Geographical Indications and the Threat of Misrepresentation on Digital Platforms

Geographical Indications and the Threat of Misrepresentation

on Digital Platforms

This paper explores how sellers on digital platforms often mislead buyers by falsely claiming products have Geographical Indications (GIs). It discusses the legal and enforcement gaps that make such misuse possible and suggests practical ways—through stronger laws, technology, and cooperation—to protect genuine producers and ensure consumer trust.

1. INTRODUCTION

In the era of worldwide commerce and online retailing, Geographical Indications (GIs) are highly relevant for safeguarding the quality and identity of products of specific regions. GIs indicate the relationship between a product and its place of origin, which comprises distinctive features, expertise, and local knowledge. Goods such as Darjeeling Tea, Kanchipuram Silk Sarees, and Mysore Sandalwood are worth a lot of money, yet they reflect the culture and common identity of the communities that produce them. As online marketplaces such Amazon, Flipkart, and eBay have grown, there has been increasing misappropriation and false publicity of GI goods online, which damages actual producers and misleads customers. This article examines the several ills of false publicity of GIs on online marketplaces, insufficiencies of legal norms and effective implementation, and proposes ways to address them using technology, regulation, and cooperation.

1. UNDERSTANDING GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS

Article 22(1) of the TRIPS Agreement (1994) defined a Geographical Indication, which is a sign showing a product which originated in a specific territory, such that a quality, a reputation, or a characteristic which accrues to a specific territory or region or a combination of regions is, essentially, due to its origin. GIs in India are protected under Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which provides protection of registration and protection against misappropriation.[1] Protection for GIs has two main goals:

Economics entailed protection of commercial interests of real producers, which were often rural communities or small producers.

Cultural – safeguarding of authenticity and heritage which goes along with traditional practice.But with increasing movement of trade across virtual boundaries, such ends are highly susceptible to misdescription on the Internet.

In Scotch Whisky Association v. J.K. Enterprises (2023), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reiterated the right of the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA), the registered owner of the GI “Scotch Whisky,” to sue for infringement on its own without the necessity of having an “authorized user” as a co-plaintiff. The Association claimed that companies in India were misleading consumers and the GI through the use of the term “Scotch Whisky” on products that were not of Scottish origin.

In a previous case involving the SWA and Indian distillers in the Delhi High Court (2015), it was decided that only whisky produced in Scotland by SWA members could be labeled “Scotch” in India. The SWA showed that local companies were using deceptive packaging and advertising suggesting the products were of Scottish origin when in fact they were made in India. Although the case was later settled out of court, it laid down a significant precedent for GI protection in India.

Moreover, similar rulings across the globe, such as the Hamburg Court’s 2023 decision in Europe have affirmed that even indirect references, like the use of the word “Glen” on non-Scottish whisky bottles, are to be considered false or misleading indications of origin since consumers link “Glen” with Scotch Whisky.

These rulings together highlight that the practice of misrepresenting a GI, as in the case of marking an Indian-produced whisky as “Scotch,” results in a loss of consumer trust, infringes on international GI protection rights, and tarnishes the reputation of the legitimate producers who are following strict production standards. The cases emphasize the need to protect GI rights in order to maintain authenticity and fair competition in both global and domestic markets.

1. THE DIGITAL MARKETPLACE: NEW AVENUES, NEW RISKS

E-commerce, in a way, has opened up the shrunken world of trade by bringing local producers to international consumers. Such a boon, when abused, essentially becomes the breeding ground for counterfeits and unscrupulous sellers. Misdescription of GIs usually occurs online through a number of ways:

These practices represent common forms of Geographical Indications (GI) misuse. False branding occurs when merchants deliberately sell their goods under GI-protected names, such as passing off ordinary tea as Darjeeling Tea or synthetic sarees as Kanchipuram Silks, misleading consumers about authenticity. Keyword abuse involves the deceptive use of GI names in product titles or descriptions—for instance, using phrases like “Banarasi-style saree”—to manipulate search engine results and falsely associate unrelated goods with genuine GI products. Visual mimicry is another fraudulent tactic, where sellers copy logos, certification marks, or packaging designs that replicate original GI products to create a false impression of legitimacy. Blended claims refer to the practice of mixing genuine and counterfeit goods and marketing them collectively as authentic products, thereby compromising the credibility and value of genuine GI indications.

Consumers are often unaware or unable to validate such deceits. The result is two-way damage wherein the erosion of consumer confidence occurs and thereby further downgrading of economic and cultural value associated with genuine GI products.[2]

1. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND WEAKNESSES

International Protection: TRIPS Agreement

The TRIPS Agreement of the World Trade Organization imposes the global minimum protection on GI. Article 22 gives protection for unfair competition or deception of the public. Article 23 gives additional protection for spirits and wines. TRIPS does not lay down specific provisions for e-commerce or online misrepresentations, which creates huge lacunae for its implementation today.

Indian Legal Context

Indian Legal Environment The GI Act, 1999, of India is amongst the strongest developed countries' legislation. Infringement consists of using a GI without authorization in a manner that misleads or deceives customers about a product's origin (Section 21). Criminal penalties exist under Section 68 for false representations. However, its enforcement system is clearly limited to physical locations and offline activities.[3] There is no clear mention of online sales, responsibilities of middlemen, or enforcement across borders—important parts in today’s digital economy. At the same time, the Information Technology Act, 2000 covers online middlemen, like e-commerce websites. Section 79 gives these middlemen "safe harbor" protection from being responsible for what users create, as long as they stay neutral. This creates confusion—while the sellers are the ones breaking the rules, the platforms claim protection, which causes problems in enforcement.

E-commerce and social media platforms in India will need to comply with the due diligence obligations specified in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The rules place this responsibility on intermediaries, which include large social media intermediaries, among others, to hire compliance officers, set up grievance redressal mechanisms, and take prompt action on complaints related to unlawful or false information, such as counterfeit or misleading listings of GI products. Due diligence on social media requires monitoring and taking down illegal content, verification of accounts for transparency, and, even more, taking responsibility as intermediaries to prevent misuse of GI names online.

There is a suggestion that e-commerce platforms should collaborate with GI authorities to establish verified seller programs that will help in authentication of genuine GI products. Platforms should set up notice-and-takedown procedures to quickly remove fake or misleading listings in order to safeguard both consumers and producers. It is possible for governments to assist this by providing public databases of certified GI products that can be accessed digitally, for instance, through QR codes or blockchain verification, assuring traceability and authenticity. Thus, the hybrid approach of legal enforcement along with digital verification and consumer awareness maximizes protection for GI products against infringement and counterfeit risks in the digital marketplace.

A well-designed framework, therefore, consisting of the IT Rules for intermediaries and the corresponding legal due diligence obligations together with the proactive product liability measures focusing on GI verification, will strengthen accountability, safeguard traditional producers' rights and enable consumers to acquire the authentic geographical indication products.

1. Chief Challenges in the Digital Space

The digital marketplace opens up a world of opportunities for trading while also challenging the protection of GIs. The most difficult dilemmas include this jurisdictional ambiguity. Online selling crosses national frontiers seamlessly: a seller in Thailand might advertise fake "Kashmiri Saffron" to buyers from India or Europe with just a few clicks! In cases of misuse, it is unclear which country's courts or laws are applicable. The absence of global rules or processes creates massive difficulties for genuine producers to take legal action for their quick redress. Another issue is platform liability and accountability. E-commerce portals tend to describe themselves as "intermediaries," rather than sellers, thus absolving themselves of any responsibility to check the authenticity and genuineness of the products. Even if they are reported about such misleading or false listings, they are inconsistent in responding to these complaints and in removing such listings. This limited accountability, in turn, encourages the online trade of GI goods.

Anonynity and traceability are not helping either. Unlike traditional markets where buyers can often track back to producers or traders, an online seller can hoodwink genuine buyers by assuming a fake identity, using multiple accounts, or shipments from third-party warehouses. Such scenarios make it almost impossible to identify or verify genuine producers, in the absence of a supply-chain-tracing mechanism.

The question of consumer deception also arises. Online consumers base their purchase decisions on images, descriptions, and ratings, all of which can be manipulated. In the absence of visible and verifiable GI certification marks on digital platforms, customers generally cannot distinguish an authentic product from a fake one. This deceives legitimate consumers and harms the reputation and market value of genuine GI products.

Lastly, enforcement has seriously remained a deficiency. Bodies like the Indian GI Registry and producer associations lack adequate resources to oversee such infringements on the internet. The existing procedure of filing takedown notices is manual in operation, slow, and mostly ineffective, as such counterfeit merchandise just resurfaces under different listings shortly after being removed. This has kept enforcement in the digital arena weak, leaving genuine producers vulnerable and consumers misled.[4]

1. Policy and Technological Reforms

The European Union (EU) presents a great example for GI implementation. These rules are fairly protective under the EU Regulation 1151/2012 and provide for traceability in physical and online markets. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) works closely with major platforms and employs surveillance tools, as well as schemes such as “Project Zero” to expedite removal of counterfeits from online offers. And there are lessons for India and other developing nations in this regulatory entity cooperation.

Developing a comprehensive solution to GI product misuse on digital platforms requires a combination of policy and technological reforms. From a technological standpoint, with blockchain traceability and QR code labeling, digital verification of GIs can hugely contribute to transparency. Providers and producers can verify with their consumers the origin of the product, its producer, and whether it has been GI certified-i.e., they can perform simple scans to obtain this information. On the policy side, more platform liability can be imposed through amendments to the Information Technology Act or through a special Digital Commerce Code for GIs to ensure the due diligence of the e-commerce intermediaries. Safe harbor protection should only apply if the platform actively monitors and after a notice has been issued takes down infringing listings. Further, fortifying international cooperation under the auspices of the WTO or WIPO would assist in simplifying cross-border enforcement and in facilitating evidence exchange. Equally important is building the capacity of producer associations by providing them with digital tools and skills in GI misuse tracking and complaining. Collaborative efforts between government bodies and local cooperatives can advance collective enforcement. Finally, consumer awareness campaigns are critical; educated buyers can identify authentic GI products, understand certification marks, and report suspicious online seller listings toward building a culture of enforcement.

The integration of Certification Marks as a Tool is the first step that can be taken in the area of quality assurance on the internet. Certification Marks are symbols that indicate that the products and services have been tested and passed certain standards. GIs and certification marks could work together to provide quality assurance electronically. An example is the combination of “Darjeeling Tea” and the certification mark confirming the product is from the Tea Board of India. The role of digital verification systems such as QR codes, blockchain authentication, and e-commerce platform digital badges will be discussed. The proposal includes the e-commerce platforms being required to use certified GI logos and to comply with verification protocols as part of contract compliance mechanisms. Consumer Education as Part of Soft Law could be one of the applications of the soft law mechanisms — voluntary codes of conduct, guidelines, and awareness campaigns are common ways of doing this. The FSSAI or DPIIT could partner with online platforms to conduct “Know Your GI” awareness campaigns as an example. The consumers would be made to learn to: Identify the official GI logos and certification marks. Inform about the existence of fake or misleading listings. Appreciate the product quality and hold the traditional knowledge. Also, consumers would be encouraged to practice moral and fair behavior online which would be not by law but by norms and awareness Platforms should have tags like “GI-verified seller” after checking the seller with the GI authorities. Have a process of giving notice and taking down fake GI listings. With the help of the e-commerce companies, governments can: Create sections on their websites where verified GIs can be found. Make public databases that can be accessed by linking them to the products digitally.

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming more common in the fight against the counterfeiting of Geographical Indication (GI) products on digital platforms, as AI improves the detection, verification, and enforcement mechanisms. AI algorithms can scan product listings, images, and descriptions on e-commerce sites automatically and find patterns of misrepresentation—like the unauthorized usage of GI names( Kolhapuri Chappals ,Mysore Silk and Coorg Coffee , Feni (Goa), Kullu Shawl,Sikkim Mandarin (Sikkim), and Kashmir Saffron or fake packaging. AI can also process the images and the language to bring out the most likely to be a fraud such as the term used or the logo that is printed on a fake certificate. The trained machines also assist in identifying the origin of fakes and their movement through the analysis of the seller's past transactions, geotags, and customers' feedback. Meanwhile, blockchain-integrated AI systems are being tested by some countries and platforms, which, through digital certificates and QR codes, authenticate the GIs from the farm to the market. Furthermore, AI provides the law enforcement officials with predictive analytics and case prioritization depending on the size of digital infringement. So, AI is like a modern digital guardian that watches over and assists the GIs that have the traditional legal protection while at the same time, online marketplaces are still monitored for real-time through AI and thus, producers’ rights and consumer trust are protected.

1. Conclusion

The violation of GI on internet is a major challenge to the authenticity, fairness and heritage of society. The legal system of GI protection, however, is not well suited for the challenges that cross-border trade (e-commerce in particular) presents. The digital economy demands a shift from reactive enforcement to proactive governance that means law, technology and cooperation.

For India, with an inventory of over 400 registered GIs, protecting its goods from digital piracy isn’t simply a legal mandate; it’s both an economic and cultural necessity. I believe that through the use of digital authentication, increased platform liability, and international cooperation, lawmakers can ensure that the core principles behind GI protection — the preservation of origin, quality and tradition — continues into the digital age. To sum it up, international agreements are not enough to manage the enforcement of GI protection. We need standardized law to the protect the sacred heritage of Geographical Indications.

REFERENCES

• Geographical indications, geographical-indications, https://www.wipo.int/en/web/geographical-indications).
• Geographical indications, geographical-indications, https://www.wipo.int/en/web/geographical-).
• Challenges in the digital age: Online counterfeiting of GI Products, Challenges in the Digital Age: Online Counterfeiting of Gi Products | IPLINK ASIA, https://www.iplink-asia.com/article-detail.php?id=1175).

[1] https://www.wipo.int/en/web/geographical-indications

[2] D.P.Mittal, Law Relating To Trade Marks, Passing Off and Geographical Indication of Goods (Commercial Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2022)

[3] Rajeesh B.L and others, “Geographical Indication as a Tool for Protecting Traditional Knowledge”, 3 pen Acclaims (2018)

[4] Niharika Sahoo Bhattacharya, Geographical Indication Protection in India: The Evolving Paradigm, (Springer Verlag, Singapore, 1 st edn., 2022)