the conservative, confusion-based approach in the Darjeeling Lounge dispute. This suggests an implicit judicial test: the more a GI functions like a globally famous brand in the public consciousness, the more likely courts are to apply robust, trademark-like anti-dilution principles. This creates a feedback loop where GIs that invest heavily in building and policing a global brand receive stronger judicial protection, which in turn enhances their brand value. It 15 Jinhua Ham Association v. State Administration for Industry and Commerce, [2002] Zhijiang High People's Ct. (China).
demonstrates that for GI holders, legal protection strategies and marketing efforts are deeply and mutually reinforcing. IV. The Mechanics of Enforcement: Standing, Scope, and Remedies in GI Litigation
Effective intellectual property protection is contingent not only on the substantive rights granted by law but also on the practical mechanisms available for their enforcement. In the realm of GIs, litigation often hinges on preliminary but critical questions of legal standing (who has the right to sue? ), the precise definition of what constitutes an infringing act, and the remedies available to the rights holder. Judicial decisions in this area are profoundly important as they determine whether the promises of GI legislation translate into tangible protection in the marketplace. A landmark ruling from India's Madhya Pradesh High Court on the right to sue, alongside cases from Turkey and India that explore the scope of infringement, illustrate how courts are shaping the procedural and substantive contours of GI enforcement. The Right to Sue: Registered Proprietors vs.
Authorised Users in the Scotch Whisky Case A pivotal question in GI enforcement is determining who has the legal standing, or locus standi,
to initiate an infringement suit. This issue was squarely addressed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Scotch Whisky Association v. J. K. Enterprise,16 a decision with significant implications for the enforcement of foreign GIs in India. The Scotch Whisky Association (SWA), a UK-based body, is the Registered Proprietor (RP) of the "Scotch Whisky" GI in India. The SWA filed a suit against J. K. Enterprise, an Indian company, for infringement, alleging that the defendant's "London Pride" whisky, along with its use of UK-related imagery, misled consumers. The defendant filed a preliminary application to reject the plaint, arguing that under Section 21(1)(a) of the Indian GI Act, a suit for infringement could only be instituted by the "registered proprietor... and authorised user or users".
The trial court accepted this argument, holding that the suit was maintainable only after the SWA impleaded an Authorised User (AU) a licensed producer or bottler in India as a co-plaintiff. This created a formidable procedural obstacle, as it would make the SWA's ability to enforce its rights dependent on the cooperation of a local licensee.
16 Scotch Whisky Ass’n v. J.K. Enterprise, 2008 (38) PTC 469 (Del. HC).
The SWA took on a challenge to this order before the High Court, which undertook a thorough and purposive interpretation of the statute. The High Court framed the central issue as whether the word "and" in Section 21(1)(a)17 should be interpreted conjunctively (in which case both an RP and AU need to sue together) or disjunctively (meaning either the RP or AU can sue). The interpretation of the statute was a masterclass in statutory interpretation to avoid a ridiculous outcome. The High Court cited prior Supreme Court rulings that established that "and" can be interpreted as "or" to comply with the legislature's true intention. The High Court reasoned that a conjunctively reading would position the RP (the entity that must take the steps to register the GI) beneath the AU which would be absurd.
The High Court reasoned that the RP has a distinct legal status, and a distinct right under the Act. In conclusion, the High Court was minded to deem "and" in the section should be read as "or," thereby confirming the Registered Proprietor has a distinct right to pursue an infringement action. This judicial clarification is of immense practical importance. It removes a significant barrier to the enforcement of GIs, particularly foreign ones, in India. By affirming the independent standing of bodies like the SWA, the court has streamlined the enforcement process, allowing the primary custodians of a GI's reputation to take direct and swift legal action against infringers. The decision reflects a mature judicial approach that prioritizes the spirit and objective of the IP law effective protection over a rigid, literal interpretation that would lead to an impractical and unjust outcome.
Defining Infringement: Direct Use and Misleading Association Once standing is established, the core of an infringement action is proving that the defendant's actions fall within the statutory definition of infringement. Courts have adjudicated on a spectrum of infringing activities, from clear-cut cases of direct misuse to more nuanced instances of indirect association. The Adana Kebab Case (Turkey): A Clear Case of "Direct Use" The Adana Kebab case18 from Turkey provides a straightforward example of what can be termed "direct use" infringement. The "Adana Kebab" is a registered GI in Turkey, and its 17 Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, No. 48 of 1999, § 21(1)(a), India Code (1999). 18 dana Chamber of Commerce v. Turkish Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. 2013/12236, Decision No. 2014/10226, Turkish Court of Appeals (Yargıtay) (2014).
product specification mandates that the meat used must be obtained from sheep raised in the region's unique flora. The plaintiff, the rights holder for the GI, discovered that the defendant was producing and marketing a product named "Adana Kebab" that was made from chicken meat. The defendant argued that the term had become national and lost its specific geographical connection. The Turkish court unequivocally found in favor of the plaintiff. It held that the defendant's use of the name on a product that did not conform to the essential characteristics laid out in the GI registration constituted a clear infringement. The court ordered the defendant to cease using the name, allowed for the products to be placed on the market only in a non-infringing manner, and awarded financial compensation.
This case illustrates the most fundamental form of GI infringement: the direct application of the protected name to a product that does not meet the GI's quality, material, or production standards. The London Pride Case (India)19: Infringement by Misleading Association The underlying substantive claim in the Scotch Whisky case, while decided on a procedural point, highlights a more complex theory of infringement: misleading association. The SWA's suit against the producers of "London Pride" whisky was not based on the defendant using the term "Scotch.
" Instead, the SWA alleged that the use of a quintessentially British name like "London Pride," potentially combined with other imagery like the Union Jack flag, for a whisky not produced in Scotland, would mislead the public into drawing a false association with the United Kingdom, thereby unfairly trading on the reputation of Scotch Whisky. This type of claim falls under the provision of the Indian GI Act that prohibits using a GI in a manner which "misleads the persons as to the geographical origin of such goods". It requires a more nuanced analysis than a direct use case. The court must assess the overall impression created by the defendant's branding and determine whether an average consumer would be likely to infer a geographical connection that does not exist.
While the High Court did not rule on the merits of this specific claim, the case itself exemplifies the broader scope of GI infringement, which extends beyond the literal use of the protected name to encompass any commercial presentation that creates a false or misleading suggestion of geographical origin.
19 Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Govind Yadav & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3846.
These cases collectively show that judicial interpretation is key to defining the boundaries of what constitutes an infringing act, from the unambiguous to the subtle. V. The Global Dimension: Judicial Responses to Cross-Border GI Infringement
As the world is increasingly interconnected, the protection of Geographical Indications cannot be limited to a country. The value of a GI is often realized through trade outside of a jurisdiction, but in doing so the GI may be subject to infringement in other jurisdictions, presenting two particular legal challenges: protecting foreign GIs under a home legal system and asserting extraterritoriality in their own GI law. Trailblazing case law from China and the European Union provides excellent illustrations of how courts approach these transnational challenges and the protective mechanisms they endorse. In short, these types of cases may indicate the emerging field of international enforcement even if their underlying legal rationale and other frameworks differ.
Protecting Foreign GIs in Domestic Courts: The Chinese Experience China, as a major global exporter and importer, has become a key battleground for GI protection. Its judicial system's approach to enforcing both foreign and domestic GIs is therefore of immense international significance. Recent cases demonstrate a strong and sophisticated commitment by Chinese courts to uphold GI rights in line with the country's international trade obligations. Conseil Interprofessionnel du Vin de Bordeaux (CIVB) v. Yantai Lark20 This case should be considered an important win for an international GI holder in China. The CIVB is the French body for Bordeaux wine producers, and they brought suit against the Chinese company Yantai Lark, in the Yantai Intermediate Court. The defendant was producing and selling wines that were not from Bordeaux but were sold with the mark "BORDEAUX.
" The product also falsely claimed to have a Bordeaux Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée (AOC). The Chinese court ruled significantly in favor of the CIVB, and this decision was affirmed by the Shandong High Court. The court ruled that the defendant's actions were not only an infringement of the "Bordeaux" collective trademark registered in China, but that the defendant 20 Conseil Interprofessionnel du Vin de Bordeaux (CIVB) v. Yantai Lark Food Co. , Shandong High People's Court, Civil Judgment No. 76 (2005).
also committed an act of unfair competition by falsely making the origin of the product and by confusing consumers. The court ordered the defendant to cease its infringement, and the defendant was ordered to pay damages for RMB 500,000. The selection of this case as one of the Shandong High Court's Top 10 IP Cases of 2019 emphasizes its meaning as a precedent. This judgement also provides a real message to the international community from the Chinese court system that it is willing to protect the rights of foreign GI holders. This is also important because it recognizes those bilateral agreements signed by China with the European Union related to GI protection. TWG Tea (Shanghai) Vs. Shanghai Pudong Intellectual Property Office21 This case demonstrates the Chinese system's commitment to protecting its own domestic GIs from misuse by foreign-affiliated companies operating within China.
TWG Tea, a company based in Shanghai, was selling tea imported from Singapore but packaged and labeled with the registered Chinese GI "Longjing Tea". When confronted by the Shanghai Pudong Intellectual Property Office, the company argued that the labels were applied in the Shanghai free trade zone, which it claimed should be excluded from Chinese jurisdiction, and that the product's origin in Singapore was irrelevant. The administrative body issued a substantial penalty, which was subsequently upheld by the Shanghai Pudong New Area Court. The court firmly rejected the defendant's jurisdictional arguments, holding that the free trade zone is governed by Chinese law and that any trademark infringement occurring there is subject to legal consequences, especially since the goods were ultimately sold in the Chinese domestic market.
The court ruled that using the "Longjing Tea" GI without the consent of the rights holder and on a product not from the designated region was a clear violation of China's Trademark Law and misled consumers about the product's true origin and quality. These cases, taken together, paint a picture of a Chinese judiciary that is actively and even-handedly enforcing GI rights, whether they belong to foreign or domestic stakeholders, thereby fostering a more predictable and rules-based environment for international trade. 21 TWG Tea (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. v. Shanghai Pudong Intellectual Property Office, Shanghai Pudong New Area People’s Court, Administrative Litigation (2021) Hu 0115 Xing Chu No. 399 (China).
The Extraterritorial Reach of GI Law: The Feta Doctrine While the Chinese cases show a domestic court protecting GIs within its own territory, a landmark ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) established a powerful principle with significant extraterritorial effect. The case, Commission v. Denmark (Case C-159/20),22 addressed a fundamental question: do EU GI protection rules apply to products made within the EU but destined exclusively for export to third countries? The European Commission, supported by Greece, brought an infringement action against Denmark. The basis of the complaint was that Denmark had failed to prevent Danish companies from producing cheese, often from cow's milk, labeling it as "Feta," and exporting it to countries outside the EU.
The name "Feta" has been registered as a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) in the EU since 2002, restricting its use to cheese made in a specific area of Greece from sheep's milk (with some goat's milk permitted) according to a strict product specification. Denmark's defense was that the EU regulation on quality schemes applies only to products sold within the EU's internal market and does not cover exports to third countries where the "Feta" name might not be protected. The CJEU rejected Denmark's argument in a watershed judgment. The Court's reasoning fundamentally shifted the legal nexus of infringement from the point of consumer confusion to the point of production. It held that the EU regulation applies to all products produced within the Union, regardless of their final destination.
The court reasoned that the use of a PDO on a non-conforming product "impairs, within the European Union, the intellectual property right constituted by that PDO". The infringing act, the wrongful production and labeling occurs within the EU's legal jurisdiction. This act undermines the core objectives of the regulation, which are to guarantee product authenticity for consumers and ensure fair returns for producers of the genuine article. The harm is done to the integrity of the intellectual property right itself within the single market, even if the end consumer is in a third country. The implications of this "Feta doctrine" are profound. It establishes that EU member states cannot serve as manufacturing hubs for products that infringe EU GIs, even if those products are never sold within the Union. This dramatically strengthens GI protection by allowing rights
22 Commission v. Kingdom of Denmark, Case C‐159/20, Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July
2022 (holding that Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Article 13(3) applies to exports of protected designations of origin)
holders to stop infringement at its source, rather than having to pursue legal action in dozens of different export markets. It effectively exports the EU's high standards of GI protection globally, as any product leaving the EU's territory must comply with its internal rules, thereby shaping the authenticity of goods available on the international market. This decision represents one of the most expansive judicial interpretations of GI protection to date, highlighting the powerful role the judiciary can play in defining the global reach of these unique rights. VI. Future Directions: Towards a Coherent Global GI Jurisprudence
The judicial examples, discussed in this article, from India, China, and the EU all showcase a legal space that is actively evolving. These decisions demonstrate that while the legislature and/or international treaties establish the frameworks of protection of Geographical Indication, it is the judiciary that is engaging in the complex work of legal construction. Judges and courts are not only applying rules; they are interpreting and making law, and in some instances, remaking law in order to address the unique global challenges of economic globalization. By synthesizing the trends revealed in this case law, it is possible to identify key areas of jurisprudential convergence and divergence, highlight the persistent challenges that lie ahead, and chart a course toward a more coherent and effective global system for GI protection.
Synthesizing Judicial Trends A comparative analysis of the case law reveals several overarching themes in the judicial
treatment of GIs. There is a clear convergence around the fundamental principle of preventing consumer deception. Whether in China's protection of "Bordeaux" wine, India's stance on "Champagne," or Turkey's ruling on "Adana Kebab," courts universally recognize that a core function of a GI is to serve as a reliable indicator of origin and quality, and they will act to prevent uses that mislead the public. However, significant divergence emerges in the scope of protection afforded. The Indian High Court in the Darjeeling Lounge case adopted a narrow, confusion-based test, declining to extend protection for a good to a dissimilar service. In contrast, the Delhi High Court's decision in the Champagne case and the CJEU's reasoning in the Feta case reflect a much broader, antidilution philosophy, aimed at protecting the prestige and integrity of the GI as an intellectual
property right in itself, even in the absence of direct competition or consumer confusion. This suggests that the level of judicial protection is often proportional to the perceived fame and economic value of the GI in question. The central thesis of this article is that the judiciary plays an active role in shaping GI policy is borne out across the cases. In Scotch Whisky Association, the Indian court performed a crucial act of statutory correction, interpreting "and" as "or" to avoid an absurd result and ensure the legislative purpose of effective enforcement was met.
In Basmati Rice and Payyannur Pavithra Ring, the Indian judiciary established itself as the guardian of a GI's foundational legitimacy, demanding that its geographical and communal claims be grounded in verifiable evidence, thereby preventing the system from being captured by narrow commercial or unrepresentative interests. The CJEU's Feta ruling represents perhaps the most profound act of judicial construction, creating a doctrine of extraterritorial application that dramatically expands the power and reach of EU GI law. These are not acts of passive application; they are decisions that actively define and build the law. Persistent Lacunae and Challenges Despite these important judicial developments, significant challenges and legal uncertainties remain.
The tension between GI protection and the freedom of commercial expression, particularly regarding the descriptive use of geographical terms in non-competing sectors, as seen in the Darjeeling Lounge case, is far from resolved. The application of GI principles to the digital marketplace, including their use in domain names, online advertising, and ecommerce platforms, presents a new frontier of complex legal questions that courts are only beginning to address. Furthermore, the fundamental international schism codified in the TRIPS Agreement the higher protection for wines and spirits under Article 23 versus the general protection for all other goods under Article 22 continues to create inconsistencies and fuel debate.
While courts in jurisdictions like India have shown a willingness to grant strong, dilution-based protection to well-known GIs like Champagne, it is unclear if the same broad protection would be afforded to a less famous agricultural or handicraft product. This underlying inequality in the
international framework remains a significant challenge to achieving a truly harmonized global approach. Recommendations The way forward to a more harmonized global GI jurisprudence is a multi-faceted one. To begin, increased judicial dialogue and cross-citation of precedent between jurisdictions can bring with it a common appreciation of underlying principles. Although different legal systems operate, the problems of defining origin, avoiding dilution, and reconciling competing interests are common to them all. The CJEU's rationale in the Feta case or that of the Indian High Court in the Scotch Whisky case provides useful analytical models that may guide judicial decisionmaking elsewhere. Second, legislatures can turn to this expanding corpus of case law as a diagnostic device for recognizing and filling gaps in current legislation.
The controversy in the Darjeeling Lounge case, for example, makes clear that legislatures should take a close look at defining the scope of protection against dilution by dissimilar goods and services explicitly. Again, the Payyannur case suggests that legislatures must have precise statutory language in order to specify requirements for an applicant to establish its representative capacity. In the end, however, the complex balance of trade, culture, and law that is central to any GI will nearly always be worked out in the courts. The judicial reactions discussed here illustrate that GIs are not static notions but rather fluid legal instruments whose meaning and authority are always being constructed and contested.
Although globalization forces are forging stronger connections between local producers and global consumers, the judiciary's role as the unique arbiter of these valuable rights will be even more significant. For that reason, ongoing research on these judicial reactions will be important for all actors involved - producers, legal practitioners, and policymakers - who want to guide and influence the next chapter of Geographical Indications.