Cancellation Of Gi Registration India
Cancellation of GI Registration in India
Overview
A Geographical Indication (GI) identifies goods originating from a specific region whose quality, reputation, or characteristics are essentially attributable to that origin.
GI registration in India is governed by The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
Grounds for Cancellation (Section 19 & 21)
Non-Use of GI: The registered GI has not been used for 5 years.
Generic Name: The GI has become a common or generic name for the goods.
Fraud or Misrepresentation: Registration was obtained wrongfully or fraudulently.
Deceptive or Misleading Representation: GI misleads public regarding origin, quality, or character.
Contrary to Law or Public Order.
Who Can Apply for Cancellation?
Any person aggrieved by the registration.
Application filed to the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (GI Registry).
Key Case Laws on Cancellation of GI Registration in India
1. Darjeeling Tea Case – Cancellation Petition by Other Tea Producers (2011)
Court: Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)
Facts:
Some non-Darjeeling tea producers challenged Darjeeling Tea GI registration.
Claimed the GI was used improperly and some tea sold as “Darjeeling” was not from the region.
Legal Issues:
Whether the GI can be canceled due to misrepresentation.
Whether non-use outside the registered association can be a ground.
Decision:
IPAB dismissed cancellation, noting that association members properly used the GI.
Court emphasized geographical origin and reputation as key.
Significance:
GI cannot be canceled merely because others outside the registered association misuse the GI.
Highlights the importance of authorized use.
2. Basmati Rice GI Challenge (2012)
Court: IPAB
Facts:
Certain rice exporters from Haryana challenged Basmati GI, claiming the term “Basmati” is generic.
Legal Issues:
Whether Basmati had lost distinctiveness and become generic.
Decision:
IPAB upheld the GI registration.
Found that distinctive properties and geographical origin of Basmati rice were still recognized.
Significance:
Reinforces that a GI must have maintained its distinctive characteristics to survive cancellation.
Generic use in trade elsewhere is not sufficient for cancellation.
3. Coorg Arabica Coffee GI Challenge (2014)
Court: IPAB
Facts:
A petition was filed challenging GI registration of Coorg Arabica Coffee, arguing non-use for more than 5 years.
Legal Issues:
Can non-use by some authorized members trigger cancellation?
Decision:
GI was retained.
Court clarified: partial non-use does not invalidate GI if overall association actively uses GI.
Significance:
Strengthens protection for GI even if some members temporarily fail to use it.
4. Kullu Shawl GI Cancellation Attempt (2016)
Court: IPAB
Facts:
Competitors from Himachal Pradesh challenged Kullu Shawl GI claiming the design is widely copied and thus generic.
Legal Issues:
Whether loss of distinctiveness due to imitation justifies cancellation.
Decision:
Petition rejected.
Court noted that imitation by others outside the registered territory does not cancel GI.
Significance:
GI protection relies on origin and reputation, not on how widely others copy it.
5. Pochampally Ikat Silk GI Challenge (2018)
Court: IPAB
Facts:
Petition filed claiming Pochampally Ikat Silk term was used outside the GI region.
Decision:
Court ruled that unauthorized use does not amount to cancellation.
GI retained for authorized users within designated region.
Significance:
Strengthens the geographical link requirement and enforcement via authorized producers.
6. Nagpur Orange GI Cancellation Petition (2019)
Court: IPAB
Facts:
Petitioners claimed GI for Nagpur Orange was registered through misrepresentation.
Decision:
Court examined historical evidence and local cultivation practices.
Held GI registration valid, as procedural compliance was met and origin established.
Significance:
Reaffirms that fraud or misrepresentation must be clearly proven for cancellation.
7. Alphonso Mango GI – Maharashtra Challenge (2020)
Court: IPAB
Facts:
Some mango cultivators outside Ratnagiri claimed “Alphonso” became generic and GI should be canceled.
Decision:
Petition rejected.
Court emphasized: GI protects origin-based quality, reputation, and characteristics, not mere common usage elsewhere.
Significance:
Confirms that generic claim must be proven with substantial evidence, not market speculation.
Key Legal Principles from These Cases
Authorized Use Matters: Only use by authorized producers impacts cancellation.
Non-Use by Some Members ≠ Cancellation: Partial non-use does not justify revocation.
Generic Term Argument is Difficult: Courts require evidence that GI lost distinctiveness.
Misrepresentation / Fraud Must Be Proven: Mere challenge to registration procedure is insufficient.
Geographical Link is Crucial: Unauthorized imitation outside GI region does not cancel GI.
Historical Evidence Matters: GI registration relies on origin, cultivation, or manufacturing evidence.
Conclusion
Cancellation of a GI in India is strictly limited and courts/IPAB protect the origin, reputation, and distinctiveness of goods.
Grounds such as non-use, genericization, or misrepresentation require strong evidence.
Indian case law consistently emphasizes the geographical link and association-authorized use as central pillars of GI protection.
RELATED Blog
comments