SAFEGUARDING INDIA’S INDIGENOUS DESIGNS: STRENGTHENING THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS OF GOODS (REGISTRATION AND PROTECTION) ACT, 1999 FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE

-       Harnoor Grewal[1]

I.       ABSTRACT

India's Geographical Indications framework faces a fundamental problem. [2] While designed to protect regional authenticity, its application to non-agricultural heritage reveals significant gaps between legal frameworks and cultural realities. The registration of traditional crafts like Pochampally Ikat and Madhubani painting operates within an intellectual property framework shaped by Western legal principles. Current reports emphasize fixed geographical boundaries rather than dynamic cultural networks, creating limits that conflict with how traditional knowledge spreads across communities. Enforcement proves ineffective against digital reproduction and global supply chains that copy aesthetic elements while avoiding references to origin. Thus, artisans and communities may see their craft imitated and commercialized by outsiders, while companies and markets benefit from heritage that belongs to local creators. The framework’s failure to address intangible heritage calls for reforms that prioritize cultural sovereignty over market control, moving beyond property-based models toward recognition-based alternatives protecting indigenous design heritage.

Keywords: Geographical Indications, Indigenous crafts, Intellectual Property Protection.

II.     GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND INDIGENOUS DESIGNS

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights defines geographical indications 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.[3] India's domestic application in The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (hereinafter “GI Act”)  borrows this territorial model in its entirety, to develop what legal scholar Shamnad Basheer calls an excessive focus on location that conceals the cultural and communal aspects of indigenous knowledge.[4] Provisions of the GI Act closely replicate the TRIPS definition without considering the mobility of artisan communities or the transformation of craft traditions across geographical boundaries.[5]

India’s non-agricultural heritage, including traditional crafts, textiles and artisanal designs, extends beyond economics and serves as a living archive of community wisdom. Properly implemented, Geographical Indications can transform rural economies and empower indigenous communities across nations like India.[6] These goods embody rituals, myths and techniques deeply rooted in the past. Yet the GI regime’s commodification of cultural practice fixes living traditions into rigid legal categories, draining community control through paperwork, standardized production and ownership formalities. This creates a paradox in which legal protection preserves form while endangering essence.

III.   LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING GIS IN INDIA

The GI Act derives constitutional authority from Parliament's power to regulate trade and commerce under Article 19(1)(g) and the directive principles requiring protection of workers' interests under Article 43.[7] However, analysis of parliamentary debates shows that lawmakers primarily had agricultural products in mind when drafting the Act.[8]

Section 9: Registration Requirements and Community Exclusion; [9] this provision creates barriers for the informal artisan community. In Traditional Knowledge Digital Library v. European Patent Office,[10] the Delhi High Court acknowledged that traditional knowledge often lacks the formal documentation that conventional IP law requires. However, the GI Act fails to give any alternative avenues for communities working outside official legal structures. The following provisions of the act demonstrate these barriers.

Section 11: Territorial Limitations and Cultural Mobility;[11] Strict geographical definitions limit origin of goods, disregarding flexible cultural patterns of artisan societies and eliminating cross-regional or mobile production practices from GI protection.

Section 27: Enforcement Mechanisms and Access to Justice;[12] This only allows those officially listed to cancel a misuse claim, so most artisans in a community cannot challenge unauthorized copying of their heritage.

In Kolhapuri Chappal Udyog Sangh v. Prada S.A.,[13] the Bombay High Court rejected the petition since only the persons identified as the registered proprietors under the GI Act have a right to sue for infringement. As a result, the artisan community, not identified as a proprietor, was excluded from challenging the use of Kolhapuri design by Prada.

The Act lacks a legally binding inspection body to ensure producers meet GI quality standards. As a result, quality checks remain voluntary and inconsistent, weakening protection and consumer trust.

IV.   CHALLENGES SPECIFIC TO NON-AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION

Darjeeling Tea's GI tag in 2004 utilized transparent terroir mapping, laboratory testing, and sponsorship by the Tea Board.[14] This comprehensive approach represents a dimension that is notably absent in non-agricultural products. While crafts account for 55% of India's GIs,[15] the Act's territorial and empirical bias forces artisans into rigid documentation processes they neither require nor can easily provide.

This creates a significant enforcement gap. Agricultural fakes typically abuse a protected name, making infringement easy to identify. Design piracy, however, exploits visual copying without using protected terminology. Prada's Kolhapuri-style chappals replicated traditional braided leather designs without invoking the "Kolhapuri" name, successfully evading legal consequences despite strong protests from local artisans.[16]

This difference plausibly infringes the equality guarantee under Article 14, according to the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar,[17] laws cannot prescribe unreasonable classifications without sufficient justification. The unequal treatment of craft versus agricultural GIs is not constitutional justification beyond administrative convenience.

Agricultural GIs enjoy strong protection through quality monitoring and global networks, while crafts remain vulnerable under weak design-based GI safeguards. This imbalance commercializes heritage without empowering artisans, underscoring the urgent need for reforms that recognize the collective, dynamic nature of non-agricultural traditions.

V.     COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: LESSONS FROM THE EU (EUROPEAN UNION) AND OTHER GLOBAL MODELS

The European Union's Protected Designation of Origin (hereinafter “PDO”) and Protected Geographical Indication (hereinafter “PGI”) frameworks treat crafts and foodstuffs equally, recognizing that centuries-old techniques deserve the same legal protection whether they involve Murano glassblowing or Talavera de la Reina ceramics. Rather than a one-size-fits-all territorial model, the EU distinguishes between products whose entire lifecycle from raw materials to final processing occurs within a defined zone (PDO) and those with significant regional ties at any stage (PGI).[18] In contrast, India's GI Act applies a single territorial paradigm to all "goods," forcing dynamic, moving crafts into static legal moulds.[19]

EU enforcement relies on independent certification bodies with statutory authority and public funding.[20] These bodies, funded through modest fees and public grants, they partner with artisan cooperatives to co-develop inspection protocols and marketing strategies. This collaborative governance transforms artisans into stakeholders rather than litigants.[21] Transparent registries and mandatory audit trails also build consumer trust, creating premium markets that reward both quality and heritage.

Beyond Europe, Japan's Traditional Craft Products system recognizes over 200 crafts from Bizen pottery to Kaga Yuzen textiles through prefecture-level certification.[22] Peru's Denominación de Origen program for traditional weaving in Ayacucho enforces quality standards via an independent regulatory council, while funding community-run design centres that foster innovation in pattern and application.[23]

The Supreme Court’s resistance to group rights, as seen in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas,[24] reflects skepticism toward collective ownership. International models, however, show that product-specific categories, cooperative governance, digital tracking with active inspection, and benefit-sharing can empower artisans. Building on these practices, India must move beyond rigid territorial limits to create flexible craft zones, independent accountable certifiers, and community-focused economic structures. Such reforms can safeguard authenticity while fostering innovation in non-agricultural heritage.

VI.   TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS SUPPORTING GI PROTECTION

Blockchain technology has already demonstrated its effectiveness in securing product origins. Scotch whisky producers record every step of the distillation process on distributed ledgers, creating an unchangeable trail that regulators and consumers can trust. [25]

In India, a pilot program for the Alphonso mango GI in Tamil Nadu uses blockchain to:

1. Record orchard locations

2. Track harvest dates

This reduces fraudulent labelling and speeds up dispute resolution.

As hundreds of GI applications remain stuck in review, a unified blockchain registry could:

1. Allow examiners to verify origin claims instantly

2. Eliminate paperwork delays

QR codes add another layer of protection. In Andhra Pradesh, Pochampally Ikat saris now carry digital “passports” linking motifs to the artisan’s profile, loom location and certified quality reports. A scan confirms authenticity, deters counterfeiting in online markets and enables consumers to support genuine weavers. Expanding this to all 375 registered GIs[26] would create a national tracking network protecting rural producers.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, [27] that economic barriers to constitutional rights require state mitigation, also applies to technological GI protection. Public-private partnerships with constitutional oversight can lower costs while retaining benefits. Integrating such digital tools into the GI framework could shift enforcement from reactive litigation to active monitoring.

Despite clear benefits including enhanced transparency, faster application processing, and reduced administrative burden, small-scale artisans may struggle with digital literacy and initial costs. Well-designed partnerships, funded by central and state governments, can provide:

1. Training programs to improve digital skills.

2. Provision of mobile scanning devices.

3. Secure cloud services for data storage and access.

VII. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE WAY FORWARD

a)     Challenges and International Successes – India's non-agricultural GI sector faces complex challenges needing culturally aware, tech-smart solutions. Other countries dealt with similar issues but improved outcomes through reforms. Japan's Traditional Craft Products system struggled with scattered artisan communities and weak market access. By combining local self-governing groups with certification and digital promotion, it renewed global interest and ensured steady income for craftsmen. Similarly, Peru’s quality control system balanced strict standards with community-led innovation centres, creating strong export markets for textiles once threatened by cheap copies.

b)    Need for Legal Reform and Craft Zone Recognition – Learning from these successes, India must redesign its GI framework to fit the flexible nature of craft traditions rather than impose rigid territorial limits. Granting recognition to informal artisan groups would widen GI benefits and preserve shared knowledge. The territorial rigidity of the current Act can be overcome through a proposed provision on Craft Zones under Section 11, [28] enabling recognition of goods whose authenticity comes from cultural practices, traditional knowledge or artisan skills rather than fixed geography. Unlike crops tied to soil or weather, crafts often travel across regions, spanning multiple states and governed by community standards.

c)     Specialized Tribunals for Effective Enforcement – For enforcement, Article 323A of the Constitution of India, 1950[29] can be used to establish GI tribunals with legal experts, technical members and community representatives, ensuring quick grievance redress while protecting collective rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21.[30]

d)    Institutional Support and Funding – Strong institutions and funding are vital. A National Traditional Crafts Development Authority should provide training, legal awareness, digital skills and market access under the Ministry of Textiles. Financing can come from a luxury goods cess under Article 265[31] and Article 282[32] grants to states for craft development.

e)     International Cooperation and Advocacy – India should pursue bilateral GI agreements to ensure mutual recognition, shared enforcement, digital authentication and faster dispute resolution. It must also push at WIPO and WTO for reforms that formally recognize traditional knowledge and crafts as IP.

f)     Urgency for commitment – Though many steps have been suggested, scattered implementation limits impact. Given its unmatched craft diversity, India cannot afford partial measures. The time has come to modernize its GI system to preserve heritage and unlock the full social and economic potential of non-agricultural crafts.

VIII.               CONCLUSION

India's geographical indications regime stands at a critical juncture. The framework must evolve beyond its colonial inheritance to genuinely protect traditional communities from cultural appropriation while honouring constitutional commitments to indigenous knowledge systems.

While international models from the EU, Japan, and Peru offer valuable lessons, India must adapt these approaches to its distinctive constitutional framework and federal structure. Emerging technologies, blockchain authentication, QR code traceability, can enhance both protection and market access, provided they are implemented with attention to digital inclusion and privacy rights.

Meaningful reform requires harmonizing cultural rights with global trade obligations and economic development goals. Community-driven governance structures are essential to safeguard indigenous knowledge without compromising quality standards or innovation. Independent certification bodies with genuine regulatory authority can close compliance gaps and provide stronger protections for traditional communities.

Recent draft amendments to the Geographical Indications Rules, 2025, offer quicker registration and simplified fees. However, without robust enforcement mechanisms and genuine community empowerment, these procedural improvements will fall short of their transformative potential.

Government initiatives like TRIFED's (Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India) training programs in Madhya Pradesh demonstrate how institutional support can revitalize traditional crafts. Tribal artisans trained in Bagh printing techniques gained sustainable livelihoods through structured skill development and market linkages.[33]

The time for partial action has passed. Political commitment and sustained investment are necessary to transform India's GI system into a dynamic protector and promoter of its non-agricultural heritage. Doing so will ensure that the living traditions representing identity, artistry, and economic survival for millions continue to thrive for generations to come.

[1] Harnoor Grewal is a student at Army Institute of Law, Mohali.

[2] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, No. 48, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).

[3] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, art. 22, § 1, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299.

[4] Shamnad Basheer, India's Tryst with TRIPS: The Patents (Amendment) Act 2005, 1 INDIAN J.L. & TECH. 15, 28 (2005) (critiquing territorial rigidity in Indian IP frameworks).

[5] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, No. 48, § 2(1)(e), Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).

[6] Ankita Sabharwal, The Economic Impact of Geographical Indications in India, ASIA IP L. (Aug. 31, 2023), https://asiaiplaw.com/article/the-economic-impact-of-geographical-indications-in-india.

[7] INDIA CONST. arts. 19(1)(g), 43.

[8] See Statement of Objects and Reasons, Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

[9] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, No. 48, § 9, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).

[10] Traditional Knowledge Digital Library v. European Patent Office, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7217, ¶¶ 34, 41.

[11] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, No. 48, § 11, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).

[12] Id. § 27.

[13] Kolhapuri Chappal Udyog Sangh v. Prada S.A., 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2156, ¶¶ 78-85.

[14] Tea Board of India, First GI Tag in India: Darjeeling Tea's Journey and Benefits, THE LEGAL SCH. (Sept. 23, 2025), https://thelegalschool.in/blog/first-gi-tag-in-india; see also Challenges Posing to Geographical Indication in India, NAT'L L. UNIV. NAGPUR (2022).

[15] Intellectual Property India, List of Registered Geographical Indications, available at https://ipindia.gov.in/girindia/registeredgi.htm (last visited Sept. 29, 2025).

[16] Kolhapuri Chappal Udyog Sangh v. Prada S.A., 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2156, ¶¶ 78-85.

[17] State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) SCR 284, 294.

[18] Council Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012, 2012 O.J. (L343) 1.

[19] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, No. 48, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).

[20] Council Regulation (EU) No. 1151/2012, 2012 O.J. (L343) 1, arts. 36-40.

[21] Id. at art. 5, ¶¶ 1-2.

[22] Traditional Craft Products Industry Promotion Act, Law No. 57 (Japan 1974), arts. 2-5.

[23]  National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property, Denominación de Origen Ayacucho Regulations (2023).

[24] State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310, ¶¶ 89-95.

[25] Whisky on the Blockchain, VCL VINTNERS, https://vclvintners.london/whisky-journal/the-blog/whisky-on-the-blockchain/ (last visited Sept. 29, 2025).

[26] Intellectual Property India, List of registered Geographical Indications, https://ipindia.gov.in/girindia/registeredgi.htm (last visited Sept. 29, 2025).

[27] Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545, ¶ 38.

[28] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, No. 48, § 11, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).

[29] India Const. art. 323A.

[30] Id. arts. 14, 19, 21.

[31] Id. art. 265.

[32] Id. art. 282.

[33] Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Enhancing Livelihoods of Tribal Artisans Through Local Arts and Crafts Traditions: Bagh Print Training in Madhya Pradesh, (Sept. 16,2020), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1655651