This article is written by Gaurav Jain, University of Rajasthan, Law College.
This article examines the legal framework under which GIs and traditional knowledge are protected in India, selects key national and international case law and identifies gaps in the law, which continue to undermine India’s cultural heritage.
India possesses a rich legacy of traditional knowledge that has historically been vulnerable to exploitation and commercial misappropriation, commonly referred to as biopiracy. The appropriation of biological resources and the associated traditional knowledge by commercial entities (often from the Global North) occurs without providing the originating communities with their consent or receiving any benefit from doing so.
Geographical indications have emerged as one of the most effective legal tools to help protect traditional knowledge, heritage and the associated geographical location as the reason for the quality of goods produced from these locations. A geographical indication (GI) is a sign used on products that originate from a specific geographical region and possess qualities, reputation, or characteristics attributable to that origin. In India, the GI Act provides a formal mechanism to enforce the rights of GIs.
However, the only GI protection through the GI Act is still not enough to protect traditional knowledge from those that would misuse the traditional knowledge (primarily through the patent system).
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
India adopts a sui generis system of GI protection through the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, read with the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002.
At the international level, GIs are governed by Articles 22–24 of the TRIPS Agreement, the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin (1958), and the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement (2015). India is a signatory to TRIPS but has not acceded to the Lisbon Agreement, limiting the automatic international recognition of its GI registrations.
Traditional knowledge protection in India operates through a combination of defensive and positive mechanisms. Defensively, the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) — established by the Government of India in 2001 — has digitised over 0.29 million formulations from ancient texts, including Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, and Yoga in five languages, making this prior art accessible to patent offices worldwide to prevent the grant of patents on traditional formulations. Positively, the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 requires prior approval of the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) before any biological resource or associated TK is accessed for research or commercial use.
LANDMARK CASE LAWS
1. The Darjeeling Tea Case — Tea Board of India v. ITC Ltd. (Cal. HC, 2010 & Onwards)
In the ITC litigation, the Tea Board objected to ITC’s use of the name ‘Darjeeling Lounge’ for its hotel lounge service, arguing it diluted the GI. The Calcutta High Court examined whether GI protection extends to services and ultimately delivered a nuanced ruling acknowledging that while the GI Act primarily protects goods, broader passing off principles could prevent deceptive misuse of a GI-associated name in commercial contexts. This case established that GI enforcement is not limited strictly to identical goods.
2. The Basmati Rice Dispute — India–Pakistan vs. RiceTec Inc. (USPTO, 1997–2001)
One of the most celebrated biopiracy cases, RiceTec Inc. (a U.S. company) obtained U.S. Patent No. 5,663,484 in 1997, claiming novel strains of ‘Basmati’ rice and the name itself. India mounted a sustained challenge presenting extensive prior art evidence including ancient agricultural records and the TKDL’s precursor documentation. In 2001, the USPTO cancelled most of the disputed claims. The case galvanized global attention to the vulnerability of traditional agricultural knowledge and directly accelerated India’s development of the TKDL as a defensive tool against patent misappropriation.
3. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) v. USPTO (1997) (The Turmeric Patent Case)
In 1995, the USPTO granted a patent to two researchers of Indian origin at the University Of Mississippi Medical Center for the ‘use of turmeric in wound healing.’ The CSIR filed a re-examination request, submitting ancient Sanskrit texts and documented uses of turmeric (haldi) in Indian traditional medicine stretching back millennia. The USPTO revoked the patent in 1997 — a landmark victory demonstrating that documented traditional knowledge can constitute prior art sufficient to invalidate patents in foreign jurisdictions. This case became the foundational justification for the creation of the TKDL.
4. Neem Patent Challenge — European Patent Office (EPO), 2000
The W.R. Grace Company and the U.S. Department of Agriculture obtained a European patent for a method of controlling fungi using neem (Azadirachta indica) seed extract — knowledge used in India for centuries. A coalition of NGOs, led by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology (India), challenged the patent before the EPO. In 2000, the EPO revoked the patent on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step, accepting evidence that the fungicidal properties of neem were widely known in Indian traditional practice.
5. Champagne & Scotch whisky — International GI Enforcement Precedents
The protection of ‘Champagne’ (France) and ‘Scotch Whisky’ (Scotland) as GIs provides instructive comparative precedents. Both have been enforced internationally with great rigor, preventing producers outside their respective regions from using these designations. Indian GI holders — particularly for Darjeeling Tea, Kanchipuram Silk, and Alphonso Mango — have invoked these precedents to argue for stronger bilateral enforcement mechanisms, particularly in markets such as the EU, the U.S., and the Gulf, where Indian GI registrations are not automatically recognized.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LIMITATIONS OF GI PROTECTION
While GIs protect products associated with geographical origin, they do not comprehensively protect the underlying traditional knowledge itself. Many forms of TK, including medicinal practices, agricultural methods, and oral cultural traditions, may fall outside the scope of GI registration. Further, GI protection remains territorially limited and dependent upon registration and enforcement mechanisms, making it inadequate as a standalone framework against global biopiracy.
CONCLUSION
India’s legal architecture for GI and traditional knowledge protection has matured significantly since the late 1990s. The GI Act, the TKDL, and the Biological Diversity Act collectively form a robust — though imperfect — shield against exploitation. The victories in the turmeric, neem, and Basmati cases demonstrate that determined, evidence-based advocacy before foreign patent office’s can and does succeed.
Nevertheless, critical gaps persist. First, India has not acceded to the Lisbon Agreement, which means Indian GIs do not enjoy automatic multilateral recognition — a significant commercial disadvantage. Second, there is no standalone positive protection statute for traditional knowledge; communities cannot proactively assert ownership over their TK the way patent holders assert invention rights. Third, benefit-sharing under the Biological Diversity Act remains poorly implemented in practice, with most local communities unaware of their entitlements.
The way forward requires a three-pronged approach: legislative reform to enact a dedicated Traditional Knowledge Protection Act with community rights provisions; diplomatic engagement to secure broader international recognition of Indian GIs; and awareness programmes to empower indigenous and local communities to register and enforce their rights. India’s traditional knowledge is not merely heritage — it is a living economic and cultural asset, and the law must rise to the task of protecting it with the same vigor that industrial nations protect their patents and trademarks.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION
1. What is the difference between a Geographical Indication and a trademark?
A trademark identifies goods or services as originating from a specific commercial entity and can be owned by an individual or company. A GI, by contrast, identifies goods as originating from a specific geographic region and is a collective right — any producer within that region meeting the defined standards may use it. GIs cannot be assigned, licensed, or transferred to a party outside the region, unlike trademarks.
2. How many products have received GI registration in India?
As of 2026, India has registered over 600 GI tags covering handicrafts, agricultural products, foodstuffs, and manufactured goods. Notable examples include Darjeeling Tea, Kanchipuram Silk, Alphonso Mango (Ratnagiri), Mysore Sandal Soap, Pochampally Ikat, and Kolhapuri Chappal. Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu are among the leading states by number of GI registrations.
3. What is biopiracy and how does the TKDL help prevent it?
Biopiracy refers to the unauthorised commercialisation of biological resources or associated traditional knowledge — typically by corporations from developed countries — without consent or benefit-sharing with the originating communities. The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) documents over hundreds of thousands of traditional formulations in formats accessible to patent examiners at the USPTO, EPO, and other offices. When a patent application is filed on a traditional formulation, examiners can use the TKDL as prior art to reject or revoke the application.
4. Can a community or tribe directly register a GI or protect its traditional knowledge?
Under the GI Act, 1999, a ‘producers’ association’ or any organization representing the interests of producers in the geographical region may apply for GI registration. Tribal communities and village cooperatives have successfully registered GIs (e.g., Kondapalli Toys, Lambani Embroidery). For broader traditional knowledge, community rights are recognised under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, which allows local communities to register TK in People’s Biodiversity Registers (PBRs) — though enforcement remains limited.
5. Is a GI registered in India valid in other countries?
Not automatically. A GI registered under the Indian GI Act, 1999 is protected only within India. For international protection, the GI holder must seek registration in each target country under that country’s domestic law, or benefit from bilateral trade agreement provisions (such as the EU-India FTA, currently under negotiation). India is not a party to the Lisbon Agreement, which would otherwise provide multilateral GI protection among member states. This remains a significant policy gap.
