Introduction

A geographical indication (GI) is a unique form of a trademark. According to the Indian Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, “GI Act,” a GI refers to the goods whose characteristics, reputation, or qualities can be considered as originating in a certain geographical area. There are two distinct aspects that the GI Act covers: accurate information about the origin of goods to the consumers and economic interest of the producers. (GI Act 1999)

In Indian legislation, there is a clear differentiation between “registered proprietor”, which is typically an organization or association acting as a representative of producers’ interests, and an “authorized user”, which is a natural person. This separation is important because an authorized user according to Section 21 gets an exclusive right to use the GI in relation to registered products, whereas the registered proprietor and the authorized users have the right to apply for infringement. The legal term “producer” is wide-ranging, and the requirements for being an authorized user have been loosened in 2020. Recently, there has been some litigation concerning Bikaneri Bhujia indicating that the boundaries of legitimate regional use, authorization of the user and misuse are not yet defined clearly.

I. Statutory Structure: A Community Right Administered Through Registration

Under the GI Act, the indication is seen as the right of the region or collective and not as the property that can be sold or licensed. According to Section 11, an association of people or producers, an organization, or any other statutory body representing the interests of producers may apply for the registration of the indication. After the GI has been registered, it shall be recorded in Part A of the Register, while the authorized users are recorded in Part B of the Register. Section 24 ensures that the GI remains community-based through the provision that prevents transfer and licensing of the GI. (GI Act 1999)

The Act also broadens the definition of “producer” to include not only an individual who physically produces the final product but also any activity involved in the process. For farm products, it means both producing and processing or packaging; for natural products, exploiting; and for handicraft or manufactured products, producing or manufacturing, along with any individuals dealing in these productions. This covers the realities of GIs while still keeping in mind the regional features that make protection necessary. (GI Act 1999)

II. Who May Become an Authorised User?

Rule 17 contains the key provision. A person who purports to be a “producer” of goods for which a GI has been registered earlier may apply to the Registrar for registering the person as an authorised user. The applicant has to submit a statement with evidence sufficient to show that he is a producer. The application process for such authorisation is similar to that for filing a GI application, except that it has an extra phase of examination, advertisement, and opposition. (GI Act 1999)

This procedure underwent a significant change in 2020. Earlier, under the Rule 56, both the registered proprietor and the prospective authorised user were supposed to make a joint application. In its place, the new GI Amendment Rules have provided a fresh Rule 56, whereby a producer may make an application to the Registrar in Form GI-3 with an explanatory statement on how the applicant is a producer, and the copy of the application must be sent to the proprietor. (GI Amendment Rules 2020)

The 2025 Amendment Rules keep the nominal fee of Rs. 10 for the authorised-user application. The validity of registration shall be ten years or the duration of the GI registration, whichever is shorter, and can be extended thereafter. Legal importance is attributed here since Section 21(1)(b) explicitly provides the exclusive right of use of the GI by the authorised user for the registered products, subject to any conditions. (GI Act 1999; GI Amendment Rules 2025)

III. Registered Proprietor, Authorised User and Other Regional Producers

The functions of a registered proprietor and an authorised user are distinct. The former serves as the institutional representative of the producer community and registers the GIs. An authorised user represents a legitimate producer of products capable of using the GI on its products. While section 21 grants them both standing to claim relief against infringement, it is only the authorised user that gets the exclusive right of use of the GI. (GI Act 1999)

A difficult situation arises when it comes to infringement by producers in the geographic area of protection that have not yet undergone authorised-user registration. Section 22 provides the infringement of a person that “is not an authorised user,” but also requires under section 22(1)(a) the misleading use of information about geographical origin and section 22(1)(b) deals with unfair competition and passing-off. The provision clearly does not state that any producer without authorised-user registration is guilty of infringement upon using the GI. (GI Act 1999)

         This tension can be seen in Bikaner Bhujia Udyog Sangh v Desai Brothers Ltd. In an interim order dated October 2023, the Delhi High Court noted that according to the proprietors, “Bikaneri Bhujia” cannot be used without authorized-user registration. It was argued by the defendants that section 22 of the Act requires misleading origin information or unfair competition. The Court held that the interpretation of section 22 is a legal issue worthy of consideration, and it also was worried about similarities in packaging for the GI and non-GI goods due to the possibility of confusion and free riding on the goodwill of the GI mark. Related litigation was pending in the Delhi High Court in 2026. (Bikaner Bhujia Udyog Sangh v Desai Brothers Ltd, 2023; related Delhi High Court proceedings, 2026)

Therefore, a producer wanting the strongest statutory right to use and enforce the mark should register under Part B, whereas courts should continue to apply the factors of section 22, not the lack of registration.

IV. Protecting Regional Producer Interests

The GI system is viable if registration results in tangible gains to the regional community. In light of this, the role of the proprietor as provided under section 11 must be carried out in a transparent manner. Producer associations need to have easily available eligibility requirements, help small producers in their application process and ensure that they do not adopt procedures that constitute obstacles contrary to the Act.

It is critical to note the significance of the 2020 amendment. Through it, a producer will be able to file for registration without having to make a joint application together with the registered proprietor. This means that a representative association will no longer be in a position to deny an otherwise eligible producer in the region.

Finally, consumers have an interest in proper usage of the GI system. A GI does not just indicate that there is some kind of link between a producer and a certain region, but it indicates that the goods meet the geographical link requirements. Traceability, unique GI and non-GI packaging and proper disclosure is vital for the protection of consumers and producers alike.

V. Misuse and Available Remedies

The provisions of section 22 provide for the forms of infringement. An infringement of the registered GI is deemed to occur where a person, without authority, uses the geographical indication in the description or presentation of goods in a way likely to cause confusion as to their geographic origin; uses the GI in a way which constitutes unfair competition; or where such person uses a geographical indication so as to indicate falsely that the goods come from the protected territory. (GI Act 1999)

However, it should be noted that the Act provides for an exception to the rule. In case the genuine GI goods are lawfully obtained, any further dealings with them by a person who is not an authorized user do not amount to infringement provided the state of the goods has not been affected since they have been put on the market.

Civil redress is important. In section 66 and 67, actions for infringement and passing off have to be instituted in the appropriate district court. Redress can include injunctions, damages or account of profits and delivery-up of infringing marks and indications for destruction or removal. Interim relief includes orders for disclosure, preservation of infringing products or evidence, and preservation of assets. (GI Act 1999)

The act also has enforcement provisions on false application and use of GIs and sale of falsely marked products. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act 2023 that came into effect for these amendments from 1 August 2024 amended some penalty provisions, among which was the replacement of the old penalty provision for falsely representing a GI as registered with a monetary one, while other older penalty provisions were deleted. Advice on current enforcement should thus rely on amended provisions of law. (Jan Vishwas amendments; current India Code text)

The doctrine of passing off continues to hold relevance even when there is no GI registration. Section 20 provides that in the case of an unregistered GI, no statutory action for infringement shall lie, but the rights of passing off will still remain intact. (GI Act 1999)

VI. Why the Law Remains Contested or Under-Developed

In addition, the connection between true geographical provenance and Part B registration is still unclear. The case of Bikaneri Bhujia shows whether a genuine originator who has not been finally registered as the authorised user of the mark is entitled to use the GI and if so, on what conditions. Civil and/or writ proceedings in relation were ongoing in 2026. (Bikaner Bhujia Udyog Sangh v Desai Brothers Ltd, 2023; related Delhi High Court proceedings, 2026)

Third, the Indian protection of GIs is strictly limited to goods. This limitation is shown in Tea Board v. ITC Ltd. The decision by a single judge of the Calcutta High Court from 2019 determined that the GI rights in “Darjeeling” as regards tea cannot protect the name of hotel lounge services called “Darjeeling Lounge”. The decision reflects the difference between goods and services and limitations in treating the GI registration as a general property right over the geographical indication. An appeal of the decision was admitted and subsequent orders prove that the appeal is pending at least until 2022; the decision by a single judge should not be considered as the final appellate decision. (Tea Board v ITC Ltd, 2019; appeal proceedings)
Finally, the definition of producer under the legislation is deliberately wide-ranging. This could be beneficial in including traders and packers among others in the GI system, but it may pose some challenges in the economic sharing of the benefits in the region. In practice, the issue will depend on governance, Registry and court scrutiny.

VII. Practical Safeguards and Recommendations

The prudent path for producers is for authorised-user registration to be secured prior to advertising goods bearing a registered GI; keeping records of production and sourcing within the specified territory; following the specification for the GI registration; and separating goods marked with the GI from other goods.

With regard to registered proprietors, openness in eligibility requirements, quick assistance with applications, up-to-date producer records and monitoring in the correct proportion is preferred to a membership approach. In cases of misuse, evidence should be kept early: product samples, invoices, website listings, packaging, photographs, advertisements, and evidence of likely confusion can be useful in interim or permanent relief.

For the Registry and the policymakers, more information on regional producers who do not have a GI registration; an up-to-date Part B register; and a streamlined process for registration would help avoid disputes. In any future reform, there needs to be a differentiation made between the GI and authorised-user registration.

Conclusion

An Indian GI law does not grant a private monopoly on a place name. Rather, it sets up a community-based right linked to specific products, to a defined area, and to the community of producers. The registered proprietor stands in as representative of the community; a qualifying producer can apply to be added as an authorized user; and registration allows the authorized user an express right to use the GI for the registered product. The 2020 procedure reform limited proprietor control over access to authorized user status, whereas the 2025 fees ensured that such access would remain inexpensive.

The hard cases, however, are those where true regional production, lack of proper registration, and misleading market presentation coincide. Ongoing legal proceedings show that authorized-user status is of prime importance but do not take away the necessity of applying the proper criteria set out in section 22. The best GI protection system is thus one which provides registration of true producers, regional transparency, traceable use in the market, and remedies for deception or unfair use.

References

1. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, as amended, ss 2, 11, 17, 20-24, 66-67. Intellectual Property India / India Code.
2. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2020, G.S.R. 528(E), 26 August 2020.
3. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2025, G.S.R. 812(E), 3 November 2025.
4. Intellectual Property India, Geographical Indications: Forms and Authorised-User Registration Resources.
5. Bikaner Bhujia Udyog Sangh v Desai Brothers Ltd & Anr, CS(COMM) 696/2023, Delhi High Court, order dated 11 October 2023.
6. Delhi High Court, proceedings in CS(COMM) 696/2023 and W.P.(C)-IPD 6/2025, including 2026 cause-list materials.
7. Tea Board v ITC Limited, C.S. 250 of 2010, Calcutta High Court, judgment dated 4 February 2019.
8. Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, read with the current text of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
9. Tea Board v ITC Limited, APD No. 39 of 2019, Calcutta High Court, order dated 17 September 2019 and subsequent appellate proceedings.
10. Intellectual Property India, Frequently Asked Questions on Geographical Indications.