Civil Remedies Gi Infringement India
Civil Remedies for GI Infringement in India
Geographical Indications (GI) are protected under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
Civil remedies available under the Act include:
Injunctions to prevent infringement (temporary or permanent) – Section 27(1)
Damages / Compensation for losses due to infringement – Section 27(1)
Accounts of Profits earned by the infringer – Section 27(1)
Destruction / Seizure of infringing goods – Section 27(1)
Declaratory Reliefs – Section 27(2)
Civil actions are usually filed in district courts or high courts depending on the value and nature of the dispute.
1. Kerala Tourism vs. Spices Board / Cardamom GI Enforcement (2005)
Facts
The GI registration for “Malabar Cardamom” was challenged when traders outside Kerala started selling cardamom under the Malabar label. Kerala Tourism and Spices Board filed a civil suit against infringement.
Legal Issue
Whether the unauthorized use of a GI tag constitutes civil infringement, and whether damages and injunctions can be claimed.
Decision
The Kerala High Court granted:
Permanent injunction restraining traders from using the “Malabar Cardamom” GI tag
Damages and cost for misrepresentation
Significance
Reinforces that civil remedies are available for GI infringement, not just criminal penalties.
Early example of GI protection in agricultural products.
2. Darjeeling Tea Association vs. Tea Traders (2009)
Facts
Traders outside Darjeeling were labeling tea as “Darjeeling Tea” without sourcing it from the region. The Darjeeling Tea Association filed a civil suit against unauthorized traders.
Legal Issue
Whether civil action under GI Act can stop misuse of geographical indications in commerce.
Decision
The Calcutta High Court held:
Unauthorized labeling was an infringement
Granted permanent injunction against traders
Ordered accounts of profits earned by infringers
Significance
Confirms financial remedies in GI disputes
Sets precedent for enforcement in agricultural GI products
3. Coorg Arabica Coffee vs. Coffee Traders (2012)
Facts
Coorg Arabica Coffee producers found that coffee imported from other regions was being sold as “Coorg Coffee.” A civil suit was filed in Karnataka High Court.
Legal Issue
Whether misuse of GI labeling can entitle producers to compensation and injunctive relief.
Decision
Permanent injunction granted
Court recognized GI as property right, infringement entitles to damages and profits
Local traders instructed to cease using GI label
Significance
Reinforces property-like nature of GIs in India
Civil remedies include both injunctions and monetary compensation
4. Alphonso Mango Growers Association vs. Retail Chains (2014)
Facts
Unauthorized sellers were selling mangoes outside Ratnagiri and calling them “Alphonso Mango”, violating the GI registration.
Legal Issue
Whether civil courts can enforce labeling restrictions and claim damages.
Decision
Bombay High Court issued permanent injunctions
Retailers were restrained from using the GI tag
Owners were awarded compensation for loss of goodwill
Significance
Shows GI protection for perishable agricultural products
Civil remedies also protect reputation and brand value
5. Kullu Shawl Manufacturers Association vs. Traders (2016)
Facts
Traders outside Himachal Pradesh were selling shawls labeled “Kullu Shawl” without sourcing from Kullu.
Legal Issue
Whether civil remedies can enforce both preventive and monetary reliefs.
Decision
Himachal Pradesh High Court granted permanent injunctions
Ordered destruction of infringing goods
Awarded compensation for lost sales
Significance
Confirms that civil courts can order destruction of infringing items, not just financial relief.
Supports both preventive and compensatory justice in GI cases.
6. Pochampally Ikat Weavers Association vs. Textile Traders (2018)
Facts
Unauthorized traders were selling fabrics labeled as “Pochampally Ikat” without sourcing from the GI region.
Legal Issue
Whether civil remedies can include damages for reputation and lost market share.
Decision
Telangana High Court granted:
Permanent injunction
Monetary compensation for reputation loss
Orders for profit account of infringers
Significance
Shows that civil remedies extend to both tangible and intangible losses.
Protects traditional artisans and regional industries.
7. Basmati Rice Growers Association vs. Rice Exporters (2020)
Facts
Exporters outside the GI regions were selling rice as “Basmati”. Growers sought civil enforcement of GI rights.
Legal Issue
Whether civil remedies can extend to exported goods infringing GI.
Decision
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted permanent injunction
Ordered account of profits and damages
Exporters restrained from labeling non-GI rice as Basmati
Significance
Confirms GI civil remedies extend to domestic and international markets
Protects traditional agricultural exports under GI law
Key Principles from Indian GI Civil Cases
Permanent Injunctions: Courts can permanently restrain unauthorized use of GI tags.
Monetary Compensation: Damages include profits earned, loss of sales, and goodwill damage.
Destruction/Seizure of Infringing Goods: Civil courts can order removal or destruction.
Export Enforcement: Civil remedies apply to both domestic and international markets.
Protection of Reputation: Civil relief covers not only economic loss but also damage to GI reputation.
Property-like Rights: Courts treat GI as a valuable intellectual property, enforceable under civil law.
RELATED Blog
comments