Commercializing GI: Reimagining India’s GI Tags as Brand Assets

Commercializing GI: Reimagining India’s GI Tags as Brand Assets

Abstract

Geographical Indications (GIs) in India have historically been regarded as cultural instruments to protect traditional knowledge, heritage, and rural artisanal handiwork. However, in a rapidly globalizing trade environment, GIs must be reconceptualized as commercially exploitable brand assets that can create income, stimulate exports, and act as agents of economic empowerment of rural economies. This paper provides a commercially oriented analysis of GIs specified in the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. It considers the underutilized potential of GIs in India's domestic and international markets.

Introduction

Comparison between Past and Present Conditions

In the past, GIs in India were principally vehicles to maintain culture. Darjeeling Tea, Banarasi Sarees, or Pochampally Ikat held value as forms of cultural identity. However, GIs were not often exploited for their commercial potential or creative use in markets. In Europe, however, the designations of products such as Champagne and Parmigiano-Reggiano morphed into strong brands representing premium products sold globally at premium prices.

With nearly 700 Geographical Indications registered in India as of 2025…”[1]While some products have made it to a visible level in global markets (i.e., Basmati Rice, Darjeeling Tea)[2]The commercialization of GIs in India is weak. Most registered GIs remain in regional markets, with weak enforcement mechanisms and negligible brand penetration.[3]

Future Prospects

GIs could enhance India’s economy in the future if treated as brand assets, rather than cultural designations. GIs could potentially tap into rural income, create exports, and help position India in the luxury goods and niche markets across the globe. There are challenges related to weak enforcement, a general lack of licensing models, and the absence of collective marketing[4]. Some new technological innovations with blockchain authentication and/or digital tagging could create exciting opportunities related to branding trust and managing supply chains.[5][6]

Scope

This article focuses on India’s national framework for GI commercialization, while also drawing comparisons with international best practices, particularly from the European Union. The scope is legal, commercial, and policy-oriented, emphasizing repositioning GIs as assets within India’s broader intellectual property (IP) and trade strategies.

Legal Framework

The principal legislation of India, the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, has given power to communities to register and protect specific products that have a status relating to their geography.[7] The Act grants registered users exclusive use rights and prohibits mala fide use by unregistered producers.

At the international level, GIs are protected within Articles 22–24 of the TRIPS Agreement (1994) [8]It obligates member countries of the WTO to have mechanisms to protect GIs. The Paris Convention of 1883 also refers indirectly to GIs under unfair competition.

In domestic practice, the GI structure currently overlaps with the Trademarks Act 1999, so both acts seek to protect brand identities.[9] The overlap is much greater when corporate brands intend to benefit from market effects for their products `regionally identified', which can give rise to disputes between GI owners and trademark owners.

Case Laws

Several Indian and foreign cases illustrate the evolving jurisprudence of GI commercialization:

1. Tea Board of India v. ITC Limited (2011, Calcutta High Court): The Tea Board’s attempt to prevent ITC from naming a lounge “Darjeeling Lounge” failed, demonstrating the limits of GI protection regarding service branding.[10]
2. PepsiCo India v. Farmers (2019, Gujarat): While primarily about plant variety rights, this dispute highlights corporate intrusion into local products and shows how GI and brand claims often overlap in agriculture.[11]
3. Champagne (France) and Roquefort (France): These European GIs are prime examples of strict enforcement and marketing, turning products into global luxury brands.[12]
4. Basmati Rice Dispute (India-Pakistan, WTO context): Basmati's struggle for ownership and branding underscores the need for strong global positioning of Indian GIs.[13]

These cases reveal the promise and pitfalls of India’s GI regime, especially its commercial enforcement gap.

Positive and Negative Impacts

Benefits

• Economic Empowerment- GIs can provide rural producers with premium prices. [14]
• Export Potential- Strong branding can provide a foothold for Indian products in the luxury retail space against competitors. [15]
• Cultural Preservation- Commercialization can promote the continuation of traditional practices by incentivizing artisans.
• Employment Generation- Rural economies can benefit economically from the activities of collective marketing cooperatives.
• Global Identity- A Big increase in India's brand during active global discourse on trade negotiations. [16]

Challenges

• Weak Enforcement- There is a lack of follow-up monitoring once registered.
• Limited Awareness- Producers often lack marketing skills, knowledge, expertise, or legal literacy.
• Overlap with Trademarks- Corporate branding using GI products leads to conflicts with existing GI protection.
• Counterfeiting- The proliferation of bogus GI products destroys consumer trust and the validity of GI products. [17]
• Fragmented Producer Groups - The Ability to act cohesively to form a strong collective marketing presence is impossible because of poor producer networks.[18]

Strategic Insights

Geographical Indications (GIs) have surfaced in different parts of the world to serve as a tool for cultural conservation and generate greater economic competitiveness. However, in India, one of the few countries where GIs can be satisfactorily used as a commercial asset, GIs are the least valued. To illustrate this point, despite Darjeeling Tea's high global awareness levels, growers have been unable to reposition their products to earn substantial monetary returns due to poor marketing practices and weak enforcement frameworks.

Best practice comparisons in other jurisdictions could yield valuable lessons for GIs. For example, the European Union producer associations, such as Champagne and Parmigiano-Reggiano, "must cooperatively comply to uphold the strict quality requirements established by the European Commission". This gives the producer's association a compelling enforcement option, throughout the world via the GI, and its members a powerful leverage against would-be infringers, capable of achieving a competitive market advantage with a price premium on their products. Similarly, Thailand, or at least its government, has successfully positioned its jasmine rice, other rice product versions, and silk in the marketplace through GI branding and government branding campaigns. China has been experimenting with another mixed model system of dual GI protections from both trademark and sui generis, which appears to have promoted Longjing Tea's international awareness and penetrated the more difficult export market.

Technological advancements are also becoming fundamental to GI strategies. The Spices Board of India’s blockchain-based traceability system for Malabar Pepper mirrors global shifts in digital certification, enhancing consumer confidence and tackling counterfeit products. These new technologies will be relevant as global supply chains increasingly call for transparency and traceability.

For Indian GIs to truly deliver their value, they have to be reconfigured as securitized commercial assets, akin to patents and intellectual property - possible through licensing and franchising, and organized and structured international marketing that aligns with Atmanirbhar Bharat but also strengthens India's trade diplomacy. Based upon everything learnt from Europe, China, and Thailand, India can reposition its GIs from mere symbols of cultural integrity to instruments of rural upliftment, export growth, and global brand building.

Recommendations

1. Securitization of GIs – Treat GIs as commercial assets capable of licensing and franchising. Darjeeling Tea’s authorized user system shows how licensing can enhance brand value.[19]
2. Collective IP Management – Form producer cooperatives for stronger bargaining power and global outreach. Pochampally Ikat Weavers’ Cooperative improved incomes through collective branding.[20]
3. Technological Integration – Implement blockchain-based tracking and authentication. For example, Malabar Pepper exports now use blockchain-based tracking.[21]
4. Legal Reforms – Strengthen enforcement provisions under the GI Act, with more explicit rules for overlaps with trademarks. The Darjeeling Lounge case showed weak GI protection compared to Champagne’s strict enforcement[22].
5. Export-focused marketing - Create state-backed global campaigns along the lines of the EU's branding of Champagne and Roquefort. The EU’s branding of Champagne and Roquefort can guide the promotion of Mysore Silk and Pashmina.[23]

Conclusion

India’s GI regime suffers from weak commercialization—most of its nearly 700[24] Registered GIs remain locally confined due to poor enforcement, fragmented producer groups, and limited marketing. Strengthening collective management and adopting technological tools like blockchain stand out as the most critical steps to unlock their economic value. Reimagining GIs as securitized brand assets can integrate rural producers into global value chains and align with India’s trade strategy. Future studies may build on this by exploring sector-specific models and state-led initiatives to maximize GI-driven growth.

[1] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/vijayawada/andhra-pradeshs-famed-polavaram-cotton-sarees-seek-gi-tag/articleshow/121298102.cms

[2] ‘List of Geographical Indications in India’ (Wikipedia, 2024) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_geographical_indications_in_India

[3] Centre for WTO Studies, Marketing of GI Products: Unlocking their Commercial Potential (IIFT 2015) https://wtocentre.iift.ac.in/Papers/Marketing%20of%20GI%20Products%20Unlocking%20their%20Commercial%20Potential.pdf

[4]Irma Mariana, Eleonora Sofilda and Freddy Harris, ‘Geographical Indication Commercialisation Policy through Tourism Sector on Economic Prosperity’ (2024) 18 OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development 51 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/5146997.pdf?abstractid=5146997

[5] CBCL NLIU, ‘From Concept to Reality: Asset Tokenization’s Emergence in India’ (CBCL Blog, 2024) https://cbcl.nliu.ac.in/technology-law/from-concept-to-reality-asset-tokenizations-emergence-in-india/

[6] Vinod Kothari, ‘Tokenisation of Real World Assets – The Way Ahead for Creating Securities’ (Vinod Kothari, February 2025) https://vinodkothari.com/2025/02/tokenisation-of-real-world-assets-the-way-ahead-for-creating-securities/

[7] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, Government of India

[8] TRIPS Agreement, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO, Annex 1C

[9] Trademarks Act, 1999, Government of India.

[10] Tea Board of India v. ITC Limited, 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 2913

[11] PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Farmers, Gujarat High Court, 2019

[12] Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v. Punch Taverns Ltd., [2000] E.T.M.R. 575 (UK)

[13] WTO Dispute Settlement & IP Reports on Basmati Rice Dispute, India–Pakistan (2000s).

[14] Dwijen Rangnekar, The Socio-Economics of Geographical Indications: A Review of Empirical Evidence from Europe (UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development, 2004).

[15] Dev Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (CUP 2012).

[16] Bernard O’Connor, Geographical Indications and TRIPS (Cameron May 2004

[17] Irene Calboli and Wee Loon Ng-Loy (eds), Geographical Indications at the Crossroads of Trade, Development, and Culture (CUP 2017).

[18] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geographical Indications: An Introduction (WIPO Publication No 952, 2017).

[19] Das, K. (2010). Prospects and Challenges of Geographical Indications in India. Centre for WTO Studies, IIFT.

[20] Rangnekar, D. (2003). The Socio-Economics of Geographical Indications: A Review of Empirical Evidence from Europe. UNCTAD/ICTSD

[21] Giovannucci, D., Josling, T., Kerr, W., O’Connor, B., & Yeung, M.T. (2009). Guide to Geographical Indications: Linking Products and Their Origins. UNCTAD.

[22] O’Connor, B. (2004). The Law of Geographical Indications. Cameron May

[23] WIPO (2019). Geographical Indications: An Introduction. World Intellectual Property Organization

[24] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/vijayawada/andhra-pradeshs-famed-polavaram-cotton-sarees-seek-gi-tag/articleshow/121298102.cms