GIs in India, Contemporary Challenges and Solutions

GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS IN INDIA:
CONTEMPORARY
CHANLLENGES AND
SOLUTIONS
AMLAN CHAKRABORTY
1
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS IN INDIA:
CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES AND
SOLUTIONS
By
AMLAN CHAKRABORTY
BA.LL.B( Hons.), LL.M(NLSIU, Bangalore),PhD. Scholar(GNLU,
Gujarat)
UGC NET-JRF
2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dedicated to my parents who have always been a source
of inspiration and motivation and also to all my teachers
who have made me realize my potentialities and talents.
3
FOREWORD
The current book in its form is based on my dissertation thesis (titled as “Problems
with Registration of authorized users and lack of quality control mechanism with
Indian GIs: A critical Appraisal”) submitted during my LL.M course at National
Law School of India at Bangalore in 2019. Given that, writing a book always seems a
huge challenge especially for green horns like me, I was initially hesitant for
publication of the book on the technical aspects of implementation of Geographical
Indications in India.
Having said this however, I believe that the current lack of digital access to wider
public on the submitted theses in libraries across universities in India is a big hurdle
to dissemination of knowledge. It is in this spirit that I undertook to present my thesis
in a more readable and distributable form of a book. The issues are two fold with
respect to Geographical Indications in India- There is a problem with registration of
authorized users and second, the Geographical Indications somehow are not able to
manage their quality factor due to several factors, both of which cut down on the
efficacy of the Geographical Indications as a form of Intellectual Property protection.
We have seen a huge proliferation in the number of Geographical Indications being
registered in India, however, these problems continue to plague the Indian GIs on a
different tangent. A resolving of these problems is imminently necessary for the
entire GI regime in India and certain solutions based on my research finding have
been offered in this book.
I am extremely grateful to Prof. T. Ramakrishna of National Law School for having
presented me to these problems and prodded me to work towards finding solutions
for them while guiding me at every step.
Last but not the least, my special thanks to “Lambert Academic Publishing ” for
publishing this and presenting before legal fraternity.
Amlan Chakraborty
Email: amlanchakraborty@nls.ac.in
4
Table of Contents
1.INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................13
1.1 Geographical Indications:............................................................................................14
1.2 GI as Collective Rights.................................................................................................16
1.3 Legal Systems for GI Protection in Different Jurisdictions...........................................17
1.4 Causes and Necessity of GI Protection across the World............................................20
1.5 India and its GI woes...................................................................................................22
2. JUSTIFICATIONS TO PROTECTION OF GI AS AN IP.............................................................27
2.1 JUSTIFICATIONS FOR GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS...................................................28
2.1.1 AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS- AN ARGUMENT
EXTENUATED.................................................................................................................28
2.1.2 LOCKEAN LABOUR THEORY AND GIs- A SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE?..........33
2.1.3 A PERSONALITY THEORY PERSPECTIVE ON GIs- A MISFIT?...................................37
2.2 ARGUMENTS FOR AUTHORIZED USERS AND QUALITY CONTROL................................40
2.2.1 A JUSTIFICATION ON AUTHORIZED USERS..........................................................40
2.2.2 JUSTIFICATIONS FOR QUALITY CONTROL AND ITS ENFORCEMENT......................43
3.INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR PROTECTION OF
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS...............................................................................................52
3.1 Historical Overview and Evolution of Geographical Indications..................................52
3.2 Domestic Framework for Protection of Geographical Indications in different
jurisdictions.......................................................................................................................66
3.2.1 Legal Framework for protection of GIs in the European Union............................66
3.2.2 Legal Framework for protection of GIs in the US..................................................69
3.2.3 Legal Framework for protection of GIs in China...................................................71
3.3 Framework for Protection of GIs in India....................................................................72
4.REGISTRATION OF AUTHORIZED USERS: AN IMPEDIMENT TO SUCCESS OF GIs IN INDIA? 78
4.1 CONCEPT OF ‘AUTHORIZED USERS’.............................................................................78
4.1.1.1 LEGAL BENEFITS OF REGISTRATION AS AN AUTHORIZED USER.........................79
4.1 PROBLEMS WITH REGISTRATION OF AUTHORIZED USERS..........................................82
5
4.2.1 LACK OF A CLEAR DEFINTION OF AUTHORIZED USER...........................................84
4.2.2 PROBLEMATIC DEFINTION OF ‘PRODUCER’ UNDER GI ACT,1999.........................85
4.2.3 LACK OF AWARENESS OF GIs AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT..........................86
4.2.4 PRESENT INADEQUCIES IN MAPPING METHODOLOGY OF GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS
OF CULTIVATION/PRODUCTION OF GIs.........................................................................89
4.2.5 POOR REGISTRATION OF AUTHORIZED USERS.....................................................93
4.2.6 FINDINGS ON PROBLEMS PERTAINING TO AUTHORIZED USER REGISTRATION
OFGIs IN INDIA:.............................................................................................................95
4.3 STEPS TAKEN BY FEW AGENCIES TO IMPROVE AUTHORIZED USERS REGISTRATION OF
GIs IN INDIA: THE WAY FORWARD?................................................................................101
A.STEPS TAKEN BY AGENCIES IN KARNATAKA.............................................................101
B. STEPS TAKEN BY AGENCIES IN OTHER STATES.........................................................104
5. QUALITY STANDARDS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT : A CRITICAL ANALYSIS......................115
5.1 CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR GUARANTEEING QUALITY CONTROL IN
INDIA...............................................................................................................................115
5.2 PROBLEMS WITH QUALITY CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT OF QUALITY CONTROL..117
5.2.1 NON-EXISTENCE OF A MANDATORY INSPECTION BODY FOR QUALITY CONTROL
....................................................................................................................................120
5.2.2 LACK OF SCRUTINY AND INSPECTION MEASURES WITH RESPECT TO THE GI
PRODUCTS BY THE INSPECTION BODIES......................................................................120
5.2.3 FLOODING OF FAKE PRODUCTS IN THE MARKET AND ‘FREE-RIDING’ BY INSIDERS
....................................................................................................................................128
5.2.4 FLOODING OF FAKE PRODUCTS IN THE MARKET...............................................129
5.2.5‘FREE-RIDING’ BY INSIDERS.................................................................................133
A.CASE OF CHANNAPTANA TOYS AND DOLLS.............................................................133
B. CASE OF BANARASI SAREES.....................................................................................134
5.3 LACK OF ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IN CASE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH QUALITY
STANDARDS.....................................................................................................................136
5.3.1 FINDINGS ON PROBLEMS PERTAINING TO QUALITY CONTROL AND
ENFORCEMENT OF CONTROL OF GIs IN INDIA............................................................137
5.4 STEPS TAKEN BY FEW AGENCIES TO IMPROVE QUALITY CONTROL AND
ENFORCEMENT OF QUALITY CONTROL OF GIs IN INDIA: LESSONS FOR OTHERS?..........147
6
5.4.1 STEPS TAKEN BY AGENCIES OUTSIDE INDIA TO IMPROVE QUALITY CONTROL AND
ENFORCEMENT OF QUALITY CONTROL OF GIs............................................................150
6. A CASE STUDY OF CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS......................................................170
A. Status of Channapatna Toys and Dolls........................................................................170
B. Status of other GIs of Karnataka.................................................................................180
7. CONCLUDING NOTES.......................................................................................................183
SUGGESTIONS.....................................................................................................................190
7
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
8
1.INTRODUCTION
“Intellectual Property”, as in its verbatim meaning and colloquial
understanding refers to those creations of human intellect such as inventions,
literary, artistic works and symbols, names and images used in human
commerce.1Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter IP Rights or IPs) are
analogous to conventional proprietary rights, albeit offering proprietary
protection and enforcement of rights of different domain viz. products created
through human mind. The term has been also been explicated by scholars
like William Fisher to refer to a loose cluster of legal doctrines which govern
the usage of varied sorts of ideas and insignia. 2A look into their respective
domains of protection for each of these IPs would perhaps explain their
operation and scope of protection. For example, the law of copyright protects
the “original expressions” of ideas in contrast to the ideas themselves such
as protecting the original expressions of stories, novels, drama, musical
compositions, computer software programs etc. Patent law on the other
hand, offers protection to inventions majorly and to some kinds of
discoveries. Trademark Law seeks to grant protection to different types of
words/symbols which are identifiable by consumers of goods and services
1
World Intellectual Property Organization, What is Intellectual Property? 2 (Jan.
29,2019,9:00 PM),
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.pdf
2
William Fisher, Theories of Intellectual Property 1 (Jan. 29,2019,9:00 PM),
https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/iptheory.pdf
9
manufactured or provided by different persons or firms. Similarly like other
IPs offering different realms of protection on the spectrum of IP law, the
Trade Secrets law protects commercially valuable information (such as
secret recipes, commercial marketing strategies, customer databases etc.)
which companies would generally want to conceal from their competitors in
order to maintain their competitive advantage in the market. The “right of
publicity” protects the legitimate interests of the celebrities in their images
and identities.3
1.1 Geographical Indications:
Geographical Indications (also known as GIs and hereinafter referred to as
GIs), are also a form of IP and being the primary area of discussion of this
thesis, refers to a sign used on a product, having a specific geographical
origin and possessing qualities/characteristics and reputation due to that
place of origin.4 The examples of globally renowned GIs are numerous, such
as Agricultural GIs like Tequilla, an oft-drunk and largely popular alcoholic
beverage produced from distillation of blue agave plant and its subsequent
blending with other sugars, in several regions of Central and Western Mexico
including the actual town of Tequilla in the state of Jalisco (in Mexico) 5 or the
3
Id.
4
Supra note 1
5
European Commission, The Commissions approves protected Geographical Indication
from Mexico, https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/commission-approves-protected-geographical-
indication-mexico-2019-mar-20_en (Feb. 14, 2019, 5:30 PM).
10
Parma Ham or Prosciutto di Parma6, a flavourful, cured raw ham delicacy
is a meat product which is produced by processing of hind legs of pigs
through treatment with a minimum amount of salt to ensure tenderness of the
meat and is peculiar to the unique growing conditions of the Parma region in
Italy which make it possible to produce the highest quality of hams. 7 Like the
Agricultural GIs, there are also significant numbers of Non-Agricultural GIs 8
which are characterized by specific qualities of a product attributable to
human factors found in place of origin like specific manufacturing skills and
traditions such as the Goiaberas9, a handicraft pottery/pans traditionally
made by women porters passed on as traditional knowledge from generation
to generation in the Espirito Santo state of Brazil or the Pochampally Ikat, a
dying and tying process of the yarn applied to Sarees (an Indian women’s
garment) essentially attributable to a village named Pochampally in Andhra
Pradesh and in Nalgonda, Warangal and three other districts of Andhra
Pradesh in India.10
6
Prosciutto di Parma, https://www.prosciuttodiparma.com/en_UK/home (Mar. 14, 2019, 5:30
PM).
7
European Commission, Agriculture and Rural
Development,https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/events/2007/quality-
conference/fanti_en.pdf (Mar. 14, 2019, 5:30 PM)
8
Supra note 1
9
See Elizabeth Ferreira da Silva & Patrícia Pereira Peralta ,Collective Marks and
Geographical Indications- Collective Strategy of Differentiation and Appropriation of
Intangible Heritage 16 J.IPR 246,249 (2011)
10
All India Artisans and Craft workers Welfare Association, Geographical Indications-
Pochampally Ikat (2) https://www.switch-
asia.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Project_Downloads/Batch_1/policy-briefs-geographical-
indication-pochampally-ikat-1.pdf (last visited March 2, 2019 ,10:00 PM).
11
Generally, a GI will invariably consist of the name of the place of origin of the
goods as for agricultural/non-agricultural products and in addition to this the
quality/characteristics or reputation of the product which will be attributable to
its geographical origin. Since the products depend upon the geographical
place of production, there is inevitably a clear nexus between the product and
its place of production.11
1.2 GI as Collective Rights
IP Rights, including GI also have a communitarian dimension 12, which involve
not only protecting individual and social interests but also a close interaction
of group interests with individual and social interests. This collectivity brings
forth the individuals towards their communitarian objectives of better
management of their rights through different economic processes. Collective
Bodies in different IPs such as Copyright societies in Copyright law, Patent
Pools in Patent Law and for that matter, Registered
11
See World Intellectual Property Organization, What is a Geographical Indication?
https://www.wipo.int/geo_indications/en/ (last visited at Mar. 24,2019 ,5:00 PM)
12
The collective dimension of IP rights seeks for collaborative efforts of knowledge workers
for protection and enforcement of IP rights.
12
Proprietors/Associations13 in Geographical Indications display what could be
called as efforts of collective defence and management of IP rights. 14
Collectivism is ingrained in the very conception of Geographical Indications
as the geographical name links all the goods of a particular class, originating
from that area with a common tag of identification and Producers of those
products exercise collective entitlements to exclude others from appropriating
it using legal means to secure enforcement. 15
1.3 Legal Systems for GI Protection in Different Jurisdictions
Nations around the globe have adopted different modes of protection of GIs
in their respective jurisdictions either in the form of a sui generis16 system or
13
Different jurisdictions offer collective protection to GIs for example in European Union(EU)
only producer groups can be applicants. See European Commission ,Introduction to GI
Registration System in the EU :Advantages and Practical Experience http://www.ipc-
eui.org/sites/default/files/events/files/2%20Mr%20Antonio%20Berenguer-intro%20EU%20GI
%20system_AB.pdf (last visited at Mar. 24,2019 ,5:00 PM) ; The US offers protection via its
Certification trademarks in the Lanham Act to a member of a Union or other Organization.
India specifies under Section 11 of its GI Act, 1999 that “only association of persons or
producers or any organization established by or under any law for the time being in force
representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods, who are desirous of
registering a of registering a geographical indication in relation to such goods shall apply in
writing to the Registrar ..” Here collective entities have been granted the right to file an
application for registration of the GI. Further under Section 17 any person claiming to be the
producer of the goods in respect of which a geographical indication has been registered may
also apply in writing to the Registrar in the prescribed manner for registering him as an
authorised user of such geographical indication. This provision signifies subsequent accrual
of rights to individuals as a result of the initial collective effort. See
http://www.ipindia.nic.in/act-1999.htm
14
See P Ishwara Bhatt, The Role of Collective Bodies in Protection of Intellectual Property
Rights in India 14 J.IPR.214, 215 (2009)
15
Id. at 223
16
Sui generis in Latin means of its kind/genus or unique in its characteristics and the term
connotes a legal classification that exists independently of other categorizations as a result
of its uniqueness or due to specific creation of an entitlement or obligation. See European
Commission, Protection of Geographical Indications in 160 countries, (5)(2007),
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2007/june/tradoc_135089.pdf (last visited at Mar.
27,2019 ,5:00 PM)
13
through Trademark Legislations17 granting them protection in the form of
certification marks.18
European Union (also called as the EU) recognizes it as a form of sui generis
rights and has passed a number of legislations 19 to govern the approval and
usage of a GI.
United States (US) in contrast to the EU, adopts a different mode of
protection for its Geographical Indications in a way that it has no sui generis
protection available for the products, instead it offers protection by means of
trademark protection viz. through certification marks 20 under the U.S.
Trademark Act.21
17
This type of protection accorded where geographical indications are not considered to be a
separate intellectual property right but instead considered as a special form of trademarks.
Id. at 5
18
See infra text accompanying notes 23-24
19
Of the legislations passed by the EU the important ones are the Council Regulation
2081/92 on ‘the protection of geographical indications and designations of agricultural
products and foodstuffs. The regulation was repealed in 2006 only to be subsequently
amended and replaced in 2012 with currently existent Regulation 1151/2012 which grants
legal protection to GIs for agricultural products and food stuffs in the European Union. In
addition to thus a separate set of Regulations govern the regulation of wines and spirits
respectively titled as Commission Regulation 479/2008 on the common organization of the
market in wine along with its subsequent amending regulation. Further for according legal
protection to spirits there exists Regulation 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the
Council dated 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and
protection of geographical indications of spirits drinks and repealing Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1576/89. See Organization for an International Geographical Indications
Network,GI Protection in Europe ,https://www.origin-gi.com/your-gi-kit/legal-info/item/3104-
gi-protection-in-europe-en-gb-4.html (last visited at Apr. 2,2019 ,9:00 PM)
20
Certification Marks are different from that of conventional trademarks in the way that the
owner does not use it, and does not indicate commercial source or distinguishes the goods
and services from that of one person to that of another. Instead what it seeks to purport is
that anybody meeting the certifying standards therein is entitled to use the certification
mark .The law relating to certification marks and geographical indications in the US will be
dealt with at greater length later in this thesis. See USPTO, Geographical Indications
Protection in the United States, 3 (Apr. 2,2019 ,9:00 PM)
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/dcom/olia/globalip/pdf/gi_system.pdf
21
Id. at 2
14
India grants GI protection through a sui generis system protecting both
unregistered and registered GIs by a legislation it enacted, post to signing the
TRIPS Agreement and in fulfilment of its obligations therein 22, called as the
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act of 1999
along with the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and
Protection) Rules, 2002 (GI Rules)23.
Of the other numerous nations, China protects GIs through Trademark law in
the form of certification marks and collective marks. 24Australia adopted its
own model of protection with regards to protection of its wine industry by not
aping the European model of sui generis protection but instead developed a
22
See at https://commerce.gov.in/writereaddata/trade/wtopdfs/TRIPS_matter_amended.pdf
23
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, No. 48 of 1999
and The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules of 2002.
24
The Trademark Law of 2001 along with the Trade Mark implementing Regulations of 2002
provides the legal basis of GI protection in China. Art. 6.1 of the Trade Mark implementing
Regulations states that for geographical indications referred to in Article 16 of the Trade
Mark Law, applications may be filed to register them as certification marks or collective
marks under the provisions of the Trade Mark Law and these Regulations. See Haiyan
Zheng, A Unique Type of Cocktail: Protection of Geographical Indications in
China,https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/geographical-indications-at-the-crossroads-of-
trade-development-and-culture/unique-type-of-cocktail-protection-of-geographical-
indications-in-china/B9D09B0EE88F1609945C59968B1C5FCA (last visited Apr.
4,2019,10:00 PM)
15
model suited to its own indigenous needs 25 whilst offered protection to other
goods under Trademark Law as certification mark. 26
This thesis draws largely from these jurisdictions in analysing the
inadequacies of Indian legal framework for GI Protection, but does not
remain fettered to the above select jurisdictions and will draw suitable
analogies from other jurisdictions as and when need arises subsequently.
1.4 Causes and Necessity of GI Protection across the World
As explained earlier in this thesis, the fundamental conception of a GI stands
in the fact that specific geographical locations generates the products’
qualities which cannot be replicated elsewhere 27 and basing upon this fact,
producers of the GIs argue that the other producers outside the said regions
cannot be given the right to use that place name (of the region where GI
product is grown) in marketing and on product labels. 28
25
Australia adopted a minimalistic regime for protection of its wine industry under the Wine
Australia Act of 2013.This thesis will deal with how the provisions grant protection and
enforce the GIs without too much of coercion through at greater length subsequently. See
Peter Drahos, Sunshine in a Bottle, Geographical Indications, The Australian Wine Industry
and the Promise of Development?, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/geographical-
indications-at-the-crossroads-of-trade-development-and-culture/sunshine-in-a-bottle-
geographical-indications-the-australian-wine-industry-and-the-promise-of-rural-
development/DFD813F61A586B8FBB2A79E49FA89E1F/core-reader (last visited Apr.
4,2019,10:00 PM)
26
See IP Australia, Geographical Indications, https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/trade-
marks/understanding-trade-marks/types-trade-marks/certification-trade-mark/geographical
(last visited Apr. 4,2019,10:00 PM)
27
Supra note 11
28
Kal Raustiala & Stephen R. Munzer , The Global Struggle Over Geographical Indications
E.J. IL 337,337-338(2007)
16
Economic and Political causes have been the primary factors globally for
pushing the agenda of according GI protection by nations. The advent of
globalization and increase in the trading levels amongst the nations 29, has led
to an increase in demand for clearly laid down international rules on
protecting and enhancing the market share of artisanal products. 30This is
because the products (bearing GI Tags or otherwise) started to be traded at
an unprecedented extent between the nations, with the few scholars even
stating the GIs to be falling in the ‘confluence of agriculture, trade and
intellectual property’31 .The Developed Trading Nations perceived these GIs
as a form of protection accorded by them to their products against the
Developing nations’ products, particularly in the field of agricultural
products.32 As explained, the Developed Nations such as the European
Union who have large agricultural producers and its wine industry had always
29
The impact of globalization has been such that trade barriers have considerably fallen
lowering the prices of GI products creating global markets out of previously discrete local
markets, secondly, this has also led to goods similar to GI products being created in many
other states as immigration has led to people moving out to newer territories and creating
goods similar to the GI goods therein leading to a competition between the original GI
products and the new products, thirdly increased household incomes have pushed the
demand for niche food products which are often marketed through these GI products. Id. at
347 .Also globalization has been said to have increased the returns in terms of monetary
value of exertion of property rights in GIs due to the premiumness carried by GI products.
For example, the European Commission reported that that GI labelled cheeses from France
enjoined an extra two Euros per kilo over the non-GI cheeses.
30
Id. at 347
31
Id. at 342
32
While agricultural products are highly subsidized and protected in the industrialized nations
such as the European Union and farmers being a powerful political lobby, granting GI
Protection to their agricultural products is an effective tool in the form of protectionist
measure in favour of the agricultural sector against the low-cost competing products from
abroad. Id.
17
been at the forefront of expanding the GI Protection to not only its well known
products but also the lesser known products.33
Developing Nations have also realized lately, the imminent necessity for
granting GI protection to their products, whilst many have favoured GI for
their famous products, others have pushed in the Doha Round of
Negotiations of extension of absolute standards to other goods, arguing
vociferously that even non-alcohol products ought to receive the similar level
of protection.
India since the enactment of its GI Act of 1999 has registered a large number
of GIs (as many as 343 till March 2019) 34.Several GI products from India are
renowned globally and bear a large international market such as the
Darjeeling Tea35 or the Basmati rice36 and having a large locked-up potential
to drive up its export market and national growth. 37
33
Supra note 28 at 350
34
See IP India, Registration Details of Geographical
Indications,http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/Registered_GI_01_04_
19.pdf (last visited Apr. 8,2019,10:00 PM)
35
Avishek Rakshit, Darjeeling Tea struggling to stage comeback; buyers from Japan absent,
BUSINESS STANDARD (Jun.23, 2018), https://www.business-
standard.com/article/markets/darjeeling-tea-struggling-to-stage-comeback-buyers-from-
japan-absent-118062300020_1.html
36
India is the leading exporter of Basmati Rice globally with a 4056758.62 MT of Basmati
Rice to the world for the worth of Rs. 26870.17 crores (or 4169.48 US$ Mill.) during the year
2017-18 to countries such as the Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar etc. See
APEDA, Basmati
Rice,http://apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/SubHead_Products/Basmati_Rice.htm (last visited
Apr. 8,2019,10:00 PM)
37
Anil K Kanungo, Geographical Indications have the potential to be India’s growth engine,
FINANCIAL EXPRESS (Apr.11,2016),
https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/geographical-indications-have-the-potential-to-be-
indias-growth-engine/234813
18
1.5 India and its GI woes
As stated previously, despite possessing such a huge potential to become a
commercial success with a large number of GIs, India continues to be
plagued with its own set of institutional and legislative shortcomings. Almost
all of the GI awareness campaigns in India is seemed to be abysmally skewn
around the registration component of GIs. 38
It would not be an understatement to argue that the GI products in India face
an existential threat, a glean into the prevalent situation would perhaps throw
a better light into the problems faced by the GIs registered in India. Varanasi
(or Benaras as it is known by its older name) is one of the hotspot regions, in
India for producing GIs with as many as five GI registrations from this region
itself.39 Banarasi sarees40, a well known GI product in India, is however are
experiencing a risk for survival, from cheaper and synthetic emulations of
these sarees produced not far from it, from the textile city of Surat ,in the
state of Gujarat in India itself.41

38
Vrunda Kulkarni &Viren Konde, Pre and Post registration Indications measures for
handicrafts in India, 16 J.IPR.463, 467 (2011)
39
The other GIs from this region include Banaras Gulabi Meenakari Craft, Varanasi wooden
lacquer ware and craft, Mirzapuri handmade dari, Banarasi brocade, Handmade carpets of
Badohi and of course the well-known Banarasi Sarees. See Binay Singh, Varanasi emerges
as a hub of GI products , THE TIMES OF INDIA (Apr.17,2015),
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/varanasi/Varanasi-emerges-as-a-hub-of-GI-
products/articleshow/46959699.cms
40
Sarees are a popular India women’s garment worn by wrapping it around the waist and
draping it over the shoulder ,having cultural and symbolic relevance for over thousands of
years.
41
It was reported that traders in Surat import Chinese Silk and pass them off in the Indian
markets as Banarasi silk sarees at cheaper prices thereby not only detrimentally impacting
the earnings and livelihoods of the Banarasi silk saree producers but also make it extremely
difficult for the ordinary customers to discern between the two. The Banarasi silk saree
producers have failed to take recourse to legal action primarily due to lack of awareness of
19
Apart from this, there is a general lack of awareness about Geographical
Indications as such and the consequent benefits which law provides for
amongst the producers of GI products in India, the outcome of which is that
the benefits of a GI Tag do not flow to these producers. Additionally ancillary
to the problem of general obliviousness is the consequential non-
registration/low-registration of producers denuding them of potential GI
registration benefits. For example, Lucknow Chikan 42 got its GI tag way back
in 2008, but continues to be afflicted by poor registration of users of such
Chikan works.43
Drawing from the above contemporary challenges faced by GI products in
India, two set of issues have been identified in the course of this thesis and
will be the primary focus of this research, being majorly empirical and also
with a doctrinal analysis , of them the first one being in the initial stages, just
post to the grant of GI registration is the problem of non-registration/low-
their legal rights as legitimate producers of GI products, but apart from that ,what is more
disheartening to watch, is the fact that these saree producers unthinkingly believe that their
products could be saved from the competition ,by them producing cheaper replicas of their
sarees and even try to produce so voluntarily try and in the process end up undermining the
quality and characteristics of their products. See Shefali Vasudev, GROUND REPORT-
THE BANARASI BIND,LIVE MINT (23 Nov.2013),
https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/5h1lnyORjhtn9Pr0Z4wiXL/Ground-Report--The-Banaras-
bind.html
42
Lucknow chikan is an art form involving extensive embroidery along with embellishments
of pearls,mirrors and mukaish traditionally on a muslin cloth but now done on different kinds
of fabrics with its genesis and hub at Lucknow, Uttarpradesh in India.. See Lucknow
chikankari work get its GI tag at Chikankari GI gets a step towards international branding
TIMES OF INDIA (Jan.16,2009), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/Chikankari-
GI-a-step-towards-international-branding/articleshow/3986050.cms
43
Of the thousands involved in the process of Chikan work, only four have registered. See
The Dollar Business, Are GI Tags helping India’s exports?
https://www.thedollarbusiness.com/magazine/geographical-indication-tags---are-gi-tags-
helping-india-s-exports-/45759 (Apr. 14, 2019, 5:30 PM).
20
registration of authorized users in India and the second one being the lack of
post-GI registration quality enforcement mechanism, both of them equally
contributing to being impediment to India’s GI success.
This thesis is an attempt to contribute to fill the gap in existent literature on
both sets of issues by a doctrinal analysis of the problems Indian GIs
continue to face, which reduces their legal protection to a mere paper tiger.
The work will focus on proposing solutions to mitigate the problem analyzing
the different models of GI protection other nations have adopted, to find out if
they could be applied in Indian situations. In particular, with respect to this
the work will focus on case studies with respect to few of these GIs in India to
Additionally the work will also on justifying protection of GI as an IP through
different philosophical (one of them being a purely economics) perspectives
with major emphasis on justifying the protection of GI with respect to
safeguarding the users and importance of quality factor in a GI , both of them
as discussed previously, being the core research areas of this thesis. This
work will also draw upon historical sources pertaining to GIs, International
Framework governing the GIs and contemporary GI protection regimes
currently existent in the world.
21
CHAPTER 2: JUSTIFICATIONS TO
PROTECTION OF GI AS AN IP
22
2. JUSTIFICATIONS TO PROTECTION OF GI AS AN IP
This chapter of the thesis will offer multiple expositions to the proposition that
Geographical Indications are justified under various theories of Intellectual
Property. A lot of scholarly work has been widely written, debated and
discussed on why Intellectual Property as a whole stands justified 44 in light of
these theories, but a clear and nuanced explanation with respect to justifying
protection to Geographical Indications45 and the problems in doing so, have
been amiss. The researcher will look to bridge the gap in the present
44
See William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, The Economics of Trademark Law, 78
TRADEMARK REP. 267 (1988), See also Justin Hughes, The Philosophy of Intellectual
Property,77 Geo. L.J. 287 (1988), William Fisher ,THEORIES OF INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY at https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/iptheory.pdf (last visited Apr. 14,
2019, 5:30 PM) among others.
45
The researcher also acknowledges that scholarly works and writings have tried to justify
the need for protecting Geographical Indications, but those are limited to offering explanation
for protecting GIs with respect to several distinct functions which a GI product serves, and
not GI as an IP right in itself. For instance justifications for protecting GI a have been offered
with respect to the product’s quality and subsequently preventing dilution thereof or as an
indicia/signal of reputation or Impact on customer preferences due to a quality within GI
product, for instance See Carl Shapiro, Premiums to High Quality Products as Returns to
Reputation, 98 THE Q. J.ECON., 659, 670–72 (1983) and also the potential impact on
consumer welfare See Luisa Menapace & Gian Carlo Moschini, Quality Certification by
Geographical Indications, Trademarks and Firm Reputation, 39 EUR. REV. AGRIC. ECON.
539, 539–549 (2012). Scholars have also justified Geographical Indications with respect to
extending protection to the regional legal framework ,though they have highlighted the
problems with justification of GIs unlike other IPs such as Trademarks, for instance See Lina
Monten, Geographical Indications of Origin: Should They Be Protected and Why? An
Analysis of the Issue from the U.S. and EU Perspectives, 22 SANTA CLARA HIGH TECH. L.
J. 315, 315 (2005), Also See Thierry Coulet, Assessing the Economic Impact of GI
Protection, in EXTENDING THE PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS: CASE
STUDIES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN AFRICA 101, 103 (2013); and others have
offered explanations to GI with regards to the economic impact of GIs in developing
countries, See Sophie Reviron,Erik Thevenod - Motte and Nadja El Benni ,Geographical
Indications: creation and distribution of economic value in developing countries,
http://phase1.nccr-
trade.org/images/stories/publications/IP5/report_IP5_GI_Value_2009.pdf (last visited Apr.
14, 2019, 5:30 PM)
23
literature by analysing several theories of Intellectual Property and culling out
the respective justifications to see if they can be extended to Geographical
Indications as an IP right.
Also, since the primary scope of this thesis is about the problems with
registration of authorized users and inadequate quality control measures
within Indian legislative framework, the researcher has also tried to offer
justifications for protecting Geographical Indications with respect to twin
issues of safeguarding authorized users and the importance of quality in a GI
product thus providing sufficient theoretical premises for extending ample
legislative protection to them.
2.1 JUSTIFICATIONS FOR GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
2.1.1 AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS-

AN ARGUMENT EXTENUATED
The researcher begins with an economic analysis of Geographical
Indications to rationalize the need for offering adequate legal protection
to them. Whilst major scholarly works have offered arguments with respect
to economic benefits of trademark 46, an argument has tried to be pitched in
with respect to Geographical Indications.
46
See Richard A. Posner, Intellectual Property: The Law and Economics Approach , 19 J.
Econ. Persp.( 2005)
24
The primary justification with respect to trademark is that it designates a good
or service which the customers can choose at minimal costs, from an array of
competing goods.47Further, Trademarks are protected as long as they are not

48
generic (viz. they start to designate the product instead of the brand).
This brings the researcher querying with an important question, i.e. Can GIs
be equivalent to the Trademarks with respect to the economic function
of being distinctive and preventing confusion amongst customers of
the products and consequently can their protection be justified on that
account?
The answer to this lies in similarity of the two overlapping IP species. GIs
within academic circles have been labelled as being akin to trademarks 49.As
explained earlier in this thesis; the existence of geographical indications is
conventionally understood as a link between the quality/characteristics of the
product and the region where it is grown 50,for example connoisseurs of tea
buying Darjeeling Tea will inevitably associate the tea as being grown in the
region around Darjeeling only and with its genuine, delicate yet special
muscatel flavour51.
47
Id. at 66. Posner argues here that the majority of trademark law’s doctrine stem from the
consumer-search-cost rationale.
48
Id.
49
Supra note 31 at 352.The researcher is also cognizant of other scholarly works which have
argued the incongruous nature and disharmony between Geographical Indications and
Trademarks such as Dev Gangjee ,Quibbling Siblings: Conflicts between Trademarks and
Geographical Indications 82 Chic.-Kent. L. Rev.(2007)
50
Supra note 11
51
See the special qualities of Darjeeling Tea at https://www.thunderbolttea.com/te/darjeeling-
tea/
25
The element of “distinctiveness of GI”52 is what constitutes as a means
to separate it from the other similar non-GI products from the same
region in the eyes of the customer.
It is essential to prove the nexus existent between the
quality/characteristics/reputation of the GI product and the customer’s
preferences while buying the product to showcase the ‘distinctive element’
within the GI product. The researcher here would like to draw attention to
surveys conducted by the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) among EU consumers. 53 The surveys depict that
for GI-registered agricultural products, the consumers are willing to
pay a premium anywhere in between 10 to 15 percent and for non-
agricultural products in the range of 5 to10 percent. Also, separate studies

52
See more at about ‘Distinctiveness for a GI’ at Supra note 50 at 4 as the ability to
differentiate between similar products on the marketplace and not in the classical
trademark sense and depending explicitly on geographical origin.
See also Barton Beebe’s differentiation between source distinctiveness (specifically
indicating commercial origin) and differential distinctiveness (the uniqueness of a
sign when compared to other signs). Trademark law conventionally stuck to the
former, whereas GIs are inconsistent with the former approach but evaluated for the
latter at ‘Search and Persuasion in Trademark Law’ B Beebe, Search and Persuasion in
Trademark Law ,103 Mich. L. Rev. 2020, 2028-2031 (2005)
53
Shashikant B. Bagade & Deven B. Metha, Geographical Indications in India: Hitherto and
Challenges, 5 RES. J. PHARM., BIOLOGICAL & CHEM. SCIS. (2014)
The researcher would qualify the assertion made, labelling it as a suggestive statement, duly
cognizant of the fact, that customer vigilances differ in different jurisdictions due to different
factors such as literacy levels, nature of product preferences purchased or indulged in (i.e.
luxurious or basic amenities). The researcher has drawn this analogy from the law of
trademarks where the questions with respect to the nature of consumers who could be
potentially confused with similar trademarks come up often. For an understanding how
customers would react to a particular trademark see the rationale of the Supreme Court of
India in Cadilla Healthcare Limited Vs. Cadilla Pharmaceuticals, Appeal (civil) 2372 of
2001 SC of India, where it delineated very distinctly the nature of consumers in India and
consumers in England by stating it as “the question (of who could be potentially deceived)
has to be approached from the point of view of a man of average intelligence and imperfect
recollection. A trade may relate to goods largely sold to illiterate or badly educated persons.
The purchaser in India cannot be equated with that of a purchaser in England”
26
have shown consumers to be expecting GI products to be of a higher
quality than non-GI products.54
The summary of the discussion above is that according the status of GIs to a
product does create the element of distinctiveness empowering the
consumers to choose and differentiate the GI products from the other similar
non-GI products from the same locale, thus preventing confusion.
The researcher in this case, apart from the arguments offered previously in
this work, would like to draw attention to academic works which have justified
GIs purely from an Economics perspective sans any legal analysis.
These writings state that, similar to other distinctive signs, the
economic rationale of GI protection55is important in the following
respects:
(1) It prevents market distortions which arise due to asymmetry of
information (with respect to nature of the product) between producers
and consumers; (2) It averts the consequences of such asymmetry of
54
See Ramona Teuber, Sven Anders & Corinne Langinier, The Economics of Geographical
Indications: Welfare Implications (Structure and Performance of Agriculture and Agri-
products industry Network, (Working Paper No. 2011–16).
55
Few scholars have contended that territorial origin with respect to GIs becoming the
strategic tool for differentiation in agrifood markets. The economics of protection of localized
products (as like other distinctive signs) is founded on economic theories of information and
reputation. See Cerkia Bramley, Estelle Bienabe & Johann Kirsten ,The Economics of
Geographical Indications: Towards a Conceptual Framework For Geographical Indication
Research In Developing Countries, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1012-
chapter4.pdf (last visited Apr. 14, 2019, 5:30 PM)
27
information on the level of output quality. 56Scholarly works have
highlighted the role of reputation in restoring efficiency in the market,
through a process known as “institutionalization of reputation” 57by
averting the consequences of information asymmetries.
The GIs hence, can as such be contemplated as a means of
institutionalization of reputation (between product and the region), to solve
the menace arising from asymmetry of information and free-riding on
reputation through formal legal mechanisms. On this account, it performs two
fundamental functions, firstly in the form of consumer protection measure
(taking care of the twin issues of information asymmetry and quality) and
secondly, as a producer protection measure (through its role in protecting the
reputation).58
It is on this count, that it can be said that the economic rationale of offering
protection to Geographical Indications indicated.
2.1.2 LOCKEAN LABOUR THEORY AND GIs- A SQUARE PEG IN A

ROUND HOLE?
The researcher here in this part of the thesis has tried to initiate a debate
here on the question of what is it exactly that results in according of GI status
56
Id. at 110.Scholarly works have discussed the role of reputation in markets characterized
by imperfect information as aiding to overcome market failure due to it.
57
The ‘institutionalization of reputation’ is explained as a process wherein successful use of a
reputation in restoring efficiency in the market by preventing the consequences of reputation
Supra note 55 at 110.
58
Id.
28
to the product. Do the natural factors (such as soil, topography or climate)
accord the GI status or is it the fact of human intervention (by means of
processing, cultivation, manufacture or other efforts made) which results in
GI status? Arguments from the Lockean Labour theory of IP justification has
been considered by the researcher to offer probable justifications for the
same.
The philosophical premises of Lockean Labour theory state very simply; that
labour must be exerted on goods existing in state of nature to convert them
into private property. The nature of labour is such that it adds value to the
goods, allowing them to be enjoyed by human beings. 59Such theoretical
premises however, run into rough ground when extended to Geographical
Indications, primarily by virtue of the association of GIs with the particular
territory or geographical conditions of the region (the concept of terroir has
been explained subsequently in chapter 3)60 to justify its IP protection. The
researcher has tried to probe into a few of the limitations which Lockean
theory might possible have in offering solutions to this issue.
To begin with, the Lockean perspectives seems to offer justification for the
‘originators’ of the GI products, on the basis of primarily due to the efforts put
in by the ‘originators’ of the GI products, to harness the geographical
attributes of the region, such as climatic conditions, soil and topography to
59
Supra note 2
60
See infra text accompanying notes 120-124
29
create the product, who are but long dead. However, the benefits of GIs
accrue to all of the producers (whether remote descendants or unrelated later
inhabitants) of those products within that region. For example ‘Champagne’
(grown in Champagne region in Northeast France) was invented in the
1700s61 or ‘Tequila’ (regions of Central and Western Mexico including the
actual town of Tequila) in the 1600s 62, but the producers of those products
today enjoy the right in the Intellectual property. 63
The next issue is lack of clear answer to what would be the extent of human
intervention to the creation of those GIs, enabling them IP protection under
Lockean Labour theory. The researcher has picked up one GI, the Roquefort
Cheese64 to examine this issue. The nexus between the product and the
region in this case here is strong, like the milk is obtained from the
indigenous breeds of the sheep found in the region, the grazing of the sheep
61
See Champagne Booking, The history of champagne, https://www.champagne-
booking.com/en/p/the-history-of-champagne (last visited Apr. 14, 2019, 5:30 PM)
62
See Liqour.com, Everything you need to know about the history of tequila,
https://www.liquor.com/articles/history-of-tequila/#gs.937v44 (last visited Apr. 24, 2019, 5:30
PM)
63
See a similar justification of Lockean labour theory and its problems with respect to
Geographical Indications in Supra note 31 at 354
64
The globally renowned Roquefort Cheese is easily identifiable with its characteristic blue
vein, made in a southwest France around the municipality of Roquefort-sur-Soulzon. The
defining features of the cheese are its smoothness and compactness, distinctive aroma with
a mild scent of mould and fine, robust taste. The method of preparation of the cheese is from
raw, whole sheep’s milk of Lacuane breed, which is cultured with spores of a fungi
penicillium roqueforti before it is pressed. Further, it is aged for a period of 14 days in the
natural caves of the region and this aging continues in the natural caves for at least 90 days
from the date of its manufacture. See World Intellectual Property Organization,
Geographical Indications – An Introduction,
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/geographical/952/wipo_pub_952.pdf (last visited Apr.
24, 2019, 5:30 PM)
30
is done around the region65 and the characteristics of caves of the region
where the cheese is aged are all but attributes of the geographical region
rendering the product with its geographical characteristics. These natural
factors are such which do not have any human intervention or influence in
their creation.
One set of arguments might want to precisely state that poses problem for a
Lockean justification of the GIs are that they are geographical attributes of a
territory primarily bereft of any human labour.
On the other hand, an alternative set of reasoning could very well say that,
while it might be agreed and seem possibly fine to impute the geographical
characteristics of the region (which are beyond human involvement) to the
product, the element of human intervention cannot be written off completely.
Let us consider an example of the Roquefort Cheese. The coming forth of the
Cheese in its final finished form necessarily has substantial human labour
directly or indirectly expended to it. These might be indirectly in the form of
grazing, milking of sheep to more direct methods such as injecting the spores
of the fungi before pressing of the cheese. However, what might be disputed
will be the extent of the human intervention (remaining an open ended
65
See The World of the ewe, farm visits
http://www.roquefort.fr/fileadmin/contenus/documents/decouvrir/Sur_les_traces_de_
la_brebis/Visites_de_fermes.pdf (last visited Apr. 24, 2019, 5:30 PM)
31
question to the subjective enquiry of the facts and circumstances of each
case) but that the human element cannot be discounted out rightly.
The third set of arguments emanates from the Lockean labour theory
justification of IP is when it starts proposing for “value addition”, i.e. as long
as the labour expended produces something of value to others, the labourer
deserves some benefits for it.66
This when applied to GIs, makes it difficult to discern and delineate the
improvements made with respect to GI products especially, posing tall
questions of who made those improvements, when was it done and if it was
done, whether they involved significant labour or mere common place ideas
which made their way into the GI product?67
The answers to these remain tricky and a straight-jacket justification of GIs
on the basis of Lockean theory has to be seen on a case to case basis in
light of the facts. Nevertheless, an alternative justification on the question of
“value addition” may be offered by those producers in certain instances who
maintain and improve the GI products, in contrast to the ‘prior originators’ of
these GIs. This may not be a blanket explanation but under due
consideration to the specific facts and circumstances of those instances only,
qualifying the Lockean justification of Intellectual Property 68
66
See Justin Hughes, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property 77 Geo. L.J. 287(1988)
67
68
Id.
32
The brief summary of all the discussion above is that Lockean Labour Theory
makes us to understand the fact that the human element cannot be
discounted out rightly, however heavy the preponderance of geographical
attributes of a region might be in the creation of a GI. It is under this premise,
that Geographical Indications qualify as an Intellectual Property laws under
Lockean Labour theory justification.
2.1.3 A PERSONALITY THEORY PERSPECTIVE ON GIs- A MISFIT?
A quest from a personality theory perspective has also been undertaken by
the researcher to seek an answer to the same question as has been raised in
the previous part of this chapter i.e. whether it is the geographical attributes
of the region or the human intervention which results in according of the GI
status to a product.
The Personality theory draws from conventional Hegelian arguments that the
idea of property rights is justified if the property embodies an element of
personality and mental traits of the creator of the property. 69Scholars of the
likes of Justin Hughes, deriving from Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, have

70
pitched three set of arguments with respect to Intellectual Property.
69
Supra note 66
70
Id. The arguments are the following namely,(a) Legal protection should be more willingly
accorded to the fruits of highly expressive intellectual activities (b) A person’s “persona” viz.
his "public image, which includes his physical features, mannerisms, and history" merit
extensive legal protection despite the fact that these don’t result from one’s labour and (c)
Moral rights must be safeguarded at any costs viz. the authors as well as inventors deserve
to earn their due respect, honour, admiration, and money from the public by selling or giving
away copies of their works, but must not however be permitted to surrender their right to
prevent others from mutilating or misattributing their works.
33
Now, the question that comes up with respect to GIs, as has also come to be
discussed previously in academic circles, 71 is that could this theory possibly
justify according of the status of the GIs and answer the query raised by the
researcher.
These academic works have extensively cited the difficulties one might
encounter while seeking to justify the GIs, such as, the concept of terroir,
central to an understanding of the GIs, and also has been discussed
subsequently in this work72, being the unique/intrinsic link between the
product and the geographical and human elements, poses roadblocks for
application of the theory.
As is known to all, GIs conceptually apply mostly to the natural attributes of
the locality such as existence of the indigenous plants and local climate 73, for
which human beings cannot merit acknowledgment. 74Application of the
personality theory to search for the “persona” within the GI product would be
deceptive, with no clear answers to questions such as the degree of
personality embedded in the GI product, what if the creator decided to
alienate the product (alienation being a key element in personality theory).

71
72
See infra text accompanying notes 83-88.
73
See for instance the previously discussed GI Tequila from Mexico, which is extracted from
agave plant, requires to be grown in sandy, mineral rich red soil with altitudes in the regions
to be in excess of 1,500 meters above sea level. Additionally, the terrain is volcanic, loamy,
permeable and abundant in derivative elements of basalt and enriched in iron facilitating in
cultivation of agave plants, also the precipitation is very low at close to a metre per year with
climate being constant, semidry with cloudy skies only 65 to 100 days a year. See In search
of the blue agave, Jalisco: Tequilla’s home state,
http://www.ianchadwick.com/tequila/jalisco.htm (last visited Apr. 25, 2019, 5:30 PM)
74
34
This difficulty may be partly resolved by arguing that the ‘human element’ is
present in GIs, which the researcher considered with Tequilla here, for
instance in the form of efforts undertaken by indigenous communities who
develop techniques to cultivate or extract the product paying due
consideration to the indigenous climatic conditions.
Additionally as scholars have stated, worth considering with personality
theory justification of GIs is whether the notion of a group personality (GIs
have been explained earlier in this work to be community rights 75 and
consequently have group personality) is consistent with the premises of
personality theory. An answer to this would also solve the researcher’s
primary concern that what of the two factors (viz. human effort or natural
geographical conditions) results in attributing of the characteristics to the GI
product.
To answer this forthrightly, the element of ‘persona’ in group personality
rights of GIs seem difficult to trace as compared to the concept of individual
personhood which is firmly embedded in the cases of other IPs like copyright,
trademark or patent, where it is not difficult to attribute the property to the
author, owner or inventor respectively.
The conception of personality theory rests squarely on the notion that only an
individual’s persona is reflected in the work in contrast to the group’s. 76This in
75
Supra text accompanying notes 12-18
76
35
the researcher’s understanding poses difficulty in the application of
personality theory to GIs and consequently trouble in tracing of the ‘persona’
in the form of human interventions made with respect to the product.
It is under these premises, that Geographical Indications can be said to have
failed to qualify as an Intellectual Property laws under the Personality theory
justification.
2.2 ARGUMENTS FOR AUTHORIZED USERS AND QUALITY CONTROL
2.2.1 A JUSTIFICATION ON AUTHORIZED USERS
An argument made for authorized users would not hold much water without a
proper appreciation of prevalent factual situation. Whilst the legal issues in
Indian scenario (being the scope of this thesis) are covered in larger details
in subsequent chapter 4 and also in Chapter 5 (covering inadequate quality
control standards and enforcement of those standards), this part here
provides a brief factual insight on the low-registration of authorized users in
India.
The researcher has attempted to analyze the implications on the plight of GI
as a whole. Additionally an argument has been made for resolving the issues
and the potential benefits which could accrue from the rectification.
36
India, as is known, despite possessing a large number of registered GIs
continues to face the problem of poor registration of GI users. 77A large
number of traditional users remain outside the formal legal folds of
registration, due to numerous causes.78
A cumulative result of all of this is that, the majority of the traditional
users/growers/producers are denuded of the legal protection which a formal
authorized user would be entitled to.79The implications of these theoretically
lead to a situation of potential loss to the authorized user which the
researcher will draw attention to.
Lack of failing to register as an authorized user in the opinion of a researcher,
would lead to a situation, what in classical economics would be called as
“The Prisoner’s Dilemma”80The net result of all of this, in a country like

77
This is with respect to users of Chikan works having a low registration. Reports state that
out of thousands involved in the work, only four had registered.
See text accompanying note 43
78
The causes range from lack of awareness about the significance of GIs to non-availability
of reliable quality monitoring mechanisms to differentiate original and spurious products
along with an insignificant organizational support in the value chain, difficulties in making
error free applications. This is with respect to users of Assam’s Muga Silk, where similar
problems came to the fore. See SPICYIP, When the tezpur university came to gi-tagged
uga silk’s rescue,https://spicyip.com/2015/04/when-the-tezpur-university-came-to-gi-tagged-
muga-silk-of-assams-rescue.html (last visited Apr. 25, 2019, 5:30 PM)
79
The legal benefits of being registered as an authorized user are numerous, such as it
provides them the exclusive right to use the registered GI on the specified goods, the
authorized users are empowered to initiate infringement actions with the protection assured
by GI registration. Further, the market is opened up and developed, disallowing the pirates
and counterfeiters to encroach that market. Additionally, the consumers are guaranteed of
the genuineness of the product and assured of the quality along with aiding the users to
promote brand building. See IP India, Registration of Geographical Indications,
http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/images/pdf/geographical-indications-registration.pdf
(last visited Apr. 25, 2019, 5:30 PM)
80
The Prisoner’s dilemma is described as a situation where inadequacies of the information
or other factors impede the co-operative action amongst the different actors in a given
situation, the net result of which is that each of the agent acts on a limited information which
is sub-optimal as compared to the outcome based on the co-operative action. See Dwijen
37
India, is such that few producers (actors) who act, first to get themselves
registered tend to be well-off(in the hypothetical situation of no person
electing to register) in terms of accruing monetary benefits, getting
better facilities in production of the product or being entitled to legal
rights (as discussed previously) as compared to other non-registered
users. The registered authorized user would be entitled to legal benefits 81,
which a non-registered user would be denied to, which would further prove
detrimental to those non-registered users, resulting in ability to sue for
infringement of GI and the inability to brand the GI product.
An elucidation of the poor state of affairs in greater detail of the non-
registered users with respect to some of the GIs in India such as
Channapatna Toys and Dolls, Muga silk of Assam, Pochampally Ikat and
other GIs from India in subsequent chapters.
2.2.2 JUSTIFICATIONS FOR QUALITY CONTROL AND ITS

ENFORCEMENT
It would perhaps not be an understatement to call GIs as being more than
just an indication to the origin, what they do is also signifying a connection
Rangnekar, The Socio-Economics of Geographical Indications ICTSD-UNCTAD Project on

IPRs and Sustainable Development (19)(2004) (last visited Apr. 25, 2019, 5:30 PM)
81
See infra note 188 with accompanying text
38
between ‘a product’s reputation, quality or characteristics and its
geographical origin.’82
As explained earlier in this thesis83, information asymmetry often
permeates the market space, between the producers and consumers, and
such a situation eventually leads to confusion in the minds of an ordinary
customer at the first hand to gauge the attributes of the product such as its
quality.84What happens typically in the case of information asymmetry is that
the producers possess full information about the product’s attributes (with
respect to the quality or otherwise) as compared to other products in the
market, but that information is not percolated down to the level of the
customer. Pursuant to this, is that there is a “natural chaos” of
asymmetrical information, detrimentally affecting the market, leading to
exploitation by few producers of the gullible, unknowing customers.85
“The importance and role of the GIs in such a situation is to counter-
balance such adverse effects by being a label or marker of the
attributes product by offering accurate information of the products to
the customers such that they are not placed at a disadvantageous
position against the producers.”
82
83
84
Id.
85
Id.
39
It is in respect of situations of imperfect information (which are prevalent in
the market space), some scholars of the likes of Carl Shapiro have talked
about the role of reputation.86
He contends reputation to operate as a signalling device, which relays
information about a certain quality of the product to the consumer, thereby
reducing his/her search costs. 87The purpose and operation of a GI is
precisely based on this reputation and further works have also attributed to
GI having an impact on consumer welfare by directing them towards
the goods of a higher quality.88
Studies have also shown customers considering a long-term reputation
for quality as a more significant indicator of current quality than recent
quality improvements.89
The researcher has already thrown light in this earlier in this work, on surveys
conducted on consumers from the EU, and how their preferences change
sharply, resulting in a willingness to pay premium prices with respect to GI
registered agricultural and non-agricultural GIs. 90The crux of all of the

86
The work describes the fact that a firm which has a reputation owns an ‘asset’. This is
described as the “goodwill value” of the firm’s name or loyal customer’s patronage. Carl
Shapiro’s work puts forward a model exploring the implications of firm specific reputation in
a perfectively competitive environment. See Carl Shapiro, Premiums to High Quality
Products as Returns to Reputation, 98 THE Q. J. ECON., 659, 670–672 (1983).
Id.
87
88
Thierry Coulet, Assessing the Economic Impact of GI Protection, in EXTENDING
THEPROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS: CASE STUDIES OF
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN AFRICA 101, 103 (2013); Luisa Menapace & GianCarlo
Moschini, Quality Certification by Geographical Indications, Trademarks and Firm
Reputation, 39 EUR. REV. AGRIC. ECON. 539, 539–549 (2012)
89
90
40
discussion is this underlying statement: GIs are but an important indicator of
quality of the product in the market place. 91This in relation, has important
economic implications as it has a direct bearing on the consumers’
preferences for the product.92
However, this reputational nexus with the quality is not unique to GIs, but
also to Trademarks93.
Despite being akin to GIs, the incentive to maintain quality is not of a major
significance in Trademarks. GIs as explained earlier, in this thesis are a
collective right94 and on that line of reasoning, scholarly works have
noted them to be collective public or “club” goods, and hence more
prone to what one would call in classical economics parlance as the ‘free-
rider problem”95 as compared to other distinctive signs in the family of IPs
like the Trademarks.96
Apart from GIs serving as an identification of quality and characteristics of the
GI-denominated products, they also contain what is known as “collective
91
See Wim Verbeke, Food Quality Policies and Consumer Interests in the EU, in
CONSUMERATTITUDES TO FOOD QUALITY PRODUCTS: EMPHASIS ON SOUTHERN
EUROPE 13, 17 (2013)
92
John M. Crespi & Ste´phan Marette, Some Economic Implications of Public Labeling,
FARM FOUNDATION ,www.farmfoundation.org/projects/03-65CrespiMarettepaper.htm. (last
visited Apr. 30, 2019, 5:30 PM)
93
Maria L. Loureiro & Jill J. McCluskey, Assessing Consumer Response to Protected
Geographical Identification Labeling, 16 AGRIBUSINESS 309, 314 (2000).
94
See text accompanying notes 12-18
95
96
Lina Monten, Geographical Indications of Origin: Should They Be Protected and Why? An
Analysis of the Issue from the U.S. and EU Perspectives, 22 SANTA CLARA HIGH TECH. L.
J. 315,315 (2005).
41
reputation”, that consumers place on the association or group of producers
within the region, (who cumulatively participate in production of GI product)
and which is also carried over a period of time. 97Additionally, a wholesome
assessment of the state of affairs (here pertaining to quality of the GIs) must
consider the possibility of “free-riding” by the insiders. What is essentially
meant by free-riding here is the situation wherein one or more
producers within collective group of GI producers, who are legally
recognized to produce the GI registered products(such as the
authorized user or registered proprietor) are indulging in producing
inferior quality products tempted at the prospective of making higher
margin profits.
The above discussion sums the importance and the need to protect the
quality of a GI product.
The current GI regulatory framework in India, (since such a situation is very
prevalent in India and will be brought out by the researcher in a greater detail
in the subsequent chapter no. 5), needs to address this issue by way of a
procedural mechanism to verify the geographical origin of the product, the
genuineness of the product along with quality certifications to ensure that
producers stick to the prescribed GI specifications and that there is no
deviation in their behaviour. This discussion will form the theoretical bedrock
of subsequent chapter 5 dealing with a legal perspective on maintaining
quality standards and need for enforcement of those quality standards.

97
42
43
CONCLUSION:
The philosophical justifications of Geographical Indications yielded the
following observations according to the researcher:
1) The economic analysis of Geographical Indications justify it on account of the
following functions it performs: (a) It prevents market distortions which arise
due to asymmetry of information (with respect to nature of the product)
between producers and consumers; (b) It averts the consequences of such
asymmetry of information on the level of output quality.(c) It carries with itself
reputation which restores efficiency in the market, through a process known
as “institutionalization of reputation” performing two fundamental functions,
firstly in the form of consumer protection measure (taking care of the twin
issues of information asymmetry and quality) and secondly, as a producer
protection measure (through its role in protecting the reputation).
2) The Lockean theory justification of IP requisites that human labour has to be
exerted on the goods to convert them into private property. Geographical
Indications in the findings of the researcher pass muster of this theory on the
fact that the human element cannot be discounted out rightly, however heavy
the preponderance of geographical attributes of a region might be in the
creation of a GI. The researcher considered the case of Roquefort Cheese,
wherein most of the characteristics of the cheese were attributable to its
geographical location like the caves, the breeding of the sheep in the region
however the importance of human efforts albeit indirectly in the form of
44
grazing of the sheep, milking of sheep to more direct methods such as
injecting the spores of the fungi before pressing of the cheese could not be
said to be less important. It is under this premise, the researcher contends
3) The concept of terroir is central to an understanding of the GIs, being the
unique/intrinsic link between the product and the geographical and human
elements, poses difficulty in allowing Geographical Indications to qualify
Personality Theory Justification of IP. The researcher highlighted that GIs
conceptually apply mostly to the natural attributes of the locality such as
existence of the indigenous plants and local climate, giving an example of the
GI, tequila grown in Mexico. The local climatic conditions were so
predominant and indispensable in the production of tequila, that human
beings could not claim acknowledgment and hence “persona” could not be
attributed. Further, the element of ‘persona’ in group personality rights of GIs
seem difficult to trace as compared to the concept of individual personhood
which is firmly embedded in the cases of other IPs like copyright, trademark
or patent, where it is not difficult to attribute the property to the author, owner
or inventor respectively. The conception of personality theory rests squarely
on the notion that only an individual’s persona is reflected in the work in
contrast to the group’s. This in the researcher’s understanding poses
45
difficulty in the application of personality theory to GIs. Hence, GIs fail to
qualify Personality theory justification of IP.
4) The justifications offered with respect to incorporating authorized users is to
prevent a situation called in Classical Economics as “The Prisoner’s
Dilemma” .The net result of all of this, in a country like India, is such that few
producers (actors) who act, first to get themselves registered tend to be well-
off(in the hypothetical situation of no person electing to register) in terms of
accruing monetary benefits, getting better facilities in production of the
product or being entitled to legal rights (as discussed previously) to the
detriment of other non-registered users.
5) The justifications for quality control of GIs are; a) to counter-balance the
adverse effects of information asymmetry between producer and consumers
by being a label or marker of the attributes product through offering accurate
information of the products to the customers such that they are not placed at
a disadvantageous position against the producers. b) GIs have an impact on
consumer welfare by directing them towards the goods of a higher quality. c)
The “collective reputation” of a GI operates as a signalling device, which
relays information about a certain quality of the product to the consumer,
thereby reducing his/her search costs. Lastly, d) The importance of a quality
in a GI has important economic implications having direct bearing on the
consumers’ preferences for the product.
46
CHAPTER 3: INTERNATIONAL AND
DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR
PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS
47
3.INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
FOR PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS
3.1 Historical Overview and Evolution of Geographical Indications
The primitive and earliest forms of GI existed in the form of a word, a phrase
or a symbol used for indicating the Geographical origin of a good. Even as
early as in the Middle-ages, inscriptions in the form of ‘guild-marks’ were
being used to designate the geographical location of products, such as the
Murano Glass98 from the island of Murano near Venice.99
The first time such laws came up protecting Geographical Indications, were
in the medieval Europe at places like France, Portugal and Tuscany (in Italy)
dating back to 14th and 15th century. These were the first laws purporting to
prevent misrepresentation of the geographical origin of goods, paving the
way for the way for the development of today’s contemporary laws against
unfair competition and “passing off”.100
The development and evolution of the conception of modern law relating to,
of what we today know as the Geographical Indications, was initiated in
98
Murano Glass/Venetian Glass is the unique kind of glass-making technique which has
been in Venice for over thousands of years. See Glass of Venice, What is the difference
between Murano Glass and any other
glass,https://www.glassofvenice.com/blog/2010/02/what-is-the-difference-between-murano-
glass-and-any-other-glass/ (last visited Apr. 30, 2019, 5:30 PM)
99
Luisa Menapace,Geographical Indications and quality promotion in food and agricultural
markets: domestic and international issues (2010) (Doctoral thesis in Economics, Iowa State
University)(thesis at 7)
100
Id.
48
France in the form Appellations of Origin( or AOCs as it is known today)101, at
the beginning of the 20 th century.102 France at that point of time was reeling
under phylloxera103 , and rampant frauds and adulteration of wines were the
order of the day.104As a result of the exigency, the French Parliament passed
a legislation to curb the menace titled as the Griffe Law (Loi Griffe),
mandating that wine could only be made from fresh grapes, outlawing the
conventional practice of wine-making from raisins. Fraudulent practices, as
explained earlier were a commonplace, even in different sectors; laws were
passed, with respect to the margarine, fertilizers, butter and other kinds of
products, but continually remained ineffective .105
101
Appellation of Origin as it is understood now as a “Special kind of geographical indications
consisting of a geographical name or a traditional designation used on products which bear
specific quality or characteristics that are essentially attributable due to the geographical
region where they are produced.” Consumers familiar with these products often may request
the product unknowingly using the geographical name, such as the Parma Ham as explained
earlier in this thesis, for a Ham to receive the name of Parma, it must be produced in the
province of Parma in Italy using pigs exclusively from that area. See World Intellectual
Property Organization,Famous Appellations of Origin
athttps://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2008/06/article_0009.html (last visited Apr. 30,
2019, 5:30 PM)
102
Andrea Zappaglio ,The Why of Geographical Indications : The transformation of the link
between the product and its place of origin in Europe (2017)(Doctoral thesis in Law,
University of Oxford ) ( thesis at.21)
103
Phylloxera is a grapevine pest/aphid, known for feeding on roots and leaves on grapevines
and for its massive outbreak in having wiped out almost 6 million acres vineyards in France
in mid 1800s .See Michael Austin, Wine 101; What is Phylloxera, and how did it nearly
destroy wine as we know it, CHICAGO TRIBUNE,(Sep.15,2017)
https://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/drink/wine/sc-food-phylloxera-wine-101-0929-
story.html
104
Supra note 50 at 21
105
Barreau de Clermont Ferrand, ‘La Fraude Sur Les Produits Alimentaires et Industriels Au
Sens de La Loi Du 1er Aout 1905 :La Genése D’une Réglementation’ (2014)
http://www.puy-de-dome.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/diaporama_colloque_fraude_18_juin_2014.pdf (last
visited Apr. 30, 2019, 5:30 PM)
49
On the other hand, conventional forms of protection like trademarks and
other forms of labelling were unable to secure legal protection to the identity
and quality of the products which faced the barrage of adulteration and
fraudulent practices, thereby pushing the French Parliament under
compulsion from the winegrowers, to enact an effective legislation. 106 The
Law of 1905 in France is considered to be the first point of commencement of
a modern national legislation, dealing with law of fraud and unfair competition
in the course of trade of foodstuffs and other goods. This law sanctioned
those who tried to mislead a contracting party, with respect to the nature,
qualities/characteristics and or/composition of the goods, either concerning
their nature or their origin. 107 Thus, this was where the genesis of the term
‘origin’ as used in contemporary context of AOCs surfaced. However, this
was no where specified in the Law of 1905, instead in 1908 a law was
enacted, which tried to supplant the gap by defining it as ‘the identification of
the areas of origin of a given product had to be done following ‘local, loyal
and constant uses’ (usages locaux, loyaux et constants). 108Post to this,
several administrative decrees were issued, albeit which were often
contested by the local producers as being both arbitrary and ambiguous, in
order to define the regions of production of well-known products of the likes
of Champagne, Cognac and Bordeaux.109
106
107
Id. at 24.
108
Id.
109
Id. at 25
50
The system pertaining to Geographical Indications was in a state of flux, until
post World War I, France adopted the law of 6 May 1919 explicitly providing
for the protection of Appellations of Origin (AOCs) and in it, the assessment
of what could be the geographical areas was left to the judiciary instead of
administrative decrees , in addition to this the AOCs were once again not
defined in this law, the courts were tasked to identify the extent of the
110
appellations following the pre-conditions of ‘local, loyal and constant uses’
3.1.1 Concept of Terroir
An understanding of the Geographical Indications will be incomplete without
a discussion on the ‘terroir’. The concept of terroir 111 is key to the
understanding of the AOCs, having effectively influenced the development of
French Law on AOs,112 it stands for an unique and intrinsic link between
some products, which are the ‘origin products’ and the distinctive
characteristics of the physical and human environment where such goods are
produced.113
The INAO114 defines it as and reads: “A geographical area with defined
boundaries where a human community generates and accumulates across

110
Id. at 26
111
Oxford Dictionary defines it as a complete natural environment under which a particular
product is produced, including factors such as the soil, topography, and climate. See
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terroir
112
113
114
Institut national de l'origine et de la qualité (previously Institut National des Appellations
d'Origine) (INAO) is the French organization vested with regulatory powers over French
agricultural products with Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs).
51
its history a collectively developed knowledge of production based on a
system of interactions between a physical and biological environment, the
social and technical itineraries involved confer ‘typicality’, reveal the
originality and lead to a reputation for a product originating from that
geographical area”115
The word ‘terroir’ having French origins had historically been linked to the
production of wines,116 and such a type of causal relationship between the
product and its geographical origins bears resemblance to the modern
definition of a Geographical Indication under TRIPS. 117
3.1.2 Paris Convention for Protection of Industrial Property (1883)
The Paris Convention for Industrial Property was one of the earliest
International Conventions which had the objective of protection of different
kinds of industrial property along with the protection of indications of source
and appellations of origin.118

115
Inao guide du demandeur
116
DS Gangjee ‘From Geography to History: Geographical Indications and the Reputational
Link’ Geographical Indications at the Crossroads of Trade, Development, and Culture in the
Asia-Pacific (CUP, 2017).
117
The TRIPS Agreement and the conception of Geographical Indications therein will be
dealt subsequently in this thesis at greater length. Article 22.1 of TRIPS defines it as “a good
as originating in the territory of a [World Trade Organisation (WTO)] 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’ See World Trade Organization, TRIPS
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf (328) (last visited May. 1, 2019,
5:30 PM)
118
Article I of the Convention states that the Convention applied to constitute a Union for the
protection of industrial property and that the protection of industrial property had as its
objects patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names,
52
The specific provisions dealing with the geographical indications are provided
in Article 10 and Article 10ter of the Convention. Article 10 stipulates that the
provisions of Article 9 (dealing with seizure of goods on importation, bearing
false indications as their source or identity of producer) shall apply in cases
of direct or indirect use of a false indication of source of the goods or the
identity of the producer, manufacturer or merchant. 119
Article 10ter(2) enjoins the members of the Union to take appropriate legal
remedies to effectively repress all the acts referred to in Articles 9, 10, and
10bis of the Convention pertaining to false indications of sources or identity
of producers and unfair completion respectively. Further, it also contains an
undertaking of the States party to allow federations and associations
representing producers and trade circles to bring actions in order to enforce
the means of protection envisaged under Articles 9 and 10. 120
3.1.3 The Madrid Agreement on Indications for the Repression of False

or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods (1891)
The position of the parties in the Paris Convention of 1883 was such that it
did not provide for more than a common ground of acceptance inter se that a
indications of source or appellations of origin, and the repression of unfair competition.

See World Intellectual Property Organization, Paris Convention on Industrial Property
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/treaties/en/paris/trt_paris_001en.pdf(last visited May. 3,
2019, 5:30 PM)
119
Id. at 10 for Article 10 of the Paris Convention.
120
53
multilateral protection was needed with respect to indications of sources. The
original text of the Paris Convention did not provide for per se prevention of
false indications, but was limited, only with respect to the use of a false trade
name.121 As a result of this arrangement, nations which had sought and
yearned for an enhanced international protection to the indications of sources
established a special union under the Madrid Agreement for the Repression
of False or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods (also known as Madrid
Agreement on Indications of Sources).122
This Agreement binds only the states who are parties to it and also seeks to
curb the use of indications of sources which may be “deceptive”, i.e. which
may be literally true albeit misleading. For example, this might be applicable
in a case where a said geographical name may exist in two separate
countries, but was being used as an indication of source only for products
originating from a particular place/territory in one country. Use of that
indication of source by produces from the other country however, will not be
considered as use of “false” geographical indication, inspite of the fact that
customers might be deceived by such usage.123
Article 4 of the Madrid Agreement puts in a special provision limited in
application to “regional appellations pertaining to the source of the products
of the vine”124 and is an exception to the general rule that in application of the
121
122
Id.
123
124
Id.
54
Agreement the courts are free to adjudicate on whether or not a given
indication of source is considered to be generic and are to be determined by
the country where the protection is sought. 125
The Madrid Agreement though was an improvement, in terms of being a step
forward in building the International framework on false or deceptive
indications, from the Paris Convention; it did however not increase the level
of protection for indications of source from that as provided under the Paris
Convention. Also, due to its limited membership, it failed to gain practical
significance.126
3.1.4 Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and

their International Registration (1958)
The principal objective of the Lisbon Diplomatic Conference of
1958(subsequently the Lisbon Agreement) was aimed at improving the
international framework and increasing the level of protection governing the
Geographical Indications from the then existent regime, in the form of Paris
Convention and Madrid Agreement.127 The primary principle of Lisbon
Agreement is that the States, which are parties to it have undertaken to
protect appellations of origin,128that are protected “as such” in the country of
125
Id.
126
Id.
127
Id.
128
Supra note 101
55
origin and are registered in the International register maintained by
WIPO.129This effectively means that the only when the appellations of origin
are protected in country of origin, can the appellations of origin be registered
in an International Register maintained by WIPO. 130The registrations are
notified to all the state parties once the registration is completed. As many as
835 appellations of origin were registered till date of which 766 are in force
since the Agreement’s inception in 1966. 131 Further, Article 6 of the Lisbon
Agreement stipulates that an appellation which has been granted protection
in domestic jurisdiction of party to the Agreement in pursuance of procedure
stipulated under Article 5 cannot, in that country, be deemed to have become
generic, so far it continue to receive protection as an appellation of origin in
the country of origin. 132
As far as the scope of protection and distinction, between the Lisbon
Agreement and the other previous agreements is concerned, with regards to
internationally registered appellations of origin, they receive broader
protection than the protection for indications of source under the Paris
Convention and the Madrid Agreement. Accordingly, Article 3 of the
Agreement prohibits misleading use of a protected appellation of origin along
with “any imitation or usurpation of protected appellation of origin” even if the
129
See Article 1(2) of Lisbon Agreement at https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/285856 (last
visited Apr. 30, 2019, 5:30 PM)
130
131
Id.
132
Id.
56
true origin of the word is being displayed or is accompanied by words such
as “imitation” ,”kind”, ”type”, ”make” or ”the like”. 133
3.1.5 TRIPS Agreement
Lastly, the researcher will sum up the entire discussion on historical overview
and evolution of Geographical Indications with the TRIPS Agreement. The
TRIPS agreement is the most significant and comprehensive multilateral
framework reached, and agreed to by international community in laying down
a common minimum standard of IP protection to be accorded by the states,
who are parties to it, under its domestic laws. 134Needless to say, the
Geographical Indications also feature in it, under Part II of Section 3 of the
Agreement,135 with its definition provided under Article 22.1 putting it as
“indications 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”136
Article 22.2 serves as the basis for protection, put as:
133
Id.
See
134
World trade Organization,TRIPS
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm (last visited Apr. 30, 2019, 5:30
PM)
135
136
Id.
57
“In respect of geographical indications, Members shall provide the legal
means for interested parties to prevent:
(a) the use of any means in the designation or presentation of a good that
indicates or suggests that the good in question originates in a geographical
area other than the true place of the origin in a manner which misleads the
public as to the geographical origin of the good;
(b) any use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning
of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967).” 137
The provision within Article 22.2 is complemented by Article 22.3 and 22.4.
While Article 22.3 deals particularly with refusal of registration or non-
registration of trademarks, which contains a geographical indication, for
goods which do not originate within the territory indicated, if their domestic
legislation provides for it (i.e. ex-officio) or at the insistence of a interested
party and if the use of those trademarks for such goods would be misleading
as to the true place of origin of the goods. 138
Further, Article 22.4 provides that the protection granted under Articles 22.1
to 22.3 will be applicable in respect of the use of deceptive geographical
indications, i.e., geographical indications which are literally true as originating
137
Id.
138
Id.
58
in the territory, region or locality but falsely represent to the public that the
goods on which they are used originate in a different territory. 139
Article 23.1 under TRIPS incorporates a special provision with respect to
wines and spirits. It provides for additional protection for geographical
indications for wines and spirits and reads as follows:
“Each Member shall provide the legal means for interested parties to
prevent use of a geographical indication identifying wines for wines not
originating in the place indicated by the geographical indication in question or
identifying spirits for spirits not originating in the place indicated by the
geographical indication in question, even where the true origin of the goods
is indicated or the geographical indication is used in translation or
accompanied by expressions such as “kind”, “type”, “style”, “imitation” or the
like.”140
Article 24 is the last provision dealing with Geographical Indications; within
the TRIPS Agreement containing a number of exceptions to the obligations
under Articles 22 and 23.There are three specific categories of exceptions
viz. continued and similar use of geographical indications for wines and
spirits, prior good faith trademark rights, and generic designations.
The first exception underlined in Article 24.4 gives the right to a WTO
Member to continue with usage and similar use of a particular geographical

139
Id.
140
59
indication of another member, identifying the wines or spirits, in connection
with goods or services by any of its nationals or domiciliaries who have been
using that particular geographical indication in a continuous manner with
regard to the same or related goods or services in the territory of the Member
either for at least 10 years preceding April 15, 1994, or in good faith
preceding that date.141
The second exception in Article 24.5 underlines the rights in trademarks. It
states that measures to implement the provision on geographical indications
by a WTO Member, with respect to validity of the registration of the
trademark or the right to use the trademark will not be prejudiced, if the
registration of trademarks is identical with or similar to geographical
indications for the application for registration of such trademarks or the right
to use such trademarks, if the following two conditions are satisfied : Firstly, it
must be prior to the date of application of the provisions with respect to that
member as defined in Part VI ; and secondly, if the geographical indication is
protected prior to this application, in its country of origin. 142
The third exception is provided under Article 24.6 pertaining to geographical
indications of goods/services within a WTO Member’s s which are considered
by another WTO Member to be a identical with the term customary in
common language as the common name for goods or services in that
141
Id.
142
Id.
60
country, or where the geographical indication is being used for products of
the vine, it is identical with the customary name of a grape variety existent
within the territory of that Member as to the date of entry into force of the
TRIPS Agreement. 143
Additionally, Article 24.3 stipulates that in implementing the Section of the
TRIPS Agreement pertaining to geographical indications, a WTO Member will
not lessen or reduce the protection accorded to those geographical
indications which existed in that Member country’s jurisdiction, just before the
date of entry into force of the TRIPS Agreement. 144 This provision is devised
to prevent the Member states from reneging on their agreed commitment to
the minimum standards of protection of Geographical Indications under the
TRIPS Agreement.
3.2 Domestic Framework for Protection of Geographical Indications in
different jurisdictions
Having dealt at length previously, the origin and development of the concept
of Geographical Indications globally as well as under International
Agreements, it is imperative that the legal framework in varied jurisdictions is
also discussed to throw a complete picture about the global contemporary
law relating to Geographical Indications.

143
Id.
144
Id.
61
3.2.1 Legal Framework for protection of GIs in the European Union
The idea of Geographical Indications, as explained earlier germinated in the
European Union (hereinafter also called as the EU) and it is not surprising to
note the fact that EU and is member nations, were the main proponents of GI
provisions during the TRIPS Negotiations, during the early 1990s. 145This was
directed against the new Western Nations against the flagrant, cheap and
sub-standard imitations of what were the EU’s principal produces, namely
cheeses and wines.146This probably justifies briefly the robust mechanism
incorporated by the EU in its domestic laws, majorly addressing the concern
of quality control of its GI products given the fact that cheap replicas of its GI
products were flooding domestic and international market.
The European domestic laws and its community IP laws acknowledge GIs as
sui generis rights.147A number of legislations have been passed which

145
Irene Calboli ,Geographical Indications between Trade, Development, Culture, and
Marketing: Framing a Fair(er) System of Protection in the Global Economy?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/geographical-indications-at-the-crossroads-of-trade-
development-and-culture/geographical-indications-between-trade-development-culture-and-
marketing-framing-a-fairer-system-of-protection-in-the-global-
economy/A17A661A2772DA281E23B04A6F404D4E (8)(2017) (last visited Apr. 30, 2019,
5:30 PM)
146
Id. at 8
147
Yogesh Pai & Tania Singla. Vanity GIs: India’s Legislation on Geographical Indications
and the Missing Regulatory Framework
,https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/geographical-indications-at-the-crossroads-of-trade-
development-and-culture/vanity-gis-indias-legislation-on-geographical-indications-and-the-
missing-regulatory-framework/AAFD35BFBCF03773C44A518362DDB22F/core-reader (last visited
May. 10, 2019, 5:30 PM)
62
presently govern the grant and usage, the most significant of which is “On
the protection of geographical indications and designations for agricultural
produces and foodstuffs”148 along with its subsequent amendments. This
regulation was repealed in the year 2006 to be replaced by the Regulation
510/2006, which was also consequently amended and replaced in 2012 by
the Regulation No. 1152/2012149 which presently governs the protection of
agricultural products and foodstuffs in the European Union.
Additionally, the EU also accords separate GI protection to its wines and
spirits through a different regulation. 150The EU also mulled for quite some
148
Council Regulation 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of Geographical Indications
and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, 1992.
149
Regulation 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on 21
November2012 on Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs. See the
rationale for adoption by the EU of measures especially pertaining to quality schemes for
agricultural products and food stuffs in the preamble of the regulation, which will be relevant
for discussion pertaining to the need for quality standards in subsequent Chapter 5 of this
thesis. The preamble is quoted as “The Citizens and consumers in the Union increasingly
demand quality as well as traditional products. They are also concerned to maintain the
diversity of the agricultural production in the Union. This generates a demand for agricultural
products or foodstuffs with identifiable specific characteristics, in particular those linked to
their geographical origin. Producers can only continue to produce a diverse range of
quality products if they are rewarded fairly for their effort. This requires that they are
able to communicate to buyers and consumers the characteristics of their product under
conditions of fair competition. It also requires them to be able to correctly identify their
products on the marketplace. Operating quality schemes for producers which reward
them for their efforts to produce a diverse range of quality products can benefit the
rural economy ” at REGULATION (EU) No 1151/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products
and foodstuffs, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32012R1151&from=EN (last visited May. 10, 2019, 5:30 PM)
150
See Commission Regulation 479/2008 on the common organization of the market in wine,
amending Regulations No. 1493/1999, 1782/2003, 1290/2005, 3/2008 and repealing
Regulations (EEC) No. 2392/1986 and 1493/1999. Also See Regulation 110/2008 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description,
presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirits drinks and
repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1576/1989, 2008.
63
time on granting a similar kind of protection to its Non-Agricultural products
as well, although it did not fructify.151
The level of protection accorded in the EU, by insisting on having a particular
quality or standard, however, goes beyond the scope of protection provided
in Article 22 of the TRIPS152 which barely stipulates a minimum level of
protection to the GI products and does not insist on having particular
“standard or quality control”153
154
3.2.2 Legal Framework for protection of GIs in the US
151
See the Green Paper titled as “Making the most out of Europe's traditional know-how: a
possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Union to non-
agricultural products” at European Commission, Making the most out of Europe's traditional
know-how: a possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Union
to non-agricultural products,https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:52014DC0469&from=EN (last visited May. 10, 2019, 5:30 PM)
152
Supra note 135
153
Quality standards or control will be the area of discussion under Chapter 5 of this thesis.
The relevance of them, as an important factor in GI product will be taken up in that Chapter.
154
The following figure denotes very briefly, the manner and scheme of protection of GIs in
Europe
64
The United States in contrast to the European Union protects its
Geographical Indications by means of trademark law, in the form of
certification marks in the Lanham Act, the primary federal law dealing with
the law of trademarks in the US. Needless, to say there is no sui generis
protection mechanism as like in the EU. However, there is an exception to
this, the protection accorded to the appellation for wines, at the Federal and
State levels could be defined as a sui generis system. 155
The Lanham Act, is the primary statute, governing the GIs protection of
agricultural produce and food stuffs. 156 The Certification marks157 are of
three types and function to indicate (1) Regional or other origin; (2) material,
mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy or other characteristics of the
goods/services; (3) that the work or labour on the goods/services was
performed by a member of a union or other organization. 158Generally, the
Geographical Indications will not get protection as trademarks or collective
marks in the United States as they are geographically descriptive, however it
can still be registered by an applicant who can show any sign of acquired
distinctiveness. Several other kinds of distinctive names, which are otherwise

155
Irene Calboli, Time to Say Local Cheese and Smile at the Geographical Indications of
Origin? International Trade and Local Development in the US, 53 Hous. L. Rev. 373, 394-
95(2015)
156
See § 1052(e) of Lanham Act 2006)
157
A certification mark is defined as any word, name, symbol or device used by the party or
parties apart from the owner of the mark to certify some aspect of the third parties’ goods or
services. The same mark can be used to certify more than one characteristic of the
goods/services in more than one certification category: the mark ROQUEFORT (U.S.
Registration No. 571,798) is used to indicate that the cheese has been manufactured from
sheep’s milk and cured in the caves of the Community of Roquefort (France) in accordance
with their long established methods and processes. Supra note 20
158
Id.
65
protected under the four corners of sui generis GIs are protected by different
mechanisms, including certification trademarks, trademarks, or by way of
common law remedy of passing off.159
However, unlike in the EU, there is no separate recognition granted to
geographical indications under the US law, there are inbuilt mechanisms,
primarily in the form of initiatives by the U.S. Government to ensure that there
is no dilution of the quality of the GI product. 160
3.2.3 Legal Framework for protection of GIs in China
A brief discussion on the legal framework of GI protection in China is
important given the fact that China, is a very large country with a huge
population and having a multitude of products 161originating in different
territories. China, does not have a uniform approach in protection of its GIs, it
has both Trademark Law protection and sui generis protection for its
GIs.162After China’s accession into TRIPS in 2001, the concept of
159
Id.
160
Id. The subject of quality control and mechanisms adopted by US in ensuring the quality
control of its GI products will be dealt within Chapter 5 on the need for quality standards.
161
See at https://www.ccpit-patent.com.cn/node/4132 . There are numerous products within
China which have been accorded GI protection like Guizhou Moutai, distilled liquor from
China, Maotai is only a small town in China’s Guizhou Province, the registered trademark of
MOUTAI is well-known to the public, and is held by Guizhou Maotai Spirits (Group) Co Ltd.
See at Zhang, Haizheng and Hu, Didi and Li, Yanhui, Protection of Geographical Indications
Under China's Intellectual Property Legal Framework 17 Aust. J. Asian Law. 13, 2016 There
are also other GI products such as the Jinhua Ham, a high quality ham famous all thought
China originating in Jinhua and Quzhou regions of China. See at
http://www.fao.org/3/i1592e/i1592e02.pdf
162
Supra note 24
66
“Geographical Indications”163 was introduced in its domestic legislation, via its
Trademark Law of 2001.Subsequently, in the year 2002, the State Council
promulgated Regulations for the Implementation of the Trade Mark Law (TM
Implementing Regulations 2002) in order to provide for a mechanism of
registration of the GI. 164Further, Article 6.1 of the TM Implementing
Regulations 2002, that “ for geographical indications referred to in Article 16
of the Trade Mark Law, applications may be filed to register them as
certification marks or collective marks 165 under the provisions of the Trade
Mark Law and these Regulations.”
Further, under the Chinese law, scope of Trademark protection is much wider
than sui generis protection available for GI products. The GI protection with
respect to sui generis mechanism is only available with respect to
geographically accurate names, whereas for the GIs registered in the form of
trademark protection either as a collective mark or a certification mark, there
must be an indication of the name of the geographical region or any other
indication of the visual signs to display that a good originates from the region.
163
The Geographical Indications under the legal regime of China are defined under Article 16
of TM law of 2013, which puts it as “that it is the place of origin on the goods at issue and
that the special qualities, reputation or other characteristics of the goods are primarily
determined by the natural conditions or other humanistic conditions of the geographical
location involved.” See supra note 24
164
Supra note 24
165
The Trade Mark Law of 2013 (TM Law 2013),defines a collective mark as ‘a mark
registered in the name of a group, association, or any other organization and used by its
members to indicate membership’. It also defines a certification mark as ‘a mark which is
owned by an organization that exercises supervision over a particular product or service and
which is used to indicate that third-party goods or services meet certain standards pertaining
to place of origin, raw materials, mode of manufacture, quality, or other characteristics’
67
(The area of the region indicated as the region from which GI products
originate is not necessitated to be fully consistent with the name or boundary
of the administrative divisions of the same region). 166
3.3 Framework for Protection of GIs in India
The need for an effective GI protection mechanism was felt imminently, since
the country was blessed with a multitude of natural and agricultural products,
such as Basmati Rice, Darjeeling Tea, Alphonso Mangoes etc. 167In 1999,
India incorporated a sui generis system for protection and recognition of GIs
to fulfil its international commitments under Article 22.2 of TRIPS Agreement
(discussed earlier), which mandates all its members of the WTO to provide
the “legal means” for protection of GIs. In pursuance of the same, India
enacted The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection
Act) of 1999 (hereinafter GI Act). This Act was subsequently followed by the
Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules of
2002 (hereinafter GI Rules).Prior to the enactment of the Act, there were no
specific laws pertaining to Geographical Indications and the afflicted parties
had to rely on the common law doctrine of “passing off” and under Trademark
law, placing reliance on certification marks, for redressal of issues pertaining
to infringement and rights of the users. For instance, Darjeeling was
166
Id.
167
See Geographical Indications: Indian Scenario
(4)http://eprints.rclis.org/7878/1/EF6C0C53.pdf (last visited May. 10, 2019, 5:30 PM)
68
registered as certification mark under the erstwhile Trade and Merchandise
Act 1958.168
The GI Bill of 1999, the predecessor to the Act, stated the objects and
reasons for the enactment of the Act169 as:
“At present there is no specific law governing geographical indications of
goods in the country which could adequately protect the interests of
producers of such goods.
Exclusion of unauthorised persons from misusing the geographical
indications would serve to protect consumers from deception, add to the
economic prosperity of the producers of such goods and also promote goods
bearing Indian geographical indications in the export market… In view of the
above circumstances, it is considered necessary to have a comprehensive
legislation for registration and for providing adequate protection for
geographical indications. Hence the Bill.”
168
The Darjeeling tea along with its logo was also the first product to get the GI protection
status in 2004 after the enactment of the GI Act,1999. See Protecting Geographical
Indications in Emerging Economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China – BRICs Countries) A
Practical Manual for Producers’ Groups(30) https://www.origin-
gi.com/images/stories/PDFs/English/oriGIn_Publications_2010/protecting%20geographical
%20indications%20in%20emerging%20markets%20-%20final%20for%20web.pdf (last
visited May. 10, 2019, 5:30 PM)
169
See Sumathi Chandrasekharan, FROM LADDU TO GI AND AFTER: A POST-GRANT
ANALYSIS OF THE TIRUPATI LADDU REGISTRATION (71)
http://www.commonlii.org/in/journals/INJlIPLaw/2010/4.pdf (last visited May. 10, 2019, 5:30
PM)
69
The preamble of the GI Act are states it as “An act to provide for better
registration and better protection of Geographical Indications relating to
goods”170
Further, under the Act, a geographical indication is defined as an indication in
relation to goods, means an indication which identifies such goods as
agricultural goods, natural goods or manufactured goods as originating, or
manufactured in the territory of a country, or a region or locality in that
territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of such
goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin”171
This definition allows provides for exceptions to registration of the names
which do not denote the name of a country or region or locality and can still
be considered for it as long as they relate to a specific geographical area and
are used in respect to the goods originating from that region. 172The benefits
of this provision have accrued to products like “Basmati rice” 173 and
170
See the preamble of the Act at
http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOAct/1_49_1_gi-act-1999.pdf (last visited
May. 10, 2019, 5:30 PM)
171
See Section 2(e) of the GI Act,1999
172
See the explanation provided to Section 2(e) of the GI Act.
173
See SS Rana, Basmati Rice finally gets GI tag,https://ssrana.in/News/2016/08/India-
Basmati-Rice-Finally-Gets-The-GI-Tag.htm
70
“Alphonso Mangoes”174 or “Feni”175 which despite not depicting
regional/source indication to their names have got GI protection.
As described in Chapter 1 of this thesis, the Indian GI products face with its
own set of structural deficiencies (problems with registration of authorized
users and lack of quality control being the scope of this thesis) with respect to
ensuring that the registered products and their users enjoy the full usufruct of
rights and remedies. The provisions dealing with them under the GI Act, 1999
and their lacunae will be considered at full length in Chapters 4 and 5 of this
thesis dealing with the two sets of problems. Additionally, the researcher will
also rely upon the legislations of jurisdictions from abroad such as the EU,
US, China but not limited to these only, supplementary references will be
drawn as when from other jurisdictions to support and bolster the arguments,
suggestions presented therein as and when required.
174
See at https://www.thehindu.com/business/agri-business/alphonso-mango-gets-
geographical-indication-tag/article25135545.ece (last visited May. 15, 2019, 5:30 PM)
175
See Press Trust of India, Feni Makers on high as spirit gets GI tag, BUSINESS
STANDARD,(Jan.20,2013) https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/feni-
makers-on-high-as-spirit-gets-gi-tag-109061600110_1.html(last visited May. 15, 2019, 5:30
PM)
71
CHAPTER 4: REGISTRATION OF
AUTHORIZED USERS: AN
IMPEDIMENT TO SUCCESS OF GIs IN
INDIA?
72
4.REGISTRATION OF AUTHORIZED USERS: AN IMPEDIMENT
TO SUCCESS OF GIs IN INDIA?
4.1 CONCEPT OF ‘AUTHORIZED USERS’
The concept of ‘Authorized Users’ is a novel concept within the Indian GI
framework. The system of authorized user offers protection to the individual
producers, manufacturers and traders. Hence, it ensures the bonafide of a GI
product, dealt with or produced by a genuine person and further ensures
protection to the consumers.176
The GI Act of 1999 defines an ‘authorised user’ under Section 2(b) as
meaning as an authorised user of a geographical indication registered under
Section 17 of the Act.
Further, a ‘registered proprietor’ is defined under section 2(n) of the aforesaid
Act meaning in relation to a GI, as any association of persons or of
producers or any organization for the time being registered as the proprietor
of the geographical indication.
176
See the Manual of Geographical Indications, CHAPTER - 8 AUTHORISED USER
REGISTRATION, (36)
http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOGuidelinesManuals/1_31_1_manual-of-
geographical-indications-practice-and-procedure.pdf
(last visited May. 15, 2019, 5:30 PM)
73
)n
lz
A
U
d
e
ts
u
ic
I.j2
f-3 h
p
ra
g
o
1
T
G
m
,P
w
b
y
R
0
6
–
C
B
O
The procedure for
below:
USER
APHO ?YLPW
Registration as an authorized user is described
OT
4.1.1.1 LEGAL BENEFITS OF REGISTRATION AS AN AUTHORIZED
The legal benefits of being registered as an authorized user are numerous
ranging from:
a) Providing them the exclusive right to use the registered GI on the
specified goods;
74
b) The authorized users are legally entitled to initiate infringement
actions with the protection assured by GI registration. Further,
c) The market is opened up and developed, disallowing the free-riders
and counterfeiters to encroach that market. Additionally,
d) The consumers are guaranteed of the genuineness of the product
and assured of the quality along with aiding the users to promote brand
building.177
Primarily, The authorized users are entitled to use the registered
Geographical Indication along with the right to sue independently for
any GI infringement of their product.
Further, a registered user can also renew or restore a registered GI, if the
registered proprietor fails to register the same. She/he also has the right to
be impleaded in any rectification proceeding against a registered GI
Indication or before the Appellate Board. 178
The importance of GI cannot be further overstated, even the GI manual of
Practice and Procedure (published by the Govt. Of India) iterates that every
producer/dealer/manufacturer/trader/exporter should register as an
authorized user for their respective GIs for better protection, increased
market value and brand promotion of GI. 179
177
Supra note 83
178
See infra note 186 at 36
179
See infra note 186 at 36
75
LEGAL BENEFITS OF REGISTRATION AS AN AUTHORIZED USER
4.1 PROBLEMS WITH REGISTRATION OF AUTHORIZED USERS
180
Legal Benefits of Registration as an Authorized user under the GI Act, 1999. See
IB
z
v
x
A
p
y
,b
https://www.ipc-eui.org/sites/default/files/events/files/GI-Presentation%20-CGPDTM_Part
%20-%201.pdf (last visited May. 19, 2019, 5:30 PM)
76
fg
h
.tk
e
c
s
m
o
a
r
n
ild
u
G
T
W
C
P
The issues with the registration of the authorized users are numerous, which
the researcher will elucidate in greater detail subsequently within this unit,
however the end result of all those problems is the poor registration of
authorized users.
A description by means of a flow-sheet show-casing the relationship with the
causes and effect of poor registration is provided by the researcher below,
before engaging in an elaborate discussion on the same:
77
o
.2
K
W
Z
P
N
Q
Y
D
H
V
T
L
U
C
S
A
-E
M
R
rO
181
e
d
n
u
Is
G
F
t/
fc
FIGURE NO. 4: PROBLEM OF
AUTHORIZED USERS OF INDIAN GIs WITH ITS CAUSES

POOR REGISTRATION OF
The following flow sheet depicts the summary of the discussion which the researcher will
be delving into on the problem of poor registration of authorized users in India with their
causes. The flow sheet is based upon the findings of the researcher during the course of his
research
78
The researcher during the course of his research found several problems
which resulted in the poor number of registration as authorized users with
different GIs within India which were troubling the users/traditional growers
and producers182 of the GI products. They are as follows:
4.2.1 LACK OF A CLEAR DEFINTION OF AUTHORIZED USER
To begin with, firstly, within the four corners of the GI Act, 1999 there is no
laid down definition of what is exactly meant by an “authorized user”. The
only provision which states explicitly what is meant by an authorized user is
under Section 2(b) of the Act which puts it as “the authorised user of a
geographical indication registered under Section 17(of the GI Act)”. This
essentially means that there are no existing objective
criteria/parameters/indicia or laid down conditions upon fulfilment of which it
can be affirmatively stated that a traditional user/producer of the GI would
ipso facto become an authorized user. This existing legislative void proves
fatal for those users/producers of the GI products who continue to produce
182
Producers are defined under section 2(k) as those person who produce in relation to
goods,: (i) if such goods are agricultural goods, produces the goods and includes the person
who processes or packages such goods; (ii) if such goods are natural goods, exploits the
goods; (iii) if such goods are handicraft or industrial goods, makes or manufactures the
goods, and includes any person who trades or deals in such production, exploitation, making
or manufacturing, as the case may be, of the goods ;
79
traditionally the products over generations. These users are bereft of the
legal benefits (which the researcher talked about previously within this
chapter) which entails by virtue of being registered as an authorized GI user.
4.2.2 PROBLEMATIC DEFINTION OF ‘PRODUCER’ UNDER GI ACT,1999
The researcher has also identified the definition of the term “producer” under
the GI Act, 1999 as also another area of concern. This is defined under
section 2(k) of the Act is quite expansive and covers everybody from not only
those who produce the goods but also includes those of the likes of who are
processing or packaging the goods (in case they are agricultural
goods)183, exploiting the goods (in case they are natural goods)184 and
makes or manufactures the handicrafts or industrial goods. 185Further, this
section also includes those persons who are trading or dealing in
production, exploitation, making or manufacturing these goods.186
The consequence of this is that apart from the traditional users/growers of
the GIs, these persons/entities who are not directly associated with the
process of manufacture /growing/producing of the GI goods are entitled to
apply for registration as authorized user under Section 17 of the GI Act. 187The
183
Section 2(k)(i) of GI Act,1999.
184
Section 2(k)(ii) of GI Act,1999.
185
Section 2(k)(iii) of GI Act,1999.
186
Section 2(k) of GI Act, 1999.
187
Section 17 of the GI Act stipulates that any person claiming to be producer of the goods in
respect of which a geographical indication has been registered, can apply in writing to the
Registrar in the prescribed manner for registering him as an authorized user of such
geographical indication.
80
real problem however does not rear its head here, but often in several cases,
it is possible that these traders/dealers/middle men might appropriate the
status of registered authorized user and consequently mint money out of the
GI products, which is produced anything but out of the sweat and toil of the
poor, small-scale producers.
The researcher states the following proposition on the basis of the field
surveys and interviews conducted by him on Channapatna Toys and dolls.
One of the interviewees188 Mr. Sunil Kumar stated the high probability of such
situation to happen due to inadequacies within the definition of producer in
the GI Act although there were no such cases which had come to his
knowledge.
4.2.3 LACK OF AWARENESS OF GIs AND ORGANIZATIONAL

SUPPORT
The lack of awareness of what is meant by a Geographical Indication and
what were the possible benefits of registering as an authorized user were
found out to be the biggest issue which was observed uniformly by him
across a lot of GIs.
This lack of awareness, amongst the majorly illiterate users was what was
sought to be brought forth by the researcher during the course of his
research, through field visits, interviews with the traditional non-registered

188
The interviewee is an Assistant Commissioner at Office of Development Commissioner
(Handicrafts),Mysore with Ministry of Textiles, Government of India(a nodal agency working
for the facilitation of the GIs)
81
users189 and secondary sources such as prior research works 190 conducted
on this area of problems with registration of authorized users.
It was specifically found by the researcher during the course of his interviews
with Mr. Sunil Kumar and officials of Visvesvaraya Trade Promotion Centre 191
pertaining to the meaning of what a Geographical Indication was and what
benefits a registered user could accrue.
The researcher also found during the course of his interaction with the
officials at VTPC (who requested anonymity) that they had come across
users/artisans/producers of multiple handicrafts who even had misplaced
fears regarding the cancellation of registration if they were to register as an
authorized user for one GI product, they would lose the right to be recognized
as an artisan for other GI products.
189
The researcher found the persistent problems with respect to the GIs of the State of
Karnataka which is the Channapatna Toys and Dolls (at Channapatna region of Karnataka)
as well as other handicraft GIs such as Molakamuru Sarees, Navalgund Durries and Ganjifa
Cards of Mysore by means of his field visits, interviews with the traditional producers,
officials from the respective state and central government agencies within Karnataka dealing
with these registered GIs. The case studies conducted by the researcher will be reflected
subsequently in subsequent chapter 6.
190
The secondary reports considered by the researcher are with Muga Silk Saree of Assam,
which was also grappling with the similar issue of poor registration of authorized users. An
analysis of the same will be brought forth by the researcher subsequently in this chapter
along with the case studies. See supra note 78 & with respect to Pochampally Ikat saree of
Andhra Pradesh which also faces similar problem of low registration of users at Supra note
10 . Further the Chikan works of Lucknow also is afflicted by a similar problem with, of the
thousands involved in the process of Chikan work, only four have registered. See supra note
43.
191
Also known as VTPC, is a nodal agency authorized by Govt. Of Karnataka for facilitation
of registration of GIs of Karnataka. See VTPC, https://www.vtpckarnataka.gov.in/ (last visited
May. 19, 2019, 5:30 PM)
82
Additionally, the researcher also found similar low awareness for other GIs
outside Karnataka, such as the Pochampally Ikat Sarees of Andhra Pradesh,
where there was an abysmally low awareness amongst the weavers about
what was meant by a GI and the GI registration process 192, and a report on
this GI quoted the Commissioner of (Handloom and Textiles), Govt. of
Andhra Pradesh Mr. I.S. Naresh stating the issue very aptly as “The concept
of GI is yet not well known in India among the producers and consumers. Lot
of capacity building is required on the GI.”193
Further, there is also an inadequate organizational support for these
producers of GIs from governmental agencies in terms of aiding these users
to register them as authorized users, as was observed in the case of Muga
Silk of Assam.194In the case of the Channapatna toys and dolls, the process
of helping the artisans in the registration as an authorized user had begun as
late as January 2019 (with 2 persons being registered as authorized users
and prior to January there were no existent authorized users), although the
GI had been registered as early as in 2006. 195These details were brought
forth during the course of talks by the researcher with the officials of VTPC.
This displays a lack of clear of support on the part of governmental agencies
in the aiding the users to register themselves.
192
Supra note 10 at 10
193
Id. at 12
194
Id.
195
See GI registry info with respect to Channapatna Toys and Dolls
http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/GirPublic/Application/Details/23(last visited May. 21, 2019, 5:30
PM)
83
4.2.4 PRESENT INADEQUCIES IN MAPPING METHODOLOGY OF
GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF CULTIVATION/PRODUCTION OF GIs
The present GI Application filing requirements under Form I-GI under the GI
Act, 1999 requires the applicant to submit three copies of the map of the
geographical area of the production displaying the title, name of the publisher
and the date of issue which is to be subsequently verified by the competent
authority.The importance of these maps have was aptly stated by Chinnaraju
G Naidu, who is currently the Deputy Registrar of Geographical Indications,
in a news piece in 2014 in the following words:
“It is vital to demarcate actual producing area even up to the level of village
panchayat. The GI (geographical indication) application remains imperfect if
it fails to cover the actual producing area. Not even a micron point space of
actual cultivation area should be left uncovered”
Now the problem plaguing the traditional users is these maps submitted to
the GI Registry by the applicant are often inadequate to trace the actual
cultivation/production areas of the GIs since they donot demarcate the entire
area of cultivation or production by using GPS mapping co-ordinates
specifying latitudinal and longitudinal extent of the area. The present maps
(one such specimen map submitted for Channapatna Region for
Channapatna Toys and Dolls has been exhibited by the researcher in the
subsequent pages) broadly display the areas such as villages, hamlets etc.
84
falling within the area of cultivation/production but don’t demarcate with
precision(using latitudinal and longitudinal co-ordinates) the areas which
actually engage in cultivation/production the within the displayed villages,
hamlets, panchayat areas.
Once this map is submitted by an applicant and accepted by the GI registry,
the users within the geographical areas not covered in the map will not be
entitled to use the said Geographical Indication, even though the area of
production might be squarely falling within the area of cultivation/production
within the maps or notwithstanding the fact these traditional users have been
producing or cultivating the GIs for a very long time. This subsequently,
results in complete denial of registration of such users who have been
residing in those areas.
There are also additional issues with the mapping methodology; these maps
sometimes don’t cover those areas which are outside the area of
cultivation/production of the GIs leaving the traditional users and producers
outside the legal fold of registration. The researcher has considered an
instance, where a GI application filed for Basmati Rice, by APEDA (also
known as Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development
Authority) which seeking to cover only the states of Punjab, Haryana, Delhi,
85
Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and parts of Uttar Pradesh and Jammu &
Kashmir. 196
The opposition to this was filed by the Madhya Pradesh Government along
with several associations within Madhya Pradesh representing the interests
of the farmers growing Basmati Rice within the state who wanted Apeda’s
application to include areas include Madhya Pradesh and regions such as
Morena, Bhind, Gwalior, Sheopur, Datia, Shivpuri, Guna, Vidisha, Raisen,
Sehore, Hoshangabad, Jabalpur, and Narshinghpur. 197
196
See Sanjay Vijaykumar, Madhya Pradesh’s Basmati Plea may delay India’s Geographical
Indications, ECONOMIC TIMES,(Jan.07,2014)
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/madhya-pradeshs-basmati-
plea-may-delay-indias-geographical-indication-battle/articleshow/28486185.cms (last visited
May. 21, 2019, 5:30 PM)
197
Id.
86
198
198
The figure above is the Map of Channapatna Taluk submitted by the applicant Karnataka
State Handloom Development Corporation (KSHDC) in Form I-GI under the GI Act, 1999.
87
4.2.5 POOR REGISTRATION OF AUTHORIZED USERS
The final issue which the researcher will talk here is the poor and insignificant
number of users who are registering themselves as authorized users. The
issue is but a cumulative effect of all of the previously discussed issues such
as lack of clear definition of a user, lack of awareness amongst the users and
lack of organizational support from governmental agencies. The problem was
found to be uniformly persistent by the researcher across a large number of a
GIs within Karnataka and even outside the state.
Considering for example, the case of Channapatna Toys and Dolls, and as
explained in the previous issue, the product had been granted the GI status
way back in 2006,199but prior to January 2019, there were no registered
authorized users, it was only after January that applications of registration of
authorized users were forwarded to GI registry(by the officials of VTPC, the
officials were gracious enough to let the researcher know of this development
on the condition of anonymity) and two persons(Mr. Venkataramanaswamy
and Mrs. Laksmi) were registered and the same was updated in the GI
website. The state of affairs with respect to other GIs within Karnataka such
as Molakamuru Sarees is also not very rosy, the course of the interview also
revealed that there had been just two registered authorized user of the GI
product.200
Id.
199
200
See http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/GirPublic/Application/Details/77 (last visited May. 21,
2019, 5:30 PM)
88
As far as the scenario for GIs outside the state of Karnataka were concerned,
the researcher found the same problem to persist, such as the Chikan Craft
from Lucknow, inspite of getting a GI registration in 2008, out of thousands
of producers engaged in Chikan works, just four had registered themselves
as authorized users until the year 2016.201Subsequently, however the number
of authorized users eventually rose phenomenally up to one hundred and
eleven according to the present data displayed on GI Registry website. 202
The Muga silk from Assam, also faced similar set of problems, despite
getting the status of a registered GI in 2007, only thirteen applications were
received for registration of authorized users until 2015, of which just two got
accepted, the first one getting accepted in 2014. 203However, it has
significantly improved and the GI Registry Website displays that there now
284 registered authorized users of Muga Silk.204
4.2.6 FINDINGS ON PROBLEMS PERTAINING TO AUTHORIZED USER

REGISTRATION OFGIs IN INDIA:
This part of the thesis, has been based on findings of the researcher which
he gathered during the course of his research to show-case the issues
201
See text accompanying note 47.
202
See the number of authorized users for Lucknow Chikan craft at
http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/GirPublic/Application/Details/119(last visited May. 21, 2019, 5:30
PM)
203
Supra note 78
204
See at http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/GirPublic/Application/Details/384 (last visited May. 21,
2019, 5:30 PM)
89
mooted thought this chapter pertaining to problem of poor registration of
authorized user.
The researcher, selected some of the GIs within the state of Karnataka (as
he was based in Karnataka and had conducted field surveys in Karnataka)
along with a few of the GIs outside the state, the references of which were
used by him during the course of his research on number of issues to
highlight the instances where problems came to the fore. These GIs are the
Banarasi Sarees & Lucknow Chikan Craft (Uttar Pradesh), Muga Silk(Assam)
and Pochampally Ikat(Andhra Pradesh)
The entire data compiled by the researcher with respect to some of the
GIs(Total 10 in number) and the status of the number of authorized users will
throw light on the poor state of affairs of registration of authorized users in
India is showcased below;
90
300
250
Channaptna Toys and Dolls
(Karnataka)
Kinhal Toys (Karnataka)
200
Ilkal Sarees (Karnataka)
Navalgund Durees (Karnataka)
Molakamuru Sarees
(Karnataka)
150
Ganjifa Cards (Karnataka)
Banarasi Sarees (Uttar
Pradesh)
100 Muga Silk (Asam)
Pochampally Ikat (Andhra
Pradesh)
Lucknow Chikan Craft (Uttar
50 Pradesh)
0
Total number of registered authorized users as per GI Registry website(updated till 19.05.2019)
FIGURE: CURRENT STATUS OF REGISTRATION OF AUTHORIZED
USERS WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF THE GIs OF INDIA
Findings on the Registration of Authorized Users:
The researcher, upon investigating the data pertaining to the number of
registered authorized users found that,
1) Muga Silk had the highest number of authorized users (284), as of date,
amongst all of the 10 GIs found by the researcher. This is an immense
improvement, given the fact that in the year 2014, Muga Silk was faced with
91
the problem of low-registration of authorized user, with the first authorized
user being registered in the year 2014.205
2) Lucknow Chikan Crafts and Banarasi Sarees have a substantial number of
authorized users at 111 and 116 respectively, but even they need to
generate more authorized user registration given the fact both of them have
large clusters of users at 2.5 lakh and 20,000 respectively. Current figures
point that progress is still unsatisfactory.
3) Few GIs in Karnataka like Ilkal Sarees and Kinhal Toys have no authorized
users despite obtaining a GI Registration in the year 2012 and 2007
respectively.
4) The other GIs like Channapatna Toys and Doll, Molakamuru Sarees and
Pochampally Ikat also have a very low registration of authorized users of just
2 authorized users, considering that the total number of users are a large
cluster of 4000 & 400 persons while Pochampally Ikat has 80 villages
engaged in weaving the saree respectively.
5) The figures go on to illustrate the need for addressing the poor figures of
registered authorized users and bringing in more of the traditional users and
producers into the legal fold of registration.
See how Tezpur University IPR Cell helped in aiding with the registration of authorized
205
users in 2014 at supra note 78
92
GIs No. Of Date of GI Approximate Number of
Registration207 Users/Artisans/Producer
Registered s
And Current Status208
Authorized
users206
Channapatna
Toys and 2 30/01/2006 3,300- 4,000 persons209
Dolls
More than 60 families (250
persons) engaged in craft.
Kinhal Toys 0 06/01/2012 Current status: 50
applications for registration
received for authorized
user by VTPC currently210
Ilkal Sarees 0 24/09/2007 15 co-operative societies
weaving sarees. Current
Status: Not a single
application for registration
received by VTPC.211
206
The data on number of number of authorized users was obtained by the researcher from
the GI Registry website during the course of his research to enquire the number of
authorized users. The figures are up to date as on 21.05.2019
207
The date of registration of each of the GIs was also obtained by the researcher GI
Registry website during the course of his research.
208
The data pertaining to number of users/artisans/producers of GIs is a close approximation
of the actual figure. The figures with respect to Karnataka’s GIs were obtained during field
visits to VTPC, Bangalore, at Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) at Mysore and
Internet sources.
209
The figures for number of artisans engaged in crafting Channapatna Toys and Dolls were
provided by Mr. Sunil Kumar, Assistant Commissioner at Office of Development
Commissioner (Handicrafts), Mysore during the course of interview with the researcher.
210
The number of craftsmen of Kinhal Toys as well as their current status was given
according to Mrs. Prabhavati Rao of VTPC, who was working on facilitation of their
authorized users’ application, explained the figures to the researcher during the course of his
Interview with her.
211
The number of weavers of Ilkal Sarees and current status of Ilkal Sarees was given
according to Mrs. Prabhavati Rao of VTPC, who was working on facilitation of their
authorized users’ application, explained the figures to the researcher during the course of his
93
Navalgund 22 women artisans.
Durries 27 28/03/2008 Current Status: 14

applications received by
VTPC.212
Molakamuru
400 Weavers.213
Sarees 2 28/03/2008 Current Status:1
application sent by vtpc214
Banarasi
Sarees 116 04/09/2009 About 20,000 weavers215

Muga Silk 284 13/07/2007 Around 10,000 weavers216
Pochampally 941 registered artisans

(822+119) respectively with
Ikat 2 31/12/2004 two registered
217
associations. A total of 80
villages are engaged in the
craft.218
Ganjifa Cards 15 families (approximately
60 persons) are engaged in
22 28/03/2008 craft of these cards.219
Interview with her.

212
The current status of Navalgund Durries was given according to Mrs. Prabhavati Rao of
VTPC, who was working on facilitation of their authorized users’ application, explained the
figures to the researcher during the course of his Interview with her.
213
Source: https://www.swadesi.com/news/molakalmuru-sarees/ (last visited May. 25, 2019,
5:30 PM)
214
The current status of Molakamuru Sarees was given according to Mrs. Prabhavati Rao of
VTPC, who was working on facilitation of their authorized users’ application, explained the
figures to the researcher during the course of his Interview with her.
215
See at https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/the-silence-of-the-looms-will-the-
interest-in-anushka-s-banarasi-be-enough-to-revive-the-ailing-handloom-industry-of-
varanasi/story-9Mig6OuHRF7LgLWGKm64pK.html
216
See at https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/variety/assam-weaves-an-ageless-
silk-legacy/article23029263.ece
217
See the list of registered members with the two registered authorized users of
Pochampally Ikat at (GI Registry Website)
http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/GirPublic/Application/ViewPDF (last visited May. 21, 2019, 5:30
PM)
218
See the number of villages engaged in the craft at https://www.thehindu.com/life-and-
style/fashion/rajesh-pamnanis-photo-booklet-on-pochampally-ikat-explains-the-weaving-
process-from-yarn-to-fabric/article22449544.ece (last visited May. 21, 2019, 5:30 PM)
219
The current status of Ganjifa Cards was given according to Mrs. Prabhavati Rao of VTPC,
who was working on facilitation of their authorized users’ application, explained the figures to
the researcher during the course of his Interview with her.
94
Lucknow
Chikan Craft 111 02/12/2008 2.5 lakh artisans220
4.3 STEPS TAKEN BY FEW AGENCIES TO IMPROVE AUTHORIZED
USERS REGISTRATION OF GIs IN INDIA: THE WAY FORWARD?
220
The Lucknow Chikan craft boasts of around 2.5 lakh artisans, one of the biggest artisan
clusters in India. See at https://www.craftsvilla.com/blog/chikankari-the-art-behind-the-
traditional-lucknowi-embroidery/ (last visited May. 21, 2019, 5:30 PM)
95
The researcher has highlighted the problems facing authorized user
registration and showcased data pertaining to the problems with few GIs in
the previous part of the thesis. However, the entire discussion remains
incomplete without bringing to the fore the notable efforts few of the agencies
(both governmental and non-governmental) have undertaken to improve the
situation with respect to authorized user registration in India. This also in the
opinion of the researcher can possibly form the basis of the way forward in
improving the scenario of poor registration and lessons for other GIs. The
researcher has bifurcated for the sake of convenience for the reader, the
work done here into two parts, viz. agencies working for GIs within Karnataka
and those who have worked on GIs outside the state within India.
A.STEPS TAKEN BY AGENCIES IN KARNATAKA
I) Channapatna Toys and Dolls: To begin with, the researcher has started
with a discussion on Channapatna Toys and Dolls which formed the basis of
his case study. The researcher found several measures which were being
taken by agencies to improve the authorized user registration of the GI.
These are being enlisted below:
1) The Office of Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) has organized
upto five awareness camps (“shivirs”) in the month of January to February of
2019 to raise the level of awareness amongst the traditional users/artisans of
Channapatna Toys and Dolls at Mysore.
96
2) The Office of Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) had also
organized recently a workshop (on 06 March 2019) on National GIs at
Mysore to raise the awareness of GIs as well to facilitate the registration of
authorized users. However having said this, prior to this event workshops
were conducted two years before with limited success and no other
workshops had been organized in between this period.
Further, GI Helpdesks have been opened at every Development
Commissioner (Handicrafts) office to facilitate the registration process of
authorized users, with them being provided helpline numbers to seek help
with the registration as an authorized user. Despite stating this, the Office
could not disclose how many authorized users it had registered or details
pertaining to it.
A. Additionally, the VTPC, the nodal agency of Karnataka Government had
taken several steps to facilitate the registration of authorized users. It had
organized registration drives from the month of November 2018, through
which some applications of around 16 persons were forwarded by it to GI
Registry. Currently the Channapatna Toys and Dolls have just two registered
authorized users and this has also been possible due to the efforts of the
VTPC, who had facilitated the registration of users of Channapatna Toys and
Dolls which did not have a single authorized user before January 2019.
B. The VTPC, is currently working on the registration applications of the
traditional users of other GIs within Karnataka such as Navalgund Durries,
97
Ganjifa Cards and Mysore Agarbattis. More than 60 applications had been
forwarded to the GI Registry by the VTPC officials.
C. The VTPC, on the other hand is also working on an awareness spreading
mission, with having organized awareness drives at various places within
Karnataka to help register more authorized users. It also bears the cost of the
registration fees of Rs.600, which an authorized user has to pay (mandated
in Form I-GI) which the poor artisans/users might find it difficult to bear.
The following is a brief summary of the efforts undertaken by different
governmental agencies like Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) and
Visveswaraya Trade Promotion Centre (VTPC) in Karnataka.
98
u
k
z
w
R
m
t
lp
h
y
ig
b
d
n
a
s
e
c
o
r
A
S
O
F
f
.,P
v
FIGURE: SUMMARY OF THE STEPS TAKEN BY AGENCIES WITH
RESPECT TO GIs OF KARNATAKA.
B. STEPS TAKEN BY AGENCIES IN OTHER STATES
I. CASE OF MUGA SILK : The Muga Silk of Assam was plagued with the
problem of low registration of authorized users. It had received its GI
registration in 2007, but there were no authorized users until the year
2014.221However, the scenario altered with the intervention of Tezpur
University IPR Cell(TUIPR), Dibrugarh University and with the faculty
members and volunteers of the North Lakhimpur College . These non-
221
Supra note at 219.
99
governmental agencies organized massive awareness camps and
registration programmes to aid in the registration process of the users. By the
end of the camps organized in Guwahati and North Lakhhimpur district, a
large number of users were registered as authorized users.
Following were the notable steps they took in increasing the number of
authorized user registration are as follows:
1) Professor Arshad Hussain, from the TUIPR Cell, was assigned by TUIPR to
oversee an extensive field research project at the absolute grassroot levels to
identify the reasons for the low number of applications and consequent
registrations.222
2) Post to this, he conducted another field work project across various areas
that included Dhakuakhana ,Ghilamara, Nakari, Panigaon, Khelmati, Napam
and Rangpuria(areas within Assam) to mobilise stakeholders for the next
workshop.
3) The workshop conducted in North Lakhimpur village of the Lakhimpur district
saw the registration of 117 stakeholders from 33 villages. TUIPR Cell
222
Id. The reasons found by TUIPR are almost similar to the findings of the researcher w.r.t
GIs of Karnataka like the Channapatna Toys and Dolls. They are : 1) low levels of
awareness of the significance of GI, 2) non-availability of reliable quality monitoring
systems to differentiate “genuine Muga” from “adulterated Muga”, 3) insignificant
organisational support across the entire value chain including nonexistence of
enforcement mechanisms in the State of Assam against adulteration and mixed
products in the market place difficulties in making and 4) sending error free
applications
100
members assisted in the registration process of authorized users by
preparing affidavits on the spot by being ably assisted with the help of a local
attorney.223
4) Further an interactive session was held, wherein the stakeholders (users of
those GIs) asked several questions and raising important suggestions,
including conducting such types of workshops in different parts of Assam to
spread awareness of concept of GIs.224
5) Stakeholders were explained that the next step in the process of registration
as an authorized user was to obtain the consent of Assam Science
Technology and Environment Council (ASTEC), as it was the Registered
Proprietor of the Muga Silk of Assam and obtaining its consent before
submitting the applications to the GI Registry in Chennai. 225
The current scenario is such that Muga silk has come a long way from having
just one authorized user(in the year 2014) to 284 registered authorized users,
majorly due to the initiatives taken up by different non-governmental
agencies (such as Tezpur University IPR Cell, Dibrugarh University and
volunteers from Lakhimpur College of Assam)

223
Id.
224
Id. The important suggestions made by the stakeholders were very pertinent, which in fact
in the opinion of the researcher is equally applicable for other GIs are a) the need to lay
down clearly the specifications for the use of the GI-Muga Silk of Assam logo, b) the
need to establish simple tests to differentiate between genuine and adulterated Muga
silk, and c) to establish a strong Inspection and Enforcement Body to supervise Muga
silk related activities to protect the authentic Muga silk.
225
Id.
101
Ujcti
fi
sg b
w
/A
.(H
c
k
a
)Ifm
lg
v
n
p
s
d
e
riz
o
th
u
R
P
1
2
3
G
y
q
In the opinion of the researcher, it has set up a very bright example for other
GIs of India, facing the problem of poor registration of authorized users.
Given below is a brief summary of the approach undertaken by non-
governmental agencies like Tezpur University IPR Cell(TUIPR), Dibrugarh
University and volunteers of the North Lakhimpur College in Assam with
respect to Muga Silk;
FIGURE: SUMMARY OF THE STEPS TAKEN BY AGENCIES WITH
RESPECT TO MUGA SILK OF ASSAM
102
103
CONCLUSIONS
1)The researcher during the course of his research found that the problem of
poor registration of authorized users is caused by a mix of several factors
namely; a) lack of a clear definition of an authorized user under Section 2 of
the GI Act;
b) The definition of Producer under Section 2 of the Act allows traders and
middle men to register as authorized user, depriving natural rights of
artisans of their monetary returns;
c) Further, the users are left out of the legal formality of registration due to
lack of an awareness of what is meant by GI along with legal benefits of
obtaining registration as an authorized user and lack of organizational
support; and finally
d) the inadequacies in present mapping methodology leaves out many
areas of cultivation and production of GIs as a result of which many users
are left out of the legal fold of registration as an authorized user.
2) The researcher, amongst the 10 GIs, he had pursued for the basis of
highlighting the issues, the problem of poor registration of authorized users
to persist. Out of the GIs pursued, Muga silk had the highest number of
registered authorized users(284) of the approximate10,000 weavers
engaged in the profession of weaving the silk. This particular GI has shown
the highest increase in the number of registrations, given that it had just a
104
single authorized user in 2014. Further, Banarasi Sarees also has a large
number of authorized users at 116, but it still needs more registration of
authorized users, since the total number of weavers engaged in weaving of
the saree is a large one at about approximately 20,000 weavers. Similar,
and if not important is urgent need for registration of more authorized users
in the case of Lucknow Chikan Craft, which also has a large number of
authorized users at 111, but has the biggest cluster of approximately 2.5
lakh weavers. The Channapatna Toys and Dolls, which was the GI picked
by the researcher for his case study, also displayed a very low registration
of authorized users at just 2 registered authorized users, calling for
immediate attention to register more number of authorized users. Lastly, the
other GIs picked up the researcher like Ilkal Sarees, Molakamuru Sarees,
Kinhal Toys and Pochampally Ikat also displayed a negligible number of
authorized users, calling for immediate attention to address the issue.
3) Lastly, within this chapter, the researcher found the several steps taken
up by different agencies(both governmental as well as non-governmental)
to understand the potential measures that could be taken in mitigating the
problems and become a possible way forward for other GIs in India, in the
opinion of the researcher. They are as follows:
a) With respect to Channapatna Toys and Dolls: While the Office of
Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) had organized camps to raise the
105
level of awareness amongst the traditional users/artisans of Channapatna
Toys and Dolls ; secondly it had also organized workshops to raise the
awareness of GIs as well to facilitate the registration of authorized users
through opening up of GI Helpdesks at its offices in different locations. The
Visvesvaraya Trade Promotion Centre (VTPC) on the other hand with h
organized awareness drives at various places within Karnataka to help
register more authorized users and facilitated in registration process of
authorized users by not only bearing the cost of the registration fees of
Rs.600, which an authorized user has to pay (mandated in Form I-GI) which
the poor artisans/users might find it difficult to bear, but also by assisting the
users to fill up the forms and forwarding them to the GI Registry at Chennai
on their behalf.
b) With respect of Muga Silk of Assam: The researcher also found that
Tezpur University IPR Cell, Dibrugarh University and volunteers from
Lakhimpur College of Assam had taken several noteworthy measures to
increase the number of registered authorized users of Muga Silk at a time
when it was especially afflicted by the problem of poor registration of
authorized users. They are enlisted below:
i) Undertaking an extensive field research project at the absolute grass root
levels within the GI cultivating /producing areas to identify the reasons for the
low number of applications and consequent registrations
106
ii) Pursuing field work projects across various regions within the GI producing
areas to mobilise stakeholders for attending workshops and registration
camps.
iii) Assisting users in registration process of authorized users by means of
registration drives/camps
iv) Holding interactive sessions with various stakeholders (users) to address
their concerns and queries associated with the registration process.
v) Informing the stakeholders (users) of the steps involved in registration as
authorized user.
SUGGESTIONS FROM THE RESEARCHER:
In the opinion of the researcher, the way forward for tackling the problem of
low registration of authorized users can take cues from the steps taken by
agencies in both Karnataka and Assam.
Firstly, extensive field research projects need to be undertaken at grass-root
levels in the areas of GI cultivation and production, particularly in those areas
affected by low registration of authorized users.
Secondly, field projects have to be undertaken in those areas of GI
production and cultivation, to mobilize stakeholders (i.e. various users of
those GIs) to attend the workshops and camps for registration of authorized
users.
107
Thirdly; organizational support needs to be provided to these users in
registering themselves, a) by aiding them to fill the forms and affidavits b)
helping them to send error free applications on behalf of them to send to GI
Registry and c) waiving or bearing the registration costs where the users are
unable to afford the registration fees and it becomes a barrier for themselves
to get registered as authorized users.
Fourthly; more number of registration camps need to be organized in
different parts of the region where GI is cultivated or produced, to initiate
dialogue with the stakeholders (“users”) of those GIs that not only are they
informed or made aware of the importance of the GI status and benefits of
registration as authorized users but also their queries/ doubts are assuaged
with respect to the procedure of registration and they are comfortably brought
into within the legal fold of registration.
108
CHAPTER 5: QUALITY STANDARDS
AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT: A
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
109
5. QUALITY STANDARDS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT : A
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
This chapter undertakes a thorough look into the inadequacies and necessity
for quality standards with respect to few of the GIs in India. Further adequate
consideration has been given to the prevalent problems due to lack of
enforcement of those quality standards and their implications.
A perusal of the existent legal structure on quality standards has been
undertaken by the researcher below.
5.1 CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR GUARANTEEING
QUALITY CONTROL IN INDIA
The GI Act, 1999 under Section 11(2) provides the requisite details which
have to be submitted along with the application for registration of the GI.
While the Act does not specifically stipulate the requirement of submission of
the details pertaining to inspection mechanism that may be set up with
respect to the GI product, a combined reading of the Section 11(2) along with
Form GI-1 suggests the applicant group to identify an “Inspection Body”
which would be responsible for the quality control of the products within the
GI.226
226
Form GI-1, Application for the Registration of a Geographical Indication in Part A of the
Register, GI Act Section 11, GI Rules Rule No. 23, See at

http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOFormUpload/1_64_1/Form-gi-01.pdf (last
visited May. 21, 2019, 5:30 PM)
110
Additionally, Rule 32(1)(g) of the Geographical Indications of
Goods(Registration and Protection) Rules,2002 requires specifically the
‘particulars of the inspection structure, if any, to regulate the use of a
geographical indication in respect of the goods for which the application is
made in the territory region or locality as mentioned in the application.’227
It is pertinent to understand here, that non-existence of any such inspection
mechanism will not be a bar for demonstrating the inadequacy of an
application to not be granted the final registration under the GI Act, 1999. 228
Further in the present legislative set-up, if the members of the collective
group who would be entitled to use the GI, or consumers, if they want to hold
a member of the group accountable for non-compliance with the quality
standards of the products, the remedy available is under Section 27 of the
Geographical Indications Act, 1999 which provides that the cancellation of
the registration of the non-complying member from the list of authorized GI
producers/users.
5.2 PROBLEMS WITH QUALITY CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT OF
QUALITY CONTROL
227
Geographical Indications of Goods(Registration and Protection) Rules,2002
228
The researcher contends this on the basis of the fact that the GI Act does not contain any
specific provision that pertains to the insufficiency of the GI Application due to non-existence
of the inspection mechanism, although Section 11(6) of the GI Act states that “Subject to the
provisions of this Act, the Registrar may refuse the application of accept it absolutely or
subject to such amendments, modification, conditions or limitations, if any, as he thinks fit.”
111
The post-registration mechanism to ensure success of the GIs is also
important legally as well economically. Maintenance of adequate quality
standards of the GIs and simultaneous enforcement of those quality
standards through legal mechanism is a very important component to the
protection and safeguarding of the GIs. The researcher has highlighted in the
previous chapter no.2 of the need for emphasising on quality control in order
to prevent information asymmetry prevalent between the consumer and
producer.229
Academic works have reflected on the loss of combined reputation to a GIs
reputation resulting from the compromise on the distinctive quality. 230
Unfortunately, it has been seen that at present, almost all of the GI
awareness campaigns in India seem to be focussed only on the registration
component of the GIs.231
While there have been efforts for branding and promotion of the GI products
on domestic and international forums 232, the governmental discourse
surrounding the legal and policy debate on Indian GIs have been oblivious of
229
See text accompanying notes 93-95
230
See the case of Banarasi sarees where the GI holders were unaware of the importance of
quality of their product and the consequent loss of reputation which was afflicting them.
Supra note 158 at 334. Also see the case of Muga silk which is faced with a similar problem
at supra note 78.
231
See supra note at 38
232
112
need for introduction of quality and enforcement of those quality standards
for the GI products being produced in India. 233
As a result of it, few works have gone to the extent of saying that the Indian
regime promotes a system of what they call as “Vanity GIs” essentially
standing for the hollowness of the GI protection mechanism, where the
registration of GIs is seen as an end in itself and a measure for brand
promotion and negligible attention being paid to the deep linkages between
the registration of GIs and the quality control that should follow the
registration.234
The researcher during the course of his research found several problems
persistent with the inadequacies in setting up of quality standards and
enforcement of those quality standards with respect to GIs in India. They
have been enumerated by the researcher as follows:
233
Id.
234
Id.
113
x
y
w
G
p
ru
k
e
m
-c
fo
d
n
a
s
ith
N
b
L
lI
FIGURE NO. : PROBLEM OF QUALITY CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT
OF QUALITY CONTROL WITH RESPECT TO GIs IN INDIA
235
The following flow sheet depicts the summary of the discussion which the researcher will
be delving into on the problem lack of quality control and enforcement of those quality control
measures in India with their causes. The flow sheet is based upon the findings of the
researcher during the course of his research
114
5.2.1 NON-EXISTENCE OF A MANDATORY INSPECTION BODY FOR
QUALITY CONTROL
As explained earlier, it is not necessary for the applicant with respect to a GI,
to identify an inspection body for the registration of the GI. The GI Act of
1999 does not anywhere stipulate the barring of an application for its
inadequacy in identifying the inspection body or mechanism for scrutinizing
the quality of the GI products.
The researcher during the course of the research came across several GIs
which were registered, though they did not have any identified inspection
body.
5.2.2 LACK OF SCRUTINY AND INSPECTION MEASURES WITH

RESPECT TO THE GI PRODUCTS BY THE INSPECTION BODIES
The researcher also found several glaring deficiencies in scrutiny of the GI
products, in cases where the inspection body had been identified by the
applicant of the GI product.
Consider the following example with respect to Channapatna Toys and Dolls,
which was investigated by the researcher. During the course of field visit to
Channapatna, the researcher found that although the applicant, Karnataka
State Handicrafts Development Corporation(KSHDC) had identified an
Inspection body, who were the Master Craftsmen in the Lacquer Ware Art
115
Complex at Channapatna, (set up by KSHDC) 236, the inspection body was
but completely defunct and existed merely on paper.
Mr. Sunil Kumar237,whom the researcher interviewed stated that Ministry of
Textiles, Government of India, had notified certain guidelines such as
educational qualifications, requisite working experience etc upon adhering to
which an craftsman would be to empanelled as Master Craftsmen. Attached
below in the next page is the circular notifying the same.
The conspicuous absence from all of the developments was that not even a
single person had been empanelled as Master craftsman since the year
2006, when it got the GI status.238
The consequence of this is the fact, is that a) there is literally no inspection
of quality of the Channapatna Toys and Dolls being produced within
the region; b)There is failure to ensure product specifications to ensure
uniform quality products in its final form; c) There are failures to
conduct quality checks before selling of the products in domestic or
international market. The implications of what happens when there is lack
of inspection mechanism will be explained by the researcher subsequently
within this chapter.
236
P.10 of the Form GI-1 submitted by the KSHDC to the GI Registry at Chennai on 14
March 2005.
237
See at Supra note 199
238
See at Supra note 210
116
239
Circular notifying the criteria for empanelment as Master Craftsmen in handicraft sector
dated 6 Oct.2016
117
Prior scholarly works have reflected the poor state of affairs with some of the
240
other GIs outside the state of Karnataka, which are no different.
For instance, applicant for the Banarasi Sarees GI Application had indentified
five inspection bodies which were Department of Handlooms(Government of
Uttar Pradesh), the Development Commissioner (Handlooms), the Weavers’
Service Centre, Master Weavers’ Self-Regulation and the Textiles
Committee. The role of Textiles Committee, as a statutory body was believed
to be the most important whose objective is ‘to ensure the quality of textiles
and textile machinery both for internal consumption and export purposes’.241
The progress report as far as the quality management of the Banarasi silk
sarees is concerned, the Textiles Committee has till date just concentrated
on the facilitation of registration of GIs for unique textile products in India. It
has not overseen any special quality of process certification scheme needed
to ascertain whether the Sarees are being produced as per product
specifications, which are essential for an Inspection Body. 242
Presently, the Banarasi Sarees carry with themselves a SILK Mark 243 and
Handloom Mark244, which are overseen by the external agencies. But this not
240
241
Id.
242
Id.
243
The Silk Mark Organization of India (SMOI), the registered owner of the SILK Mark,
recently introduced a high-security nano-particle-embedded fusion label as a mark of purity
for Banarasi silk to enable customers to verify the authenticity of the source of silk.
244
The Handloom Mark certifies that the product being purchased is genuinely hand-woven
The Textiles Committee is the implementation agency for the Handloom Mark.
118
what was envisioned by the GI Act, 1999 or the GI Rules, 2002. The
inspection body identified by the applicants for their respective GIs should
have been ideally carried out respective quality checks and controls.
Further, Muga silk of Assam also was faced with a similar plight, where there
was non-availability of any reliable quality monitoring body to identify or
scrutinize the adulterated or fake Muga silk sarees from the real ones. 245
5.2.2.1 GI PRODUCTS WHERE INSPECTION BODIES ARE SET UP AND

CARRYING OUT INSPECTION MEASURES
Having described earlier the apathy however, there are also a certain number
of GIs in India, which have identified inspection bodies and they are fully
functional, carrying out the task of regular inspection and scrutiny of the GI
products. These GIs can have valuable lessons to offer for other GIs when it
comes to quality management and its potential implications in terms of the
benefits which can accrue to the GIs.
A.CASE OF DARJEELING TEA
Such as for instance, the Darjeeling Tea, where the Tea Board, a statutory
authority established in 1953 under the Tea Act, has administered the use of
the Darjeeling logo for several years now to maintain the quality along with
ensuring that the Darjeeling logo is applied only to the tea that has been
245
See supra note 78
119
certified by the Tea Board as conforming to the prescribed characteristics of
Darjeeling tea. Additionally certification services are provided to the Tea
Board by Intertek Agri Services, a private entity which conducts testing and
possesses inspection expertise for agricultural commodities, foods and
related products.246
The genuineness in the exports of Darjeeling tea is ensured by a system of
certification. A) Firstly, all dealers of Darjeeling tea are mandated to enter
into a licensing agreement with the Tea Board under which they are
required to furnish information regarding the production and
manufacture of Darjeeling tea and its sale, through auction or
otherwise. On the basis of this information supplied, the Tea Board able to
compute the total volume of Darjeeling tea produced and sold in a particular
time frame.247
B) Certificates of origin are issued for export consignments under the
Tea (Marketing and Distribution Control) Order of 2000 as read in
together with the Tea Act of 1953. These certificates are cross-checked
at all customs checkpoints mandatorily in India. This detailed steps of
measures to control the origin and characteristics of the tea helps in
ensuring that the sale-chain integrity of Darjeeling tea is maintained
until the consignments leave the country.248
246
247
Id.
248
Id.
120
Further, according to the licensing agreements, C) every licensee is
required to submit a sample of the tea sold by him to the Tea Board, to
enable the Board to monitor the legitimacy and quality of Darjeeling tea
produced by the licensees for exports and domestic markets.
Additionally, D) the Tea Board reserves the right to inspect, prior to and
after the grant of license, the premises of any licensee where tea is
being processed, manufactured, packed or stored, to ensure that the
standards laid down by the proprietor are being adhered to and
complied with.249
E) The Tea Board has also registered the ‘Darjeeling Logo’ and the word
‘Darjeeling’ as certification trademarks which can used by any of the
dealers of Darjeeling tea as long as they have been granted licensee
rights by the Tea Board.250
B. A CASE OF ALPHONSO MANGOES
249
Id.
250
Id.
121
Alphonso Mangoes, which got its GI Tag in 2018, 251 also has an inspection
body named as the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export
Development Authority (‘APEDA’)252, to fix the standards and specifications
for agricultural products for the purpose of exports. It also has powers to
carry out inspection at storage houses where such products are kept to
ensure quality.253
Further measures such as a) the state-of-the-art packaging houses have
been set up in major production zones to ensure a uniform quality
across export consignments in order to maintain the highest quality
standards in mangoes.254
b) Additionally put in place are internationally recognized treatment facilities
by APEDA for these mangoes which are supplemented by a unique
product identification system, supplemented by the traceability
networking and Residue Monitoring Plan, which have been developed
for consumer safety wherein APEDA can even issue a product recall in
case of exigencies pertaining to that product. 255
251
See at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/king-of-mangoes-
alphonso-gets-gi-tag/articleshow/66087663.cms(last visited May. 21, 2019, 5:30 PM)
252
It is a statutory body established by the Government of India in 1986.See about APEDA,
AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (APEDA), http://apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/about_apeda/About_apeda.htm
(last visited May. 21, 2019, 5:30 PM)
253
254
Id. at 354
255
Id.
122
The steps taken by the inspection bodies in case of Darjeeling Tea and
Aphonso Mangoes how a voluntary quality inspection mechanism with the
support of governmental agencies has the potential to strengthen quality
control of the GI product as well as provide assurance to the consumers
about the quality and characteristics of the product. The establishment of
inspection mechanism also ensures in integrity of the supply chain.
5.2.3 FLOODING OF FAKE PRODUCTS IN THE MARKET AND ‘FREE-

RIDING’ BY INSIDERS
This issue here an inevitable consequence to the previous issues, viz. lack of
quality inspection body and inspection measures to maintain quality and this
eventually results in fake imitations flooding into the market and ‘free-riding’
by insiders.
The researcher here, during the course of research tried to bring forth the
instances to bolster his contentions and explain how exactly it happens in this
unit.
5.2.4 FLOODING OF FAKE PRODUCTS IN THE MARKET
123
A. CASE OF CHANNAPTANA TOYS AND DOLLS
Considering the case of Channapatna Toys and Dolls, the researcher has in
the previous units within this chapter, already brought to the fore that it
lacked a quality inspection body and inspection measures.
The researcher, upon interaction with Mr. Sunil Kumar and other craftsmen
engaged in sculpting the toys and dolls, found that fake Chinese
replicas/imitations of these Toys and Dolls had flooded the market causing
substantial monetary damage to the earnings of the craftsmen engaged in
producing the GI products. The fake products from China are not only
cheaper, have a better finish but also manufactured in large numbers to
which the Channapatna Toys and Dolls are no match. The result of which
is customers buying cheaper Chinese replicas of these toys and dolls
eventually resulting in losses to the income and livelihoods of people
traditionally engaged in producing these toys in Channapatna region.
An interaction by the researcher, with Mr. Bhupati, who works with an
organization called the Shilpa Trust, (engaged in Export and domestic supply
business of Channapatna toys and dolls) revealed that a decade ago, the
export of these toys and dolls had a brisk business, but the cheaper
Chinese replicas had not only impacted the exports but also the
domestic demand of these products negatively in India.
124
He attributed this to better finish, design and manufacturing capacity of the
Chinese products to create products in bulk to cater to International as well
as Indian demands. Further, he stated that the design as well technical
inputs in manufacturing and the production of Chinese products in its
final form were a better eye-catcher to the customers than those of the
Indian toys and dolls.
B.CASE OF MUGA SILK OF ASSAM

Muga silk, a renowned GI from Assam, characteristically known for its fine
texture and resilience, is also faced with a similar crisis, wherein fake
products bearing deceptively similar names are being sold in the market.
Recently, a doctoral study carried out Ms. Jupi Gogoi of Delhi University 256,
and reported in a popular IP blog in India noted the following;
“That it had been observed recently in various textile exhibitions
especially around Delhi NCR, a particular silk called ‘Moonga’ is being
sold on a huge scale. The Sellers mention this silk is to be produced in
Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, UP and Bihar but not Assam.
Additionally, many websites also advertise Moonga silk, carrying the imagery
of traditional Muga Silk embodying traditional Assamese designs and some
with other textile images.
See at https://spicyip.com/2019/05/the-need-to-look-beyond-wines-and-spirits-gi-law-in-
256
india-and-the-woes-of-muga-silk.html (last visited May. 21, 2019, 5:30 PM)
125
Most of the ordinary customers are not aware of the characteristics of
the Muga silk (the simple fact that the uniqueness of Muga Silk is its
natural golden yellow colour) and hence have been buying
‘Moonga’ considering it to be synonymous with Muga. The Silk Board of
India has confirmed that there is no silk variety called Moonga but the sellers
have been selling Moonga silk without fear.”257
The Muga silk, as has been explained earlier in this thesis, 258 by the
researcher, had no existent inspection bodies and inspection measures.
These instances go on to highlight the dilution of distinct reputation of the
product , commonly afflicting the GIs across India and the necessity of
setting up proper inspection mechanism to weed out fake products and
ensuring that only genuine products to reach the consumers.
C.CASE OF BANARASI SAREES

The Banarasi Sarees, are known for their fine, silk, gold or silver brocade or
zari and their resplendent embroidery. 259These Sarees are worn with pride
among women in India and enjoy a considerable demand in domestic and
International market.260
257
Id.
258
See supra note 232
259
Dream of Weaving: Study & Documentation of Banaras Sarees and Brocades, TEXTILES
COMMITTEE (36), http://textilescommittee.nic.in/writereaddata/files/banaras.pdf (last visited
May. 21, 2019, 5:30 PM)
260
The market is pegged to be having an annual turnover of around by the industry at Rs.
30,000 million (approximately $500 million) as far as statistics note. See Amit Basole,
Authenticity, Innovation and the Geographical Indication in an Artisanal Industry: The Case
of the Banarasi Sari (Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Working Paper
No. 2014–09),http://repec.umb.edu/RePEc/files/2014_09.pdf. (last visited May. 25, 2019,
126
But notwithstanding their distinct reputation and GI registration in the year
2009261, the weavers who traditionally make these sarees are facing tough
competition from cheap silk fabric imported from China and being
made in the city of Surat, in India.262
The situation is such that the traders in Surat import Chinese Silk,
manufacture them using modern power looms, (for which the Banarasi
Sarees are no match as they are handloom made) and pass them off in the
Indian markets as Banarasi silk sarees at cheaper prices thereby not only
detrimentally impacting the earnings and livelihoods of the Banarasi Silk
Saree producers but also make it extremely difficult for the ordinary
customers to discern between the two.263
The lack of proper inspection body which inspects the quality of the Sarees
and takes appropriate measures to scrutinize the products with their
specifications, in the opinion of the researcher is a necessity to prevent
dilution of the distinct reputation enjoyed by the Sarees from the cheaper yet
fake replicas.
5.2.5‘FREE-RIDING’ BY INSIDERS
5:30 PM)
261
See at http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/GirPublic/Application/Details/99 (last visited
May. 25, 2019, 5:30 PM)
262
See supra note 45
263
Id.
127
Another area of concern, is the pressing issue of ‘free-riding’ by the insiders,
viz. the people who are traditional users or registered authorized users
themselves indulge in creating fake and lesser-quality products themselves,
in hoping to get incentives, though they are traditionally users and producers
of those products.
The researcher has already explained, in this thesis that GIs are collective
public or ‘club’ goods and, as such, are more prone to the classic ‘free-rider’
problem compared to other distinctive signs like trademarks. 264The instances,
researcher found during the course of research are enumerated below:
A.CASE OF CHANNAPTANA TOYS AND DOLLS
During interaction with the artisans and Mr. Sunil Kumar, it was found by the
researcher that such had been the detrimental impact of the Chinese replicas
of Channapatna Toys and dolls that the traditional artisans who used
vegetable dyes in the making of these products were starting to use synthetic
chemical dyes to provide a better glossy finish to them.
This was because of the fact that Chinese replicas which had chemical dyes
enamelled on them were catchier to the customers and had better sales than
the traditional toys and dolls coated with vegetable dyes.
The detrimental consequence, (as stated by Mr. Sunil Kumar and Mr.
Bhupati to the researcher) to this was the loss of international market outside
264
Supra note 106
128
India, which the traditional toys and dolls once commanded due to the natural
ingredients like vegetable dyes, (which is organic and hence non-toxic) used
in its making. Since, the artisans, who conventionally used vegetable dyes,
started to use chemical dyes, they were rejected by foreign importers, since
these chemical dyes contained toxic contents. This has resulted in losses in
income and livelihoods of the artisans engaged in producing these toys and
dolls.
B. CASE OF BANARASI SAREES

The impacts of cheap and fake Chinese imitations of the Banarasi Sarees
manufactured using modern techniques were explained by the researcher, in
the previous unit.
The consequence to this is what has been explained as a “race to the
bottom”265 in prior scholarly works, is that the traditional weavers of these
sarees are seeking access to cheaper raw materials for reducing their own
production costs. They are proceeding on the basis of a misconceived notion
that this might be a possible way of fending off competition from Chinese
replicas of their sarees thus, detrimentally undermining the credibility and
reputation of their very own sarees.266
Further, the traditional weavers, in order to compete with the power-loom
manufacturers have resorted to tactics such as passing off synthetic fibres as
silk and power loom manufactured sarees as handloom woven, which has
265
266
Id.
129
compromised negatively on the quality of dyes and designs of these
traditional sarees.267
Such is the state of affairs that popularly denominated GIs which losing their
market by sale of adulterated products by insider, one might be led to
wonder, if the Indian GI Act,1999 offers any remedy to check such an abuse?
At present, Section 27 of the GI Act, 1999 which provides for the cancellation
of registration of the non-complying member from the list of authorized
users.268 However, across all of the GIs that the researcher came across
such as the Channapatna Toys and Dolls, Banarasi Silk Sarees or even in
the case of Ikal Sarees269 (a registered GI from Karnataka which was also
afflicted by similar problem of traditional weavers using synthetic acrylics and
dyes in place of natural colours); none of the authorized users
(weavers/artisans) had ever faced any legal action for non-compliance with
the specifications of the product entered on the Register.
The researcher, in his opinion would suggest for effective implementation of
this provision to prevent free-riding by insiders and additional preventive
mechanisms in the form of regular checks by inspection bodies to prevent the
267
268
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, No. 48 of 1999,
Section 27.
269
See http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/GirPublic/Application/Details/76 . (last visited May.
25, 2019, 5:30 PM)
130
adulteration of the GI products and dilution of the reputation which they enjoy
in the eyes of the customer.
5.3 LACK OF ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IN CASE OF NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH QUALITY STANDARDS
The researcher had discussed previously in this thesis that, there is no
existent provision under the GI Act, 1999 which mandates the inspection
body to be necessarily identified by the applicant for the registration of the
GI.270 The problems with enforcement mechanisms with respect to ensuring
quality control are enumerated below:
A) There is no provision which mandates the inspection body to conduct
inspection measures and quality checks for the GI products.
B) The absence of any statutory liability (either civil or criminal liability) on the
Inspection Bodies in cases of them failing to inspect and ensure quality
checks before the products are sold in domestic or foreign markets was
found by the researcher to be glaringly absent from the GI Act,1999.
C) Further, at present if the members of the collective group (authorized
users) who want to hold a member of the group accountable for not
complying the standards of the product, the remedy is available under
270
Supra note at 216
131
Section 27 of the GI Act, 1999. 271But this provision, in the opinion of the
researcher is not a preventive measure; it does not ensure a check on the
adulteration of a GI Product by any erring member prior to coming into the
market and safeguarding the supply –chain integrity of the GI products.
5.3.1 FINDINGS ON PROBLEMS PERTAINING TO QUALITY CONTROL

AND ENFORCEMENT OF CONTROL OF GIs IN INDIA
This part of the thesis, has been based on findings of the researcher which
he gathered during the course of his research to show-case the issues
mooted thought this chapter pertaining to problem of lack of quality control
measures and enforcement of those measures of GIs in India.
The researcher, selected some of the GIs within the state of Karnataka (as
he was based in Karnataka and had conducted field surveys in Karnataka)
along with a few of the GIs outside the state, the references of which were
used by him during the course of his research on number of issues to
bringing forth the instances where problems came to the fore. These GIs
highlight the cases where either no quality control and enforcement
measures are undertaken or few steps have been taken.
The entire data compiled by the researcher with respect to some of the
GIs(Total 12 in number) and the status of the quality control measures
undertaken and the enforcement of quality control of those measures will
271
See text accompanying note at 255
132
throw light on the poor state of affairs of quality measures in India is
showcased below;
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4 Channapatna Toys and
Dolls(Karnataka)
0.2 Kinhal Toys(Karnataka)
0 Ilkal Sarees(Karnataka)
Navalgund Durries (Karnataka)
Molakamuru Sarees
(Karnataka)
Banarasi Sarees(Uttar Pradesh)
Muga Silk (Assam)
Pochampally Ikat (Andhra
Pradesh)
Ganjifa Cards (Karnataka)
Lucknow Chikan Craft (Uttar
Pradesh)
Darjeeling Tea (West Bengal)
Alphonso Mangoes
(Maharashtra)
133
272
FIGURE: CURRENT STATUS OF QUALITY CONTROL AND
ENFORCEMENT OF QUALITY CONTROL WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF
THE GIs OF INDIA
Findings on Quality Control and Enforcement of Quality Control
measures:
The researcher, upon investigating the data pertaining to GIs with respect to
the quality control measures and enforcement of those measures with
respect to four parameters of a) the number of inspection bodies identified by
applicants ;b) the total inspection measures to maintain quality taken; c) The
number of enforcement measures (in the form of GI infringement suits or
cancellation of registration of authorized users for non-compliance with
quality standards under Section 27 of GI Act,1999) and; d) Whether any
certification marks, logo or label were put up (to distinguish genuine and fake
products and to assure the customer of the genuineness of the product)
found that;
272
The following data compiled by the researcher is based on the information available with
the GI Registry Website, along with information available through online sources. For the
GIs, based in Karnataka, the current status on the quality control and enforcement of those
quality control measures were provided by the VTPC and the office of Development
Commissioner(Handicrafts).The Y-AXIS of the table, symbolizes a) the number of inspection
bodies identified by applicants of the GIs, b) the total scrutiny and inspection measures to
maintain quality taken by those bodies with respect to those GIs, c) The number of
enforcement measures in the form of GI infringement suits or cancellation of registration of
authorized users for non-compliance with quality standards under Section 27 of GI Act,1999
and d) Whether any certification marks, logo or label were put up to distinguish genuine and
fake products and to assure the customer of the genuineness of the product.
134
1) On the parameter of identification of inspection body by applicant under
Form I-GI, all most all of the GIs had mentioned an Inspection Body in the
Form , barring the exception of Pochampally Ikat , which despite obtaining GI
registration in 2004 does not have an Inspection Body.
2) With respect to scrutiny and inspection measures undertaken, the
Inspection Bodies of all of the GIs of Karnataka (like the Channapatna Toys
and Dolls, Kinhal Toys, Ilkal Sarees, Navalgund Durries, Molakamuru Sarees
and the Ganjifa Cards) had not taken any inspection measures to check and
maintain the quality of the GIs. This was even after the fact like some of the
GIs like Navalgund Durries had mentioned in Form I-GI, that the inspection
body was taking steps to inspect and scrutinize the quality of the durries. This
entire data on the GIs of Karnataka was disclosed by Mrs. Prabhavati Rao of
VTPC and Mr. Sunil Kumar of the office of Development Commissioner
(Handicrafts) at Mysore. With respect to Banarasi Sarees, Muga Silk and
Lucknow Chikan craft, there was no data available to the researcher with
regards to quality control measures the respective Inspection Bodies had
taken. Lastly, the lone cases of Darjeeling Tea and Alphonso Mangoes had
been provided by the researcher, through adequate details, only available
data with the researcher, where concrete steps to maintain quality that had
been taken by the Tea Board of India and by Agricultural and Processed
Food Products Export Development Authority respectively. 273
273
See text accompanying notes 257 to 264
135
3) With respect to the third parameter enforcement measures taken ,
the GIs from Karnataka(Channapatna Toys and Dolls, Kinhal Toys, Ilkal
Sarees, Navalgund Durries, Molakamuru Sarees and the Ganjifa Cards),
despite the presence of strong grounds for cases of infringement, like in the
case of Channapatna Toys and Dolls, fake products were available in the
market and the authorized users themselves engaging in colouring the toys
and dolls with cheap chemical dyes to increase sales (thus committing free-
riding) not a single enforcement measure had been taken, either in the form
of GI Infringement suit or in the form of cancellation of registration of those
authorized users who were not adhering to quality standards under Section
27 of the GI Act. With respect to GIs, in other parts of India, also poor
scenarios of abysmal enforcement measures were seen like in the case of
Banarasi Sarees274, Muga silk275. The only exceptions were Pochampally Ikat,
which was the case of first infringement suit filed in India with respect to a GI
and the Darjeeling Tea276 which had witnessed a domestic infringement suit
274
See at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/garments-/-
textiles/varanasi-handloom-weavers-need-design-support-for-
survival/articleshow/60346965.cms?from=mdr . (last visited May. 25, 2019, 5:30 PM)
275
See at supra note 78
276
See the infringement action initiated by Tea Board of India for fake use of
Darjeeling Tea logo in foreign jurisdictions at
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/geoind/en/wipo_geo_lim_11/wipo_geo_lim_11_1
1.pdf. (last visited May. 25, 2019, 5:30 PM ) and for the infringement action by Tea
Board against ITC for use of ‘Darjeeling’ word at
https://spicyip.com/2019/02/certification-trade-marks-and-gi-versus-regular-trade-
marks-the-calcutta-high-court-ruling-in-tea-board-v-itc.html (last visited May. 25, 2019,
5:30 PM)
136
and several infringement actions abroad. The data with respect to
infringement actions taken by authorized users of Alphonso Mango was
unavailable with the researcher.
4) Finally, with respect to the fourth parameter, the presence of
certification measures, logos or labels on the GIs ( to ensure
genuineness of the product) the researcher, found barring Navalgund
Durries and Ganjifa cards (of the GIs in Karnataka), none of the GIs in
Karnataka had any logo or mark on them to certify genuine products. As far
as the other GIs in India, like Banarasi Silk 277, Muga Silk278, Pochampally
Ikat279 and Darjeeling Tea280 had only logos registered in their favour. With
respect to Alphonso Mangoes, the researcher found no data on whether they
had issued certification marks, label or logos issued. 281
5) Of, all the GIs only Darjeeling Tea qualified all the four parameters of having
an identified inspection body with pro-active steps taken by it for quality
277
2019, 5:30 PM)
278
2019, 5:30 PM)
279
2019, 5:30 PM)
280
2019, 5:30 PM)
281
137
control along with enforcement actions taken by it and having a registered
logo in place.
The following are the logos which are being used with respect to Banarasi
sarees and brocades, Pochampally Ikat, Navalgund Durries and Ganjifa
cards.
138
282 283
282
The attached picture is the registered logo of the GI Muga Silk of Assam with the GI
Registry.
283
The attached picture is the registered logo of the GI Darjeeling Tea from West Bengal.
139
284
285 286
284
The attached picture is the registered logo of the GI Navalgund Durries from Karnataka.
285
The attached picture is the registered logo of the Pochampally Ikat from Andhra Pradesh
286
The attached picture is the registered logo of the Banarasi Sarees and Brocades from
Uttar Pradesh.
140
287
GIs Identificatio Scrutiny Enforcement Presence of
n of and measures certification
inspection inspection taken measures,
body by measures logos or
applicant undertaken labels on
by the the GIs
Inspection
Bodies
Channapatn
a Toys and YES NO NO NO
Dolls
Kinhal Toys YES NO NO NO
Ilkal Sarees YES YES NO NO
Navalgund YES NO NO YES
Durries
Molakamuru YES NO NO NO
287
The attached picture displays the registered logo of Ganjifa Cards of Mysore.
141
Sarees
Banarasi YES NO DATA NO YES
Sarees AVAILABLE
Muga Silk YES NO DATA NO YES
AVAILABLE
Pochampally NO NO YES (Once) YES
Ikat
Ganjifa YES NO NO YES
Cards
Lucknow YES NO DATA NO NO
Chikan Craft AVAILABLE

Darjeeling YES YES YES YES
Tea
Alphonso YES YES NO DATA NO DATA
Mangoes AVAILABLE AVAILABLE

288
288
The following table depicts the data used by the researcher, in coming to his findings and
has also been used in the previous graph. The data on whether inspection bodies have been
identified or not was obtained by the researcher for each of the GIs from the GI Registry
website. The data on enforcement actions taken by other GIs(outside Karnataka) was
obtained through online sources (internet).
142
5.4 STEPS TAKEN BY FEW AGENCIES TO IMPROVE QUALITY
CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT OF QUALITY CONTROL OF GIs IN
INDIA: LESSONS FOR OTHERS?
The researcher has already in this chapter, highlighted the steps taken in
India, by few agencies like the Tea Board with respect to Darjeeling Tea and
APEDA with respect to Alphonso Mangoes. This unit here, analyzes the
steps taken and why it stands out in the opinion of the researcher as the best
practices of Indian GIs currently. At this juncture, the researcher deems fit to
remind once again that in the previous unit, where he showcased his findings
with respect to the quality control and enforcement of quality control, it was
only Darjeeling Tea that stood out as the lone GI having robust quality control
and enforcement measures taken in place, which to the best available
information of the researcher, was not taken by any other GI. 289 The
researcher here in this unit, will depict those practices in the form of flow-
sheet.
See the graph accompanying note 283 and data table with respect to quality control and
289
enforcement of quality control measures taken by Indian GIs.
143
S
Q
IY
U
b
.D
h
yw
q
)L
A
H
T
M
E
C
R
O
F
lN
p
B
ju
frg
d
estican
m
o
321P
:G
k
FIGURE: SUMMARY OF THE STEPS TAKEN BY TEA WITH RESPECT TO DARJEELING
TEA TO MAINTAIN QUALITY AND ENFORCEMENT OF QUALITY CONTROL
290
See text accompanying notes 257-261.
144
The significant observations made by the researcher from measures taken
for quality control and enforcement of control made with respect to Darjeeling
Tea, are the following;
a) There was an Independent Body (here a statutory body in the form of
Tea Board) in place to give effect to the certification system, which
was effectively used to maintain quality standards of the Darjeeling
Tea.
b) Licensing Agreements were used to ensure compliance with the
prescribed quality of Darjeeling Tea mandated by Tea Board in the
following ways :
i) The Tea Board ensured that Darjeeling Tea logo is applied only
to that tea which has conformed to prescribed standards of
Darjeeling Tea.
ii) Darjeeling Logo and trademark can only be used by a dealer if
he has been granted licensee rights by Tea Board
c) The Tea Board carried out inspection measures to enforce quality of
the Darjeeling Tea which the dealers(licensees) were bound to follow
in the following ways :
i) Dealers mandated by licensing agreements to furnish
information regarding quantity of tea produced and sold.
145
ii) Tea Board carried the right to inspect prior and after grant of
license of the premises of any dealer with respect to quality
control.
iii) Licensees were also required to submit samples of tea sold to
Tea Board to monitor legitimacy of quality of tea sold.
d) Finally, in cases of non-compliance of standards or wherein non-
licensed agencies were selling teas or other products under the name
of Darjeeling Tea or unauthorizedely using logos, Tea Board actively
pursued legal actions for GI infringement in India and abroad.
5.4.1 STEPS TAKEN BY AGENCIES OUTSIDE INDIA TO IMPROVE

QUALITY CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT OF QUALITY CONTROL OF
GIs
This unit of the chapter has been dedicated by the researcher to understand
the contemporary practices prevalent across the world, in particular the
European Union, which was discussed earlier within this thesis, to have a
robust mechanism of GI Protection through its sui-generis system. The
researcher has picked up a couple of GIs from Europe to understand what
are the current methods of quality control there and if they hold any
implications or lessons for GI Protection in India.
146
A. CASE OF PARMA HAM
Parma Ham is made from Italian pork cured with pure sea salt and is
completely natural with no preservatives added. The pig selected for Parma
Ham is a “special” pig born and reared in 10 regions of central northern Italy,
exclusively of Large White, Landrace and Duroc breed, and fed on quality
food such as maize, barley and whey from the production of Parmigiano-
Reggiano cheese. It is a protected designation of origin 291, with the name
“Prosciutto di Parma” being registered on 12 June 1996.
The name Parma Ham for instance is exclusively reserved to hams produced
in Parma according to the strict rules defined by the Consorzio’s
specifications, which are based on the ancient tradition of its place of origin;
in 1996 Parma Ham became one of the first meat products to be awarded the
Designation of Protected Origin status. In addition to providing legally binding
name protection for these products, the PDO system helps consumers,
retailers, chefs, distributors and culinary professionals to distinguish between
authentic products and their many imitations.
291
PDO (short for Protected Designation of Origin) is a European Community certification
system designed to protect names and traditions of high-quality European foods made
according to traditional methods in a defined geographic region.
147
292
The Inspection Body named Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma was set up in
1963, on the initiative of 23 producers with the objectives of safeguarding the
genuine product, its tradition and the image represented by the designation
'Parma'. Since 1970, when the first law on Parma Ham was passed, it is the
official body in charge for safeguarding, protecting and promoting the
Designation of Origin “Prosciutto di Parma”. Currently the Consortium
associates the 150 producers of Parma Ham.293
Tasks and Functions of the Consortium
The Consortium protects the use of the denomination “Parma Ham” and the
relative brands, stamps and identification seals relating to the marketing of
Parma Ham. It also actively provides marketing support to build the
awareness and image of Parma Ham in Italy and abroad. 294
 Management and Safeguard of the Production Regulations
 Management of the Economic Policy (includes formulation of
strategies, trends and macro-economic policies for Parma Ham.)
292
293
See https://www.prosciuttodiparma.com/en_UK/prosciutto/how (last visited May. 25, 2019,
5:30 PM)
294
Id.
148
 Definition of Quality Control Schedules
 Supervision, in general terms, concerning the correct observance of
provisions laid down by law and by regulations
 Protection of the denomination “Parma Ham” and of the relative brand
(Ducal Crown) world-wide
 The Consortium protects the use of the denomination “Parma Ham”
and the relative brands, stamps and identification seals, and for the
suppression of any illegal use of the same, or any act of unfair
competition. To do this, the Consortium can take any suitable
measure, including legal measures, in particular in countries where
the product is widely marketed. Assistance to associated companies
through advisory services and other support is offered to improve
production and marketing of Parma Ham Promoting and enhancing
the product
 The Consortium of Parma Ham also provides marketing support to
enhance the image of Parma Ham worldwide .
Production Process and Quality Control
In 2014, close to nine million hams from 150 producers were branded by
Consortium, valued at €750 million, with an export turnover of €250 million
149
The production process is tightly controlled and the vertical chain in
Prosciutto di Parma is as follows -
1st stage-Pig breeding
This stage is characterised with a large number of small producers (4,781 in
2011) making a more or less similar non differentiated product and with little
control over price.
2nd Stage- Pig slaughtering
This is more concentrated (109 abattoirs in 2011)
3rd Stage- Aging of hams.
This stage involves the “prosciuttifici”, the actual producers of aged hams.
Supervision, regarding adherence to laid down processes, at the breeding
farms, slaughterhouses, producers and traders at all levels also fall in the
purview of the Consortium. Istituto Parma Qualità (IPQ) is the public body in
charge of all quality control activities. Companies in the Prosciutto di Parma
supply chain must be authorised and recognized by IPQ. A "restricted"
membership system allows membership to be withdrawn for non-compliance
with the specifications. Supervision of observance of regulatory provisions
takes place at all steps of the chain. Full time inspectors act as Judiciary
Police.
150
Agents and may carry out any type of verification of whoever produces,
packages, keeps or sells hams in any type of establishment. Any incorrect
procedures are liable for prosecution.
Advisory services and other support is offered to improve production of
Parma Ham. This covers technical and production matters in co-operation
with the Experimental Station for Food Processing Industries, assistance in
trade and health sectors and support in the insurance sector.
There are 10 stages of production followed for Parma Ham. These are
defined as follows-
1. Cutting 2. Cooling 3. Trimming 4. Salting 5. Rest 6. Washing and drying
7. Pre-curing 8. Greasing 9. Curing 10. Branding
The product must successfully pass examination in all the production stages
to get the final “crowning” with the brand. The entire process takes place in
the specified region of the Parma Province, as the climatic conditions that are
ideal for the natural curing that will give sweetness and flavour to the Parma
Ham, occur only in this area.
The Consortium has laid down strict specifications for each of these stages of
production, to guarantee the unique sweetness of Parma Ham.
For example for the 1st step cutting it is specified that- the pig that is to
become “Parma Ham” must have precise characteristics with regard to the
151
area of origin, 10 regions in central northern Italy, and the breed. Only when
these requirements are met, as certified by the documentation and by the
tattoo put by the farmer, can the pig be sent for slaughter, provided it is over
9 months old; weighing on average 160 kg (and in any case not less than
144 kg); is healthy and has not eaten for 15 hours.
At the end of the ageing period, which is a minimum of 12 months, a horse
bone needle, which rapidly absorbs the product fragrances, is inserted in
different parts of the ham and smelt by experts who can verify the
development of the production process. Only then are the hams ready for the
official stamp of certification: the fire-branding with the Ducal Crown. Since
the fire branding is the final guarantee that all the processing stages have
been carried out correctly, the officers of the independent certifying body, the
Istituto Parma Qualità (I.P.Q.) arrive. The officers check the ageing period
from the registers and the seal on the ham and they ensure that the hams
have conformed to all the processing procedures.
Marking and Tracing the Quality Path
The final branding, however, is only the last step of a long identification
process that leaves on the ham, at every step, the “signature” of each
operator.
152
It begins with the breeder who puts a special tattoo on both legs of the young
pig. This shows the breeder’s identification code and a code indicating the
month of the animal’s birth.
295
It continues with the slaughterhouse where every fresh trimmed leg is
checked and branded with a mark permanently identifying it.
296
The mark has initials PP –Prosciutto di Parma and the slaughterhouse
identification.
Next there is the metal seal made up of a circular crown showing the C.P.P.
– Consorzio Prosciutto di Parma initials and the date curing began.
295
The breeder’s identification code and a code indicating the month of the animal’s birth.
296
The initials PP –Prosciutto di Parma and the slaughterhouse identification.
153
297
Finally, the five-point Ducal Crown brand is stamped under a strict control
and is the final guarantee of the quality of the ham. The Ducal Crown also
shows the identification code of the producer. The Ducal Crown has a high
value due to its dual function of identification and qualification: it identifies the
product from all other hams, and assures its authenticity; it guarantees the
envisaged production procedure at all stages. The crown mark is what makes
the true Parma Ham recognizable to consumers.
The metal seal made up of a circular crown showing the C.P.P. – Consorzio Prosciutto di
297
Parma initials and the date curing began.
154
298
298
The five-point Ducal Crown brand is stamped under a strict control and is the final
guarantee of the quality of the ham.
155
299
CONCLUSIONS
299
The final packaged product Parma Ham with the Crown symbol to mark the genuineness
of the product.
156
1) The researcher during the course of his research found with respect to
quality control of Indian GIs that the problems of fake products and free-riding
is caused by a mix of several factors namely; a)non-existence of a
mandatory inspection body for quality control under the GI Act,1999; the
result of this a GI Application is not rejected by the registry for non-
identification of the Inspection Body. There are a lot of registered GIs which
do not have identified inspection bodies.
b) There is a clear lack of scrutiny and inspection measures with respect to
GI products by Inspection Bodies; The researcher found the case of
Channapatna Toys and Dolls, Banarasi Sarees where even though an
inspection body was identified by the applicant, it was defunct body with no
inspection measures having been conducted so far till the time, the
information was obtained by the researcher. The consequence of the lack of
scrutiny measures, is that a) there is literally no inspection of quality of the
Channapatna Toys and Dolls being produced within the region; b) There is
failure to ensure product specifications to ensure uniform quality products in
its final form; c) There are failures to conduct quality checks before selling of
the products in domestic or international market
In this regard, the researcher considered the case of other GIs such as Tea
Board for Darjeeling Tea and APEDA for Alphonso Mangoes where
157
inspection bodies identified by the applicant ,were fully functional and
carrying out quality checks on a regular basis.
c) As elucidated earlier the lack of quality checks by inspection bodies leads
to problem of flooding of fake products in the market ; this was observed by
the researcher in the case of Channapatna Toys and Dolls, Muga Silk of
Assam and Banarasi Silk Sarees
and finally;
d) The lack of quality checks by inspection bodies leads to problem of free-
riding by insiders of those GIs. This is was observed by the researcher in the
case of Channapatna Toys and Dolls and Banarasi Sarees where the users
of those GIs have been indulging in creating fake products for monetary
considerations or otherwise.
2) With respect to the issue of lack of enforcement mechanism, the
researcher observed that there were several attributable causes for it ; A)
There is no provision which mandates the inspection body to conduct
inspection measures and quality checks for the GI products.
B) The absence of any statutory liability (either civil or criminal liability) on the
Inspection Bodies in cases of them failing to inspect and ensure quality
checks before the products are sold in domestic or foreign markets was
found by the researcher to be glaringly absent from the GI Act,1999.
158
C) Further, at present if the members of the collective group (authorized
users) who want to hold a member of the group accountable for not
complying the standards of the product, the remedy is available under
Section 27 of the GI Act, 1999
3) The researcher, amongst the 12 GIs, he had pursued for the basis of
highlighting the issues, the problem of lack of quality control by inspection
bodies.The researcher, upon investigating the data pertaining to GIs with
respect to the quality control measures and enforcement of those measures
with respect to four parameters of a) the number of inspection bodies
identified by applicants ;b) the total inspection measures to maintain quality
taken; c) The number of enforcement measures (in the form of GI
infringement suits or cancellation of registration of authorized users for non-
compliance with quality standards under Section 27 of GI Act,1999) and; d)
Whether any certification marks, logo or label were put up (to distinguish
genuine and fake products and to assure the customer of the genuineness of
the product) found that; On the parameter of identification of inspection
body by applicant under Form I-GI, all most all of the GIs had mentioned an
Inspection Body in the Form , barring the exception of Pochampally Ikat ,
which despite obtaining GI registration in 2004 does not have an Inspection
Body.
159
With respect to scrutiny and inspection measures undertaken, the
Inspection Bodies of all of the GIs of Karnataka (like the Channapatna Toys
and Dolls, Kinhal Toys, Ilkal Sarees, Navalgund Durries, Molakamuru Sarees
and the Ganjifa Cards) had not taken any inspection measures to check and
maintain the quality of the GIs. This was even after the fact like some of the
GIs like Navalgund Durries had mentioned in Form I-GI, that the inspection
body was taking steps to inspect and scrutinize the quality of the durries.
Lastly, the lone cases of Darjeeling Tea and Alphonso Mangoes had been
provided by the researcher, through adequate details, only available data
with the researcher, where concrete steps to maintain quality that had been
taken by the Tea Board of India and by Agricultural and Processed Food
Products Export Development Authority respectively.
With respect to the third parameter enforcement measures taken, the
GIs from Karnataka(Channapatna Toys and Dolls, Kinhal Toys, Ilkal Sarees,
Navalgund Durries, Molakamuru Sarees and the Ganjifa Cards), despite the
presence of strong grounds for cases of infringement, like in the case of
Channapatna Toys and Dolls, fake products were available in the market and
the authorized users themselves engaging in colouring the toys and dolls
with cheap chemical dyes to increase sales (thus committing free-riding) not
a single enforcement measure had been taken, either in the form of GI
Infringement suit or in the form of cancellation of registration of those
authorized users who were not adhering to quality standards under Section
160
27 of the GI Act. With respect to GIs, in other parts of India, also poor
scenarios of abysmal enforcement measures were seen like in the case of
Banarasi Sarees, Muga silk. The only exceptions were Pochampally Ikat,
which was the case of first infringement suit filed in India with respect to a GI
and the Darjeeling Tea which had witnessed a domestic infringement suit
and several infringement actions abroad. The data with respect to
infringement actions taken by authorized users of Alphonso Mango was
unavailable with the researcher.
Finally, with respect to the fourth parameter, the presence of
certification measures, logos or labels on the GIs ( to ensure
genuineness of the product) the researcher, found barring Navalgund
Durries and Ganjifa cards (of the GIs in Karnataka), none of the GIs in
Karnataka had any logo or mark on them to certify genuine products. As far
as the other GIs in India, like Banarasi Silk, Muga Silk, Pochampally Ikat and
Darjeeling Tea had only logos registered in their favour. With respect to
Alphonso Mangoes, the researcher found no data on whether they had
issued certification marks, label or logos issued. Of, all the GIs only
Darjeeling Tea qualified all the four parameters of having an identified
inspection body with pro-active steps taken by it for quality control along with
enforcement actions taken by it and having a registered logo in place.
161
3) Lastly, within this chapter, the researcher found the several steps taken up
by certain Inspection Bodies of few GIs of India and outside India to
understand the potential measures that could be taken in mitigating the
problems and become a possible way forward for other GIs in India, in the
opinion of the researcher. They are as follows:
A) Case of Darjeeling Tea: There was an Independent Body (here a
statutory body in the form of Tea Board) in place to give effect to the
certification system, which was effectively used to maintain quality standards
of the Darjeeling Tea.
i) Licensing Agreements were used to ensure compliance with the prescribed
quality of Darjeeling Tea mandated by Tea Board in the following ways :
A) The Tea Board ensured that Darjeeling Tea logo is applied only to
that tea which has conformed to prescribed standards of Darjeeling
Tea.
B) Darjeeling Logo and trademark can only be used by a dealer if he
has been granted licensee rights by Tea Board
ii) The Tea Board carried out inspection measures to enforce quality of the
Darjeeling Tea which the dealers(licensees) were bound to follow in the
following ways :
162
a) Dealers mandated by licensing agreements to furnish information
regarding quantity of tea produced and sold.
b) Tea Board carried the right to inspect prior and after grant of
license of the premises of any dealer with respect to quality control.
c) Licensees were also required to submit samples of tea sold to Tea
Board to monitor legitimacy of quality of tea sold.
Finally, in cases of non-compliance of standards or wherein non-licensed
agencies were selling teas or other products under the name of Darjeeling
Tea or unauthorizedely using logos, Tea Board actively pursued legal
actions for GI infringement in India and abroad.
B) Case of Parma Ham:
The five-point Ducal Crown brand is an insignia used and placed under a
strict control of the Inspection Body of the Parma Ham named Consorzio del
Prosciutto di Parma and is the final guarantee of the quality of the ham.
The Ducal Crown is an identification code of the producer. The Ducal Crown
is high in value due to the dual function it performs of identification and
qualification: it identifies the product from all other hams, and assures its
authenticity; it guarantees the envisaged production procedure at all stages.
The crown mark is what essentially makes the true Parma Ham recognizable
to consumers.
163
SUGGESTIONS FROM THE RESEARCHER:
free-riding and fake products from entering the market due to lack of quality
control measures by the Inspection Bodies and enforcement of those
measures can take cues from the steps taken by Inspection Bodies in cases
of both Darjeeling Tea and Parma Ham.
Firstly, Independent Inspection Bodies need to be created and vested with
appropriate authority to conduct inspection measures.
Secondly, certification marks and logos need to be the core area of focus to
maintain quality of the product. These need to be registered immediately
after the GI is registered and use of those marks and logos on the products
should be allowed by the Inspection Body to the producers only under
licensing agreements, under the strict directions of prescribing to quality
standards, just like the way Tea Board of India or the Consorzio del
Prosciutto di Parma does.
Thirdly, the Inspection Bodies need to conduct regular inspection checks on
the products before they enter into the market. This can be stipulated by
means of licensing agreements conferring power on the Inspection Bodies to
164
conduct checks and mandate the sellers/producers of the GIs to submit
samples of their products before selling them in the market. Non-compliance
to these licensing terms must be stipulated to render the licensee’s right to
produce the products as revoked.
Fourthly, the Inspection Bodies, with respect to the enforcement mechanism
of the GIs, must ensure legal actions in cases of non-compliance of
standards or wherein non-licensed agencies were the products or
unauthorizedely using logos or certification marks.
165
CHAPTER 6: CASE STUDY ON
CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS
166
6. A CASE STUDY OF CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS
A. Status of Channapatna Toys and Dolls
An entry into the bustling town of Channapatna, about an hour’s distance
from Bangalore city will exhibit shops selling colourful toys and dolls. A ride to
the Channapatna’s lacquer ware complex and the researcher came across
artisans busy in chiselling, cutting and shaping wood over electric machines
to make these toys and dolls. Upon interaction with them, it was found that
there was a crisis for survival. Few of the artisans told the researcher, that
they had quit the profession, as the earnings were very meagre in
comparison to the labour expended in creation of those products.
300
300
A Channapatna flower vase showcased to the researcher during the course of his
interview at DC(handicrafts) office at Mysore.
167
Mr. Nagendrappa, the project officer stationed by Karnataka State
Handicrafts Corporation (KSHDC) told the researcher that there were about a
thousand and thirty three (1033) registered artisans of the Channapatna Toys
and dolls with the KSHDC.
The researcher took this picture interacting with busy artisans crafting Channapatna Toys
301
and Dolls at Lacquer Ware, Complex at Channapatna.
168
302
A sign board depicting the Lacquer ware complex at Channapatna town, where the
researcher went for the purposes of interacting with the artisans and Mr. Nagendrappa to
interview them.
169
Subsequently, the researcher was directed to go to Mysore by Mr.
Nagendrappa to meet Mr. Sunil Kumar, Assistant Commissioner at Office of
Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Mysore with Ministry of Textiles,
Government of India (a nodal agency working for the facilitation of the GIs)
for further details.
303
The KSHDC Lacquer ware complex at Channapatna where the registered workers come
for crafting the Channapatna Toys and Dolls and the researcher went to interview the
artisans and Mr. Nagendrappa.
170
The researcher had prepared questionnaire pertaining to problems of
registration of authorized users and quality control of the Channapatna Toys
and dolls, which will be appended to the annexure.
Mr. Sunil was more than willing to answer the queries, he told the researcher
that at least three thousand and three hundred (3300) craftsmen working on
Channapatna Toys and dolls within the jurisdiction of the Development
Commissioner (Handicrafts).However, within this figure, he stated that that
there could be a lesser number of people who had registered .
304
Figure depicts researcher interacting with Mr. Sunil Kumar Assistant Commissioner at
Office of Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Mysore
171
He further stated that the office of Development Commissioner had begun
with the identification process of these artisans, by inviting applications. They
had organized about five (5) awareness camps in the month of January to
February of 2019.He further stated that the Ministry of Textiles, under the
aegis of Government of India had taken several measures like insurance
measures like Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Beema Yojana(PMJJBY) to
provide insurance coverage, issuing Mudra Loans and 100 days MSME
support and outreach programme. The artisans were issued Artisans card for
identification of them by the Ministry of Textiles, after their registration as an
authorized user.
305
Among the measures taken by DC handicrafts, were workshops and
exhibition at Mysore and New Delhi respectively. They had also conducted
around five workshops to provide for registration as an authorized user to
305
The Artisan Identity card issued by Ministry of Textiles, Govt. Of India to identify the
artisans post their registration as an authorized user.
172
artisans. However, the office lacked data on the number of unauthorized
artisans engaged in production of Channapatna Toys and Dolls or those
users, who could not be registered by the Development Commissioner’s
office. They also could not tell the approximate number of people left out in
the Channapatna region producing these toys and dolls.
The researcher further probed them on the questions of quality control and
management of quality, and he was informed that with respect to
Channapatna Toys and Dolls, no such product specifications had been
specified, even after mentioning by the researcher that having product
specifications ensures in uniform quality products. It was informed to the
researcher that only on the designs of the toys that a Design development
workshop had been organized under which designers were to been
empanelled to provide more marketable and saleable designs. However, till
date not even a single designer had been empanelled to work on the designs
of the toys and dolls. All of this cumulatively points at the fact, that there is
very little attention which has been paid to the aspect of marketability of
the GI.
Further, it was also informed to the researcher that, on the question of if
inspection body indentified with respect to Channapatna Toys and Dolls that,
no steps had been undertaken to conduct inspection and scrutiny of
the quality of the toys and dolls before such products were sold in the
market. No answers were offered on the question of if any
173
standards/guidelines had been prescribed on the manufacturing of the
product, which highlights the fact that quality management of the
Channapatna Toys and Dolls, did not occupy a high place in the priority of
protection of the GI, post its registration.
Subsequently, it was found during the course of the interview that there were
fake Channapatna Toys and Dolls, which were entering the market in the
name of them, produced and being manufactured by none other than some
of the registered artisans. This was being done by them, because they were
cheap and had higher profit margins as compared to conventional toys and
dolls. Synthetic colours were applied to toys and dolls to make them appear
more glossy and saleable, all of which were damaging the reputation of the
GI in the market. It was informed that, some 10 years ago, there was a brisk
business of export of these toys and dolls, but eventually that also stopped
as the buyers of those products found adulterated and non-uniform quality
products. The chemical dyes used were often toxic in nature which were
being in place of conventional vegetable dyes which was being used earlier
and which was also the demand of the buyers.
Additionally, when the researcher questioned if any measure had been taken
by the applicants of the GI or by any authorized user, the officer informed the
researcher that no enforcement measure had been taken to pursue GI
infringement cases. Even, legal action against erring authorized users had
not been taken, which was provided under Section 27 of the GI Act,1999.
174
Lastly, an important question was raised by the researcher whether the
Channapatna Toys and Dolls needed a logo or certification mark to be
immediately registered in its favour, the question was answered
affirmatively that, it was indeed a much needed measure to ensure in
genuine products entering the market.
After, this interview, the researcher also went to VTPC (Visvesvaraya Trade
Promotion Centre) office, to interact with the officials there to find out the
problems pertaining to other GIs of Karnataka, including Channapatna Toys
and Dolls. The researcher, interviewed Mrs. Prabhavati Rao on the question
of the state of affairs of the few GIs of Karnataka.
The officer informed the researcher about the steps, VTPC was taking to
address the issue of poor registration of authorized users, VTPC, the nodal
agency of Karnataka Government had taken several steps to facilitate the
registration of authorized users. It had organized registration drives from the
month of November 2018, through which some applications of around 16
persons were forwarded by it to GI Registry. Currently the Channapatna Toys
and Dolls have just two registered authorized users and this has also been
possible due to the efforts of the VTPC, who had facilitated the registration of
users of Channapatna Toys and Dolls which did not have a single authorized
user before January 2019.
The VTPC, is currently working on the registration applications of the
traditional users of other GIs within Karnataka such as Navalgund Durries,
175
Ganjifa Cards and Mysore Agarbattis. More than 60 applications had been
forwarded to the GI Registry by the VTPC officials.
The VTPC, on the other hand is also working on an awareness spreading
mission, with having organized awareness drives at various places within
Karnataka to help register more authorized users. It also bears the cost of the
registration fees of Rs.600, which an authorized user has to pay (mandated
in Form I-GI) which the poor artisans/users might find it difficult to bear.
306
The researcher at the VTPC office interacting with Mrs. Prabhavati Rao on the state of
306
affairs of the GIs within Karnataka.
176
The researcher was also informed that currently, there is lack of awareness
of GIs amongst even the traditional users. They are unaware of the benefits
of the GI tag and also a fear psychosis amongst the users, that they users to
two-three different GI products and are in a dilemma, that if they are
registered for one they will get debarred from the authorized user status of
other GI.
On the count of quality management of GIs, it was told by the researcher
that, there are only four registered GIs in Karnataka, which have their logos
registered. This was also insisted by Mrs. Rao, who believed that having
logos or certification measures would be helpful in quality management of
GIs.
B. Status of other GIs of Karnataka
On the problems with other GIs of Karnataka, it was stated by Mrs. Rao to
the researcher that fake products are coming up with respect to other GIs like
Ganjifa Cards, where also artificial colors are being used in place of natural
colors. Fake replicas of Ilkal sarees are coming up which have computer
printed designs instead of traditional woven sarees. Also, it was told to the
researcher that the traditional Molakamuru Sarees produced from handlooms
face an existential threat from power-handlooms which replicate the patterns
of the sarees easily and are much cheaper in cost as compared to the
traditional Molakamuru Sarees. It was also suggested by her that the
177
authorized users should take more pro-active steps through legal actions in
ensuring that fake products would not enter the market.
The researcher also tried to obtain data for the Devanhalli Pomello, a
registered GI from Devanhalli, Karnataka. But, unfortunately, the Horticulture
Department, Government of Karnataka, could not offer any picture about the
state of affairs on the aspects of registration of authorized users and quality
control management of it. The researcher was directed to Deputy Director of
Horticulture at, Chikaballapur an official managing the affairs of Devanhalli
Pomello, but even he could not offer any data on the status of it on these
aspects. All of this highlight the Governmental apathy and neglect of a GI
post its registration and that how the current focus of Governmental
machinery in just registration of GIs, but no management of those GIs after it.
It is very pertinent to be mentioned here, by the researcher that while
registration of GIs is important and one component of protection of the long
steps, its post-registration components on registration of authorized users
and quality control and management also need to be undertaken with equal
vigour and urgency to ensure success of GIs in India.
178
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION
179
7. CONCLUDING NOTES
The conclusion this thesis will test whether the hypothesis which had been
framed by the researcher stands or falls on the basis of the research which
has been showcased in the previous chapters. The researcher post to this,
will offer a general observation on what he glimpsed during the course of the
entire research.
TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS
A. The first hypothesis is whether Geographical Indications qualify as
Intellectual Property Law Protection as its economic function is justified on
account of it creating geographical distinctiveness in the minds of the
consumers and preventing information asymmetry between the producers
and consumers in the market?
The researcher answers this in affirmative, that GIs qualify as an IP as the
economic analysis of Geographical Indications justify it on account of the
following functions it performs: (a) It prevents market distortions which arise
due to asymmetry of information (with respect to nature of the product)
between producers and consumers; (b) It averts the consequences of such
asymmetry of information on the level of output quality.(c) It carries with itself
reputation which restores efficiency in the market, through a process known
180
as “institutionalization of reputation” performing two fundamental functions,
firstly in the form of consumer protection measure (taking care of the twin
issues of information asymmetry and quality) and secondly, as a producer
protection measure (through its role in protecting the reputation).
B. The second hypothesis states that the Geographical Indications are
qualified as Intellectual Property Law protection through Lockean
Labour and Personality Theories primarily by virtue of its association
with the geographical territory and ancillary human intervention.
The researcher contends that the first part of the hypothesis stands i.e. GIs
qualify as an IP under Lockean Labour theory, however, the second part of
the hypothesis in the humble submission of the researcher falls, i.e. GIs do
not qualify as an IP under the Personality theory. The researcher makes a
small analysis of both of them, based on his findings in the previous
chapters.
The Lockean theory justification of IP requisites that human labour has to be
exerted on the goods to convert them into private property. Geographical
Indications in the findings of the researcher pass muster of this theory on the
fact that the human element cannot be discounted out rightly, however heavy
the preponderance of geographical attributes of a region might be in the
creation of a GI. The researcher considered the case of Roquefort Cheese,
181
wherein most of the characteristics of the cheese were attributable to its
geographical location like the caves, the breeding of the sheep in the region
however the importance of human efforts albeit indirectly in the form of
grazing of the sheep, milking of sheep to more direct methods such as
injecting the spores of the fungi before pressing of the cheese could not be
said to be less important. It is under this premise, the researcher contends
The concept of terroir is central to an understanding of the GIs, being the
unique/intrinsic link between the product and the geographical and human
elements, poses difficulty in allowing Geographical Indications to qualify
Personality Theory Justification of IP. The researcher highlighted that GIs
conceptually apply mostly to the natural attributes of the locality such as
existence of the indigenous plants and local climate, giving an example of the
GI, tequila grown in Mexico. The local climatic conditions were so
predominant and indispensable in the production of tequila, that human
beings could not claim acknowledgment and hence “persona” could not be
attributed. Further, the element of ‘persona’ in group personality rights of GIs
seem difficult to trace as compared to the concept of individual personhood
which is firmly embedded in the cases of other IPs like copyright, trademark
or patent, where it is not difficult to attribute the property to the author, owner
or inventor respectively. The conception of personality theory rests squarely
182
on the notion that only an individual’s persona is reflected in the work in
contrast to the group’s. This in the researcher’s understanding poses
difficulty in the application of personality theory to GIs. Hence, GIs fail to
qualify Personality theory justification of IP.
C. The researcher now takes a look at the third hypothesis which states
that the compliance with the legal formality rule of acquiring authorized
user status is resulting in poor registration of authorized users and
disentitlement of legal benefits to traditional users and producers of GI
products in India.
The researcher contends that this hypothesis stands on the basis of the
several enumerated factors which he highlighted previously, viz. lack of
clear definition of an authorized user, ambiguous definition of a producer
under the GI Act, 1999 along with lack of awareness amongst the traditional
users about the meaning of a GI and the legal benefits of registering as an
authorized users. Further, inadequacies in the current mapping
methodology also lead to many users of the GIs being left out of the status
of ‘registered authorized user’. The net result of which is that a user is
entitled to authorized user status only if he/she registers for it, as a result of
which a lot of users are left out, eventually resulting in poor registration of
183
authorized users and they are disentitled to legal benefits which could have
potentially accrued to them.
D. The last hypothesis, which the researcher tests states as follows that
the lack of measures for inspection and enforcement of those measures
by a mandatory inspection body is resulting free-riding.
On the final hypothesis, the researcher avers that this hypothesis stands i.e.
the lack of measures for inspection by inspection bodies and subsequent
measures for enforcement by the inspection body is indeed resulting in free-
riding by insiders. Of, all the GIs investigated by the researcher during the
course of research, he found minimal enforcement measures in terms of GI
Infringement suits being filed. Subsequently, the researcher found that lack of
such measures resulted in free-riding by insiders i.e. authorized users for
higher profiteering and flooding of fake products in the market.
Having tested the hypothesis, the researcher would like to make a general
comment and conclude on this thesis. Whilst India since, the passage of the
GI Act,1999 has registered a large number of GIs, 343 and counting as of
March 2019, the focus of the authorities ,according to the opinion of the
researcher is only seemed to be focussed on the registration component of
the GIs. The twin issues of poor registration of authorized users as well as
lack of quality control measures are adversely affecting the GIs of India.
184
During the course of the research, the researcher found several factors which
led to poor registration of the authorized users as well lack of quality control.
These producers of these GIs are currently facing immense threats to
survival and existence, due to fake products coming into the market.
The researcher’s data analysis on ten GIs for problem of poor registration of
authorized user as well as twelve GIs for the problem of quality control
management showcases the real time problems faced by the GIs.
It was only Darjeeling Tea, which had the robust post-registration quality
enforcement mechanism.
The researcher opines that these issues need to be resolved and urgently
taken by appropriate authorities at the earliest to ensure that the registered
GIs don’t continue to languish post their registration.
185
SUGGESTIONS
186
SUGGESTIONS
The researcher, would finally, like to make certain suggestions based on his
findings to address the issues of lack of quality control and poor registration
of authorized users.
A. Suggestions on the issue of poor registration of authorized users
1. The definition of authorized users under the GI Act,1999 needs to be
laid down clearly to include traditional users/producers of the GI products or
alternatively, the GI Rules can specify that traditional users ipso facto
become entitled to be eligible to be authorized users, thereby preventing
them from becoming disentitled to legal rights under the GI Act,1999. The
researcher leaves the “how” to the Indian legislature’s wisdom to address the
issue.
2. The ambit of the definition of the term “producers” under GI Act, 1999
should be curtailed. This is to ensure that only those who have legitimate and
bonafide interests in the production of the GI to be entitled to become
authorized users. The amended definition in the opinion of the researcher
should run as follows: "producer", in relation to goods, means any person
“who has legitimate and bonafide interest in such goods”:-
187
(i) if such goods are agricultural goods, produces the goods and includes the person who
processes or packages such goods;
(ii) if such goods are natural goods, exploits the goods;
(iii) if such goods are handicraft or industrial goods, makes or manufactures the goods, and
includes any person who trades or deals in such production, exploitation, making or
manufacturing, as the case may be, of the goods ;
Alternatively, the GI Registry can up with guidelines to screen the bonafide
and legitimate producers from the unscrupulous ones.
3. To address the issue of poor registration of authorized users, the following
steps can be adopted, in the opinion of the researcher.
Firstly, extensive field research projects need to be undertaken at grass-root
levels in the areas of GI cultivation and production, particularly in those areas
affected by low registration of authorized users.
Secondly, field projects have to be undertaken in those areas of GI
production and cultivation, to mobilize stakeholders (i.e. various users of
those GIs) to attend the workshops and camps for registration of authorized
users.
Thirdly; organizational support needs to be provided to these users in
registering themselves, a) by aiding them to fill the forms and affidavits b)
helping them to send error free applications on behalf of them to send to GI
Registry and c) waiving or bearing the registration costs where the users are
188
unable to afford the registration fees and it becomes a barrier for themselves
to get registered as authorized users.
Fourthly; more number of registration camps need to be organized in
different parts of the region where GI is cultivated or produced, to initiate
dialogue with the stakeholders (“users”) of those GIs that not only are they
informed or made aware of the importance of the GI status and benefits of
registration as authorized users but also their queries/ doubts are assuaged
with respect to the procedure of registration and they are comfortably brought
into within the legal fold of registration.
B. Suggestions on the issue of lack of quality control and enforcement of
quality control
free-riding and fake products from entering the market due to lack of quality
control measures by the Inspection Bodies and enforcement of those
measures can take cues from the steps taken by Inspection Bodies in cases
of both Darjeeling Tea and Parma Ham.
Firstly, Independent Inspection Bodies need to be set-up and mandatorily
required to be identified by applicant under the GI-I form while submitting the
applications for GI Registration and vested with appropriate authority to
conduct inspection measures.
189
Secondly, certification marks and logos need to be the core area of focus to
maintain quality of the product. These need to be registered immediately
after the GI is registered and use of those marks and logos on the products
should be allowed by the Inspection Body to the producers only under
licensing agreements, under the strict directions of prescribing to quality
standards, just like the way Tea Board of India or the Consorzio del
Prosciutto di Parma does.
Thirdly, the Inspection Bodies need to conduct regular inspection checks on
the products before they enter into the market. This can be stipulated by
means of licensing agreements conferring power on the Inspection Bodies to
conduct checks and mandate the sellers/producers of the GIs to submit
samples of their products before selling them in the market. Non-compliance
to these licensing terms must be stipulated to render the licensee’s right to
produce the products as revoked.
Fourthly, the Inspection Bodies, with respect to the enforcement mechanism
of the GIs, must ensure legal actions in cases of non-compliance of
standards or wherein non-licensed agencies were the products or
unauthorizedly using logos or certification marks.
In the opinion of the researcher, incorporating all of these measures under
the legislative framework can help solving the contemporary problems faced
by Indian GIs.
190
ANNEXURES
191
ANNEXURE I
PROVISIONS RELATING TO REGISTRATION OF
AUTHORIZED USERS AND QUALITY CONTROL
UNDER THE GI ACT,1999 & GI RULES,1999.
192
A. PROVISIONS RELATING TO REGISTRATION OF
AUTHORIZED USERS
Section 2 – Definitions and Interpretations
(b) "Authorized user" means the authorised user of a geographical indication
registered under Section 17;
(e) "geographical indication", in relation to goods, means an indication which
identifies such goods as agricultural goods, natural goods or manufactured
goods as originating, or manufactured in the territory of a country, or a region
or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other
characteristic of such goods is essentially attributable to its geographical
origin and in case where such goods are manufactured goods one of the
activities of either the production or of processing or preparation of the goods
concerned takes place in such territory, region or locality, as the case may
be.
(k) "producer", in relation to goods, means any person who:-
(i) if such goods are agricultural goods, produces the goods and includes the
person who processes or packages such goods;
(ii) if such goods are natural goods, exploits the goods;
(iii) if such goods are handicraft or industrial goods, makes or manufactures

the goods, and includes any person who trades or deals in such production,
exploitation, making or manufacturing, as the case may be, of the goods ;
193
(n) "registered proprietor", in relation to a geographical indication, means
any association of persons or of producers or any organization for the
time being entered in the register as proprietor of the geographical
indication;
Chapter III
Procedure for and Duration of Registration
Section17. Application for Registration as Authorized User

(1) Any person claiming to be the producer of the goods in respect of which
a geographical indication has been registered under section 16 may apply in
writing to the Registrar in the prescribed manner for registering him as an
authorised user of such geographical indication.
(2) The application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a

statement and such documents of facts as may be prescribed and required
by the Registrar to determine as to whether such person is the producer of
the goods referred to in that sub-section and such fee as may be prescribed.
(3) The provisions of this Chapter relating to-
(a) the filing and examination of the application;

(b) the refusal and acceptance of registration;
(c) withdrawal of acceptance of application;
(d) advertisement of application;
(e) opposition to registration;
(f) correction or error in an amendment of the application; and
(g) registration.
shall apply in respect of the application and registration of authorised users
referred to in sub-section (1) in the same manner as they apply for the
application for registration and registration of the geographical indication.
194
Chapter IV
Effect of Registration
Section 21. Rights Conferred by Registration
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the registration of a

geographical indication shall, if valid, give,-
(a) to the registered proprietor of the geographical indication and the

authorised user or users thereof the right to obtain relief in respect of
infringement of the geographical indication in the manner provided by this
Act;
(b) to the authorised user thereof the exclusive right to the use of the
geographical indication in relation to the goods in respect of which the
geographical indication is registered.
(2) The exclusive right to the use of a geographical indication given under
clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be subject to any condition and limitation to
which the registration is subject.
195
B. PROVISIONS RELATING TO QUALITY CONTROL AND
ENFORCEMENT OF QUALITY CONTROL
Chapter III
Procedure for and Duration of Registration
Section 11. Application for Registration
(1) Any association of persons or producers or any organization or

authority established by or under any law for the time being in force
representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods,
who are desirous of registering a geographical indication in relation to
such goods shall apply in writing to the Registrar in such form and in
such manner and accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed for
the registration of the geographical indication.
(2) The application under sub-section (1) shall contain-
(a) a statement as to how the geographical indication serves to

designate the goods as originating from the concerned territory of the
country or region or locality in the country, as the case may be, in
respect of specific quality, reputation or other characteristics of which
are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment,
with its inherent natural and human factors, and the production,
processing or preparation of which takes place in such territory, region
or locality, as the case may be;
(b) the class of goods to which the geographical indication shall apply;
(c) the geographical map of the territory of the country or region or

locality in the country in which the goods originate or are being
manufactured;
(d) the particulars regarding the appearance of the geographical

indication as to whether it is comprised of the words or figurative
elements or both;
(e) a statement containing such particulars of the producers of the

concerned goods, if any, proposed to be initially registered with the
registration of the geographical indication as may be prescribed;
and
196
(f) such other particulars as may be prescribed.
GI RULES,1999
RULE 32(1) PROCEDURE ON RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR
REGISTRATION OF A GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION
Content of application: Every application for the registration of a
geographical indication shall be made in the prescribed forms and shall
contain the following:
(1) a statement as to how the geographical indication serves to designate the
goods as originating from the concerned territory of the country or region or
locality in the country, as the case may be, in respect of specific quality,
reputation or other characteristics which are due exclusively or essentially to
the geographical environment, with its inherent natural and human factors,
and the production, processing or preparation of which takes place in such
territory, region or locality as the case may be ;
(2) the class of goods to which the geographical indication relates shall apply;
(3) the geographical map of the territory of the country or region or locality in
the country in which the goods are produced of originate or are being
manufactured;
(4) the particulars regarding the appearance of the geographical indication as
to whether it is comprised of the words or figurative elements or both;
197
(5) A statement containing such particulars of the producers of the concerned
goods proposed to be initially registered.
The statement may contain such other particulars of the producers
mentioned in Section 11(2)(f) including a collective reference to all the
producers of the goods in respect of which the application is made.
(6) the statement contained in the application shall also include the following:
a). an affidavit as to how the applicant claim to represent the interest of the
association of persons or producers or any organization or authority
established by or under any law ;
b). The standards benchmark for the use of the geographical indication or the
industry standard as regards the production, exploitation, making or
manufacture of the goods having specific quality, reputation, or other
characteristic of such goods that is essentially attributable to its geographical
origin with the detailed description of the human creativity involved, if any or
other characteristic from the definite territory of the country, region or locality
in the country, as the case may be;
c) the particulars of the mechanism to ensure that the standards,
quality, integrity and consistency or other special characteristic in
respect of the goods to which the geographical indication relates which
are maintained by the producers, maker or manufacturers of the goods,
as the case may be;
198
d) three certified copies of the map of the territory, region or locality showing
the title, name of publisher and date of issue along with the application;
(e) the particulars of special human skill involved or the uniqueness of the
geographical environment or other inherent characteristics associated with
the geographical indication to which the application relates;
f) the full name and address of the association of persons or organisation or
authority representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods;
g) particulars of the inspection structure, if any, to regulate the use of
the geographical indication in respect of the goods for which
application is made in the definite territory region or locality mentioned
in the application;
(h)where the geographical indication is a homonymous indication to an
already registered geographical indication, the material factors differentiating
the application from the registered geographical indications and particulars of
protective measures adopted by the applicant to ensure consumers of such
goods are not confused or mislead or confused in consequence of such
registration;
199
GI ACT,1999
Chapter VI
Rectification and Correction of the Register
27. Power to Cancel or Vary Registration and to Rectify the Register
(1) On application made in the prescribed manner to the Appellate Board or

to the Registrar by any person aggrieved, the tribunal may make such order
as it may think fit for cancelling or varying the registration of a geographical
indication or authorised user on the ground of any contravention, or failure to
observe the condition entered on the register in relation thereto.
(2) Any person aggrieved by the absence or omission from the register of any
entry, or by any entry made in the register without sufficient cause, or by any
entry wrongly remaining on the register, or by any error or defect in any entry
in the register, may apply in the prescribed manner to the Appellate Board or
to the Registrar, and the tribunal may make such order for making,
expunging or varying the entry as it may think fit.
(3) The tribunal may in any proceeding under this section decide any
question that may be necessary or expedient to decide in connection with the
rectification of the register.
(4) The tribunal, of its own motion, may, after giving notice in the prescribed
manner to the parties concerned and after giving them an opportunity of
being heard, make any order referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
(5) Any order of the Appellate Board rectifying the register shall direct that
notice of the rectification shall be served upon the Registrar in the prescribed
manner who shall upon receipt of such notice rectify the register accordingly.
200
ANNEXURE II
SPECIMEN FORM GI- 1 OF CHANNAPATNA
TOYS AND DOLLS SUBMITTED AS AN
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF GI
201
ANNEXURE III
QUESTIONAIRRE ON ISSUES PERTAINING TO
REGISTRATION OF AUTHORIZED USERS AND
QUALITY CONTROL
202
I. QUESTIONAIRE ON ISSUES PERTAINING TO
REGISTRATION OF AUTHORIZED USERS
Questions pertaining to Issue No. 1&3 of Chapter 4(Problems w.r.t
registration of authorized users)
Q1. How many users (members) (if any) registered in total under
Director of Horticulture, Govt. Of Karnataka (applicant under Form GI-1)
or by any other enterprises (who are authorized users of
CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS as per GI registry website)?
Ans:
Sub Question 1: If Yes, (i.e. users are registered), whether details/records of
the members are kept by them? (Since the details are not available in the GI
Registry website)
Ans:
Q2: How many users/families (approximately) in total in Bangalore
Rural District and adjoining areas who have not been registered but
continue traditionally to grow CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS?
Ans:
203
Q3.What are difficulties/hardships these non-registered users face due
to lack of registration?
Ans:
Q4: What steps has the Director of Horticulture, Govt. Of Karnataka, or
other authorized users (if any) CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS as
per GI registry) have taken to safeguard the rights of such non-
registered users?
Ans:
Sub Question 4.1: Have there been awareness camps/ sensitization
programmes (formal methods) conducted at Grassroot levels to persuade
such users to register and to make them aware of potential benefits of
registration?
Ans:
204
Sub Question 4.2: Have there been informal meetings organized by at grass
root levels (at Village level/ Panchayat level) to bring as many non-registered
users within the fold of registration?
Ans:
Q5: Is Director of Horticulture, Govt. Of Karnataka, (applicant under
Form GI-1) or any other authorized user aiding the non-registered users
(i.e. those who were left out) in the registration process? If so, in which
manner? (organized legal camps etc./provided lawyers?)
Ans:
Q6: Are there any villages/families/users (consisting of traditional
users/growers in Bangalore Rural District or outside)
left out as a result of the inadequacies of the details within the map
submitted by Director of Horticulture, Govt. Of Karnataka ?
Ans:
205
Q7 : Have there been formal product specifications provided by
Director of Horticulture, Govt. Of Karnataka or by any other authorized
users the non-registered users in aiding them to grow genuine and
uniform quality CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS?
Ans:
Sub question 7.1: If it has been notified/provided, has that resulted in uniform
quality of products from both registered as well as non-registered users?
Ans:
Sub question 7.2: If it has not been notified/provided, have there been efforts
made by Director of Horticulture, Govt. Of Karnataka or by any other
authorized users to spread the awareness regarding the product
specifications to non-registered users?
Ans:
Sub question 7.3: If those specifications are made available, can more
uniform quality of products be expected to be produced?
Ans:
206
Questions pertaining to Issue No. 2 (Ambiguous definition of producer under
GI Act,1999) of Chapter 4(Problems w.r.t Registration of authorized users)
Q.9 Whether traditional small scale producers/growers of
CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS have lost out on their due share(i.e.
loss of income/revenues/recognition) by virtue of Director of
Horticulture, Govt. Of Karnataka being the applicant?
Ans:
Sub question 9.1: Whether retailers/dealers/middlemen/other entities are
capturing income and misappropriating the revenue generated by sale of
these GIs, by producing these GIs (along with or in competition with the
traditional producers of these CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS ? If so,
what exactly is the scope of the harm being caused to these traditional
producers?
Ans:
207
Sub question 9.2 : Whether such retailers retailers/dealers/middlemen/other
entities should be excluded from appropriating the GIs for themselves to
safeguard the rights/interests of these traditional producers?
Ans:
II. QUESTIONAIRRE ON ISSUES PERTAINING TO
MAINTENANCE OF QUALITY STANDARDS AND
ENFORCEMENT OF QUALITY STANDARDS:
Q.1 What are the technical qualifications of the Inspection Body
identified with respect to CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS (The
Department of Handicraft Government of Uttar Pradesh (2) Development
Commissioner (Handicraft), Govt of India having office at Lucknow and (3)
the master artisans of the product) to conduct inspection of the
product?
Ans:
Q.2 Whether the Inspection Body identified with respect to
CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS (The Department of Handicraft
208
Government of Uttar Pradesh (2) Development Commissioner (Handicraft),
Govt of India having office at Lucknow and (3) the master artisans of the
product) are able to inspect the quality of the CHANNAPATNA TOYS
AND DOLLS without any difficulty? If yes, what is the frequency of
inspection? If no, what are the current challenges before them?
Ans:
Q.3: What are the standards/guidelines they prescribe to, while
inspecting the product (w.r.t color, taste,smell etc.) If yes, are there
any formal mechanisms in place (to identify the original products).
If there aren’t any, is that posing any hindrance to inspection of the
CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS?
Ans:
Q.4: How many fake products/imitations/cheap replicas of the
CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS have been identified by the
209
Inspection Body so far? What is the scale (number) of those fake
products/imitations/cheap replicas flooding the market?
Ans:
Sub question 4.1: If yes, (i.e. fake products have been identified as
permeating the market) what is the standard procedure employed by the
Inspection Body to remove/weed out/ differentiate the cheap products
from the replicating the original products? (Do they issue labels, marks for
signs of purity to assure the customers/third persons of the quality and
genuiness of the product?)
Do they know about Section 27 of the GI Act and have they ever invoked
Section 27 of the GI Act,1999 (cancellation of registration of non-
complying members from list of authorized users)?
Ans:
Sub question 4.2: What steps have been taken by the Inspection Body to
assure the customers of the authenticity and quality of the price which
they pay for the product?
Ans:
210
Q.5.What exactly is the scope of loss to the traditional
users/producers/artisans due to incoming of these fake products
into the market (such as loss of income, livelihoods, weakening of
demand for the original product)?
Ans:
Q.6 Whether the registered users and the non-registered users both
of them are able to get the optimum market price for the quality
products?If yes, what is the yearly turnover/income? If no, then what
are the possible causes?
Ans:
Q.6 Whether Director of Horticulture, Govt. Of Karnataka oversees
the process of quality monitoring (by Inspection Body) of these
CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS ?If yes, what are the formal
mechanisms(for facilitating overseeing quality control by adhering
to prescribed standards) viz. any expert group/committee have been
211
identified by Director of Horticulture, Govt. Of Karnataka or are there
are any external agencies for identified by Small Scale Industry,
Government of UP) ?
Ans:
Q.7 Has the Small Scale Industry, Government of UP or the
authorized users pursued legal remedies against the producers of
fake replicas/products under the GI Act,1999? If so, what was the
result of the litigation? Has there been any instance of users
pursuing legal remedies under the GI Act,1999?
Ans:
212
213
ANNEXURE IV
SPECIMEN MAP SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT
FOR CHANNAPATNA TOYS AND DOLLS
214
BIBLIOGRAPHY
215
BIBLIOGRAPHY
STATUTES, INSTRUMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
 The Geographical Indications Act,1999
 The Geographical Indications (Registration and Protection) Rules,
2002
 Paris Convention on Protection of Industrial Property,1883
 Madrid Agreement on False and Deceptive Indications of
Sources,1891
 Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin,1958
 Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights,1995
 EU Council Regulation 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of
Geographical Indications and designations of origin for agricultural
products and foodstuffs, 1992.
 The Lanham Act,1946
ARTICLES
 William Fisher, “THEORIES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY”

available at https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/iptheory.pdf
 “Collective Marks and Geographical Indications - Competitive Strategy

of Differentiation and Appropriation of Intangible Heritage” Journal of
216
Intellectual Property Rights Vol 16, May 2011, pp 246-257 available at
http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/84E2D1A7-0BC0-
41B7-8B12-E6CF3E7C7618.pdf
 “A Unique Type of Cocktail: Protection of Geographical Indications in

China” from Part III - The Promise and Problems of Geographical
Indications for Local and Rural Development by Haiyan Zheng and
edited by Irene Calboli, Singapore Management University, Wee Loon
Ng-Loy, National University of Singapore. Available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/geographical-indications-at-
the-crossroads-of-trade-development-and-culture/unique-type-of-
cocktail-protection-of-geographical-indications-in-
china/B9D09B0EE88F1609945C59968B1C5FCA
 “Sunshine in a Bottle? Geographical Indications, the Australian Wine

Industry, and the Promise of Rural Development” by Peter Drahos.
Available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/geographical-
indications-at-the-crossroads-of-trade-development-and-
culture/sunshine-in-a-bottle-geographical-indications-the-australian-
wine-industry-and-the-promise-of-rural-
development/DFD813F61A586B8FBB2A79E49FA89E1F/core-reader
 William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, “The Economics of

Trademark Law”, 78 TRADEMARK REP. 267 (1988)
 Carl Shapiro, “Premiums to High Quality Products as Returns to

Reputation”, 98 THE Q. J.ECON., 659, 670–72 (1983)
217
 Luisa Menapace & Gian Carlo Moschini, “Quality Certification by
Geographical Indications, Trademarks and Firm Reputation”, 39 EUR.
REV. AGRIC. ECON. 539, 539–49 (2012).
 Lina Monten, “Geographical Indications of Origin: Should They Be
Protected and Why? An Analysis of the Issue from the U.S. and EU
Perspectives”, 22 SANTA CLARA HIGH TECH. L. J. 315, 315 (2005)
 Thierry Coulet, “Assessing the Economic Impact of GI Protection, in

EXTENDING THE PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS: CASE STUDIES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN
AFRICA “101, 103 (Michael Blakeney et al. eds., 2013)
 “Intellectual Property: The Law and Economics Approach” by Richard

A. Posner Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 2
—Spring 2005
 “Quibbling Siblings: Conflicts between Trademarks and Geographical

Indications “ by Dev Gangjee, (2007) 82 Chicago-Kent Law Review
 ‘Search and Persuasion in Trademark Law’ (2005) 103 Michigan Law

Review 2020, 2028-2031 by B Beebe.
 Shashikant B. Bagade & Deven B. Metha, “Geographical Indications in

India: Hitherto and Challenges”, 5 RES. J. PHARM., BIOLOGICAL &
CHEM. SCIS. (2014),
http://www.rjpbcs.com/pdf/2014_5%282%29/%5B146%5D.pdf
 Ramona Teuber, Sven Anders & Corinne Langinier, “The Economics

of Geographical
Indications: Welfare Implications (Structure and Performance of
Agriculture and Agri-products industry Network”, Working Paper No.
218
2011–16), Available at
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/103262/2/Lit-
Overview_GI_Paper_04_2011.pdf
 Economics of Geographical Indications: Towards a Conceptual

Framework For Geographical Indication Research In Developing
Countries by Cerkia Bramley, Estelle Bienabe & Johann Kirsten
THE ECONOMICS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
 ICTSD-UNCTAD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development by

Dwijen Rangnekarl available at
https://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/docs/order_form_web.pdf
available
 Wim Verbeke, “Food Quality Policies and Consumer Interests in the

EU, in CONSUMERATTITUDES TO FOOD QUALITY PRODUCTS:
EMPHASIS ON SOUTHERN EUROPE” 13, 17 (Marija Klopcˇicˇ,
Abele Kuipers & Jean-Francois Hocquette eds., 2013).
 Maria L. Loureiro & Jill J. McCluskey, “Assessing Consumer

Response to Protected Geographical Identification Labeling”, 16
AGRIBUSINESS 309, 314 (2000).
 Daniela Benavente, “The Economics of Geographical Indications: GIs

Modeled as Club Assets” (Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Working Paper No: 10/2010), available at
http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/sites/international_e
conomics/shared/international_economics/publications/working
%20papers/2010/HEIDWP10-2010.pdf
219
 Barreau de Clermont Ferrand, ‘La Fraude Sur Les Produits
Alimentaires et Industriels Au Sens de La Loi Du 1er Aout 1905 :La
Genése D’une Réglementation’ (2014) available at http://www.puy-
de-
dome.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/diaporama_colloque_fraude_18_juin_2014.pdf
 DS Gangjee ‘From Geography to History: Geographical Indications

and the Reputational Link’ in I Calboli and WL Ng-Loy (eds),
Geographical Indications at the Crossroads of Trade, Development,
and Culture in the Asia-Pacific (CUP, 2017).
 Irene Calboli Geographical Indications between Trade,

Development,Culture, and Marketing: Framing a Fair(er) System of
Protection in the Global Economy?
 “Vanity GIs: India’s Legislation on Geographical Indications and the

Missing Regulatory Framework” by Yogesh Pai and Tania Singla.
Available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/geographical-
indications-at-the-crossroads-of-trade-development-and-culture/vanity-
gis-indias-legislation-on-geographical-indications-and-the-missing-
regulatory-framework/AAFD35BFBCF03773C44A518362DDB22F
 Zhang, Haizheng and Hu, Didi and Li, Yanhui, “Protection of

Geographical Indications Under China's Intellectual Property Legal
Framework (2016)”
 “FROM LADDU TO GI AND AFTER: A POST-GRANT ANALYSIS OF

THE TIRUPATI LADDU REGISTRATION” by Sumathi
220
Chandrashekaran available at
http://www.commonlii.org/in/journals/INJlIPLaw/2010/4.pdf
 Vrunda Kulkarni & Viren Konde, “Pre- and Post- Geographical

Indications Measures for Handicrafts in India”, 16 J. INT’L PROP.
RTS. 463, 467 (2011).
 Amit Basole, “Authenticity, Innovation and the Geographical Indication

in an Artisanal Industry: The Case of the Banarasi Sari “(Department
of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Working Paper No. 2014–
09), available at http://repec.umb.edu/RePEc/files/2014_09.pdf.
Isation
DISSERTATIONS/PH.D THESIS
 “The Why of Geographical Indications: The transformation of the link

between the product and its place of origin in Europe” by Andrea
Zappaglio (University of Oxford ) (2017).
 Luisa Menapace,Geographical Indications and quality promotion in
food and agricultural markets: domestic and international issues
(2010) (Doctoral thesis in Economics, Iowa State University)
WEBSITES
 https://www.prosciuttodiparma.com/en_UK/home
 https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.p
df
 https://www.wipo.int/geo_indications/en/
221
 http://www.ipc-eui.org/sites/default/files/events/files/2%20Mr
%20Antonio%20Berenguer-intro%20EU%20GI%20system_AB.pdf
 https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/events/2007/quali
ty-conference/fanti_en.pdf
 https://gi-act.maff.go.jp/en/register/entry/41.html
 https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.
pdf
 http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/84E2D1A7-0BC0-
41B7-8B12-E6CF3E7C7618.pdf
 https://www.switch-
asia.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Project_Downloads/Batch_1/policy-
briefs-geographical-indication-pochampally-ikat-1.pdf
 https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/geoind/en/wipo_geo_bkk_13/wipo_
geo_bkk_13_14.pdf
 http://www.ipindia.nic.in/act-1999.htm
 https://www.origin-gi.com/your-gi-kit/legal-info/item/3104-gi-protection-
in-europe-en-gb-4.html .
 https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/dcom/olia/globalip
/pdf/gi_system.pdf
 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2007/june/tradoc_135089.pdf
 https://commerce.gov.in/writereaddata/trade/wtopdfs/TRIPS_matter_a
mended.pdf
222
 https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/trade-marks/understanding-trade-
marks/types-trade-marks/certification-trade-mark/geographical
 http://apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/SubHead_Products/Basmati_Rice.ht
m
 https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/geographical-indications-
have-the-potential-to-be-indias-growth-engine/234813
 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/varanasi/Varanasi-emerges-
as-a-hub-of-GI-products/articleshow/46959699.cms
 https://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/darjeeling-tea-
struggling-to-stage-comeback-buyers-from-japan-absent-
118062300020_1.html
 https://www.utsavpedia.com/textiles/banarasi-silk/ .
 https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/5h1lnyORjhtn9Pr0Z4wiXL/Ground-
Report--The-Banaras-bind.html
 https://www.utsavpedia.com/motifs-embroideries/lucknow-chikan-craft/
 https://www.thedollarbusiness.com/magazine/geographical-indication-
tags---are-gi-tags-helping-india-s-exports-/4575
 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/Chikankari-GI-a-step-
towards-international-branding/articleshow/3986050.cms
 https://www.champagne-booking.com/en/p/the-history-of-champagne
 https://www.liquor.com/articles/history-of-tequila/#gs.937v44
 https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/geographical/952/wipo_pub_9
52.pdf
 http://www.roquefort.fr/fileadmin/contenus/documents/decouvrir/Sur_le
s_traces_de_la_brebis/Visites_de_fermes.pdf
 http://www.ianchadwick.com/tequila/jalisco.htm
223
 https://spicyip.com/2015/04/when-the-tezpur-university-came-to-gi-
tagged-muga-silk-of-assams-rescue.html
 www.farmfoundation.org/projects/03-65CrespiMarettepaper.htm.
 https://www.glassofvenice.com/blog/2010/02/what-is-the-difference-
between-murano-glass-and-any-other-glass/
 https://www.chicagotribune.com/dining/drink/wine/sc-food-phylloxera-
wine-101-0929-story.html
 http://www.puy-de-
dome.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/diaporama_colloque_fraude_18_juin_2014.pdf
 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terroir
 http://www.fao.org/3/i1592e/i1592e02.pdf
 http://eprints.rclis.org/7878/1/EF6C0C53.pdf
 https://www.origin-
gi.com/images/stories/PDFs/English/oriGIn_Publications_2010/protect
ing%20geographical%20indications%20in%20emerging%20markets
%20-%20final%20for%20web.pdf
 https://www.vtpckarnataka.gov.in/
 http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/GirPublic/Application/Details/23
 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/mad
hya-pradeshs-basmati-plea-may-delay-indias-geographical-indication-
battle/articleshow/28486185.cms
 https://spicyip.com/2015/04/when-the-tezpur-university-came-to-gi-
tagged-muga-silk-of-assams-rescue.html
224
 https://www.swadesi.com/news/molakalmuru-sarees/
 https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/the-silence-of-the-looms-
will-the-interest-in-anushka-s-banarasi-be-enough-to-revive-the-ailing-
handloom-industry-of-varanasi/story-
9Mig6OuHRF7LgLWGKm64pK.html
 https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/variety/assam-weaves-
an-ageless-silk-legacy/article23029263.ece
 http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/GirPublic/Application/ViewPDF
 https://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/fashion/rajesh-pamnanis-
photo-booklet-on-pochampally-ikat-explains-the-weaving-process-
from-yarn-to-fabric/article22449544.ece
 https://www.craftsvilla.com/blog/chikankari-the-art-behind-the-
traditional-lucknowi-embroidery/
225
226

GIs in India, Contemporary Challenges and Solutions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GIs in India, Contemporary Challenges and Solutions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOGRAPHICAL

“Intellectual Property”, as in its verbatim meaning and colloquial

understanding refers to those creations of human intellect such as inventions,

commerce.1Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter IP Rights or IPs) are

analogous to conventional proprietary rights, albeit offering proprietary

protection and enforcement of rights of different domain viz. products created

the “original expressions” of ideas in contrast to the ideas themselves such

as protecting the original expressions of stories, novels, drama, musical

compositions, computer software programs etc. Patent law on the other

hand, offers protection to inventions majorly and to some kinds of

discoveries. Trademark Law seeks to grant protection to different types of

words/symbols which are identifiable by consumers of goods and services

IPs offering different realms of protection on the spectrum of IP law, the

Trade Secrets law protects commercially valuable information (such as

secret recipes, commercial marketing strategies, customer databases etc.)

which companies would generally want to conceal from their competitors in

order to maintain their competitive advantage in the market. The “right of

publicity” protects the legitimate interests of the celebrities in their images

1.1 Geographical Indications:

Geographical Indications (also known as GIs and hereinafter referred to as

thesis, refers to a sign used on a product, having a specific geographical

origin and possessing qualities/characteristics and reputation due to that

as Agricultural GIs like Tequilla, an oft-drunk and largely popular alcoholic

is a meat product which is produced by processing of hind legs of pigs

through treatment with a minimum amount of salt to ensure tenderness of the

Agricultural GIs, there are also significant numbers of Non-Agricultural GIs 8

which are characterized by specific qualities of a product attributable to

traditions such as the Goiaberas9, a handicraft pottery/pans traditionally

made by women porters passed on as traditional knowledge from generation

to generation in the Espirito Santo state of Brazil or the Pochampally Ikat, a

garment) essentially attributable to a village named Pochampally in Andhra

Pradesh and in Nalgonda, Warangal and three other districts of Andhra

goods as for agricultural/non-agricultural products and in addition to this the

quality/characteristics or reputation of the product which will be attributable to

its place of production.11

1.2 GI as Collective Rights

IP Rights, including GI also have a communitarian dimension 12, which involve

forth the individuals towards their communitarian objectives of better

management of their rights through different economic processes. Collective

Bodies in different IPs such as Copyright societies in Copyright law, Patent

Pools in Patent Law and for that matter, Registered

called as efforts of collective defence and management of IP rights. 14

Collectivism is ingrained in the very conception of Geographical Indications

products exercise collective entitlements to exclude others from appropriating

it using legal means to secure enforcement. 15

1.3 Legal Systems for GI Protection in Different Jurisdictions

in their respective jurisdictions either in the form of a sui generis16 system or

United States (US) in contrast to the EU, adopts a different mode of

protection available for the products, instead it offers protection by means of

trademark protection viz. through certification marks 20 under the U.S.

unregistered and registered GIs by a legislation it enacted, post to signing the

Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act of 1999

along with the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and

Protection) Rules, 2002 (GI Rules)23.

goods under Trademark Law as certification mark. 26

This thesis draws largely from these jurisdictions in analysing the

inadequacies of Indian legal framework for GI Protection, but does not

analogies from other jurisdictions as and when need arises subsequently.

1.4 Causes and Necessity of GI Protection across the World

As explained earlier in this thesis, the fundamental conception of a GI stands

in the fact that specific geographical locations generates the products’

product is grown) in marketing and on product labels. 28

pushing the agenda of according GI protection by nations. The advent of