---

🌍 International Conventions and Agreements on Geographical Indications (GIs)

---

1. Introduction

The protection of Geographical Indications (GIs) is not limited to national boundaries — it has a global dimension.
Since products like Champagne, Darjeeling Tea, Scotch Whisky, or Basmati Rice are traded internationally, the protection of their origin and authenticity requires international cooperation.

Therefore, several international conventions and treaties have been established to recognize, register, and protect GIs across countries.
These agreements form the foundation of GI law, including the Indian GI Act, 1999.

---

2. Major International Conventions/Agreements

Let’s analyze each major one in detail 👇

---

🏛 (A) The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883

Background:

• The Paris Convention (1883) was the first international agreement dealing with Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), including indications of source and appellations of origin.
• It is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

---

Provisions Related to GI:

• Article 1(2) includes “indications of source” and “appellations of origin” as forms of industrial property.
• Article 10 & 10bis deal with unfair competition and false indications of source.

---

Essence:

Any misleading use of a geographical name that can deceive consumers about the true origin of goods is considered unfair competition.

---

Example:

If a company sells fake Champagne made in another country using the same name, it violates the Paris Convention.

---

Significance:

• This convention laid the foundation of international recognition of GI.
• However, it provided only limited protection, as it didn’t clearly define “Geographical Indication.”
• Later agreements like the Lisbon Agreement and TRIPS expanded its scope.

---

🍷 (B) The Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source, 1891

Background:

• Supplementary to the Paris Convention.
• Focused mainly on preventing false or misleading geographical indications on goods.

---

Main Provisions:

• It prohibits the use of any false or deceptive indication of the source of a product.
• Allows seizure of goods that bear false indications.
• Applies even if the true origin is mentioned elsewhere on the product.

---

Essence:

The agreement aimed to repress false indications of origin, protecting honest trade practices.

---

Limitation:

• It only dealt with false indications, not with the protection of genuine GIs.
• Hence, it was a preventive agreement, not a protective one.

---

🏞 (C) The Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin, 1958

Background:

• Adopted under WIPO in 1958.
• First international treaty that provided a clear definition and registration system for Appellations of Origin (AOs).

---

Definition (Article 2):

“Appellation of Origin” means the geographical name of a country, region, or locality that serves to designate a product originating there, the quality or characteristics of which are due exclusively or essentially to the geographical environment, including natural and human factors.

---

Key Features:

1. International Registration System — Administered by WIPO.
2. Once registered, it is protected automatically in all member countries.
3. Prohibits imitation, misuse, or translation of the name.
4. No time limit for protection (as long as conditions remain valid).

---

Example:

“Cognac” and “Roquefort” are registered appellations under the Lisbon Agreement.

---

Importance:

• It introduced the strongest protection for GIs internationally.
• However, very few countries (about 30+) are members, limiting its reach.
• India is not a member, but its GI Act 1999 follows similar principles.

---

🌐 (D) TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), 1995

Background:

• Administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO).
• It is the most comprehensive and influential international agreement on GIs.
• All WTO members (including India) are bound by its provisions.

---

Relevant Articles:

• Articles 22–24 deal specifically with Geographical Indications.

---

Main Provisions:

Article 22: General Protection

• Defines GI as:

  “An indication which identifies a good as originating in a member territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.”

• Member countries must prevent:
  • Misleading the public about the origin of goods.
  • Any act of unfair competition using GIs.

---

Article 23: Additional Protection for Wines and Spirits

• Provides stronger protection to wines and spirits (like “Champagne” or “Scotch Whisky”).
• Even if the true origin is mentioned, such names cannot be used for non-originating goods.

---

Article 24: Exceptions and Negotiations

• Allows certain exceptions, e.g.:
  • Generic terms (like “Cheddar cheese”) not protected.
  • Prior trademarks may continue to exist.
• Encourages members to negotiate further agreements for better protection.

---

Importance:

• TRIPS made GI protection a mandatory obligation for all WTO members.
• It became the basis for India’s GI Act, 1999.
• Encouraged developing countries to register and export their regional goods globally.

---

🇮🇳 (E) The Indian Response — GI of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999

Background:

• Enacted by India to comply with the TRIPS Agreement.
• Came into force in 2003.
• Protects Indian products like Darjeeling Tea, Banarasi Saree, Kanchipuram Silk, Mysore Sandalwood, etc.

---

Key Features:

1. Defines GI under Section 2(1)(e).
2. Provides registration, exclusive rights, and legal remedies.
3. Duration: 10 years, renewable indefinitely.
4. Protects both agricultural and handicraft products.
5. Prevents unauthorized use or imitation.

---

3. Comparative Summary Table

Agreement/Convention	Year	Administered by	Main Focus	India’s Position
Paris Convention	1883	WIPO	Protection against false indications (unfair competition)	Member
Madrid Agreement	1891	WIPO	Repression of false or deceptive indications	Member (via Paris)
Lisbon Agreement	1958	WIPO	Protection of appellations of origin	Not a Member
TRIPS Agreement	1995	WTO	Global standard protection for GIs	Member
Indian GI Act	1999	National (DPIIT)	Domestic law complying with TRIPS	Enforced 2003

---

4. Importance of International Protection

1. Prevents Misuse of regional names in other countries.
2. Promotes fair trade and authenticity.
3. Encourages traditional communities to maintain product standards.
4. Strengthens export potential and brand value of unique regional goods.
5. Supports cultural and economic sustainability.

---

5. Conclusion

International conventions on Geographical Indications evolved from basic protection against false origin (Paris & Madrid) to comprehensive global recognition (TRIPS).
The TRIPS Agreement (1995) remains the cornerstone of modern GI law, ensuring that producers get fair recognition and consumers receive genuine products.

India’s GI Act, 1999, inspired by TRIPS and earlier conventions, represents a step forward in protecting traditional, cultural, and regional heritage in the global marketplace.

---

⚖️ Detailed Case Law Analysis on International Protection of Geographical Indications

---

1. Scotch Whisky Association v. Golden Bottling Ltd. (2006, Delhi High Court, India)

(Linked with TRIPS & Paris Convention)

Facts:

• The Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) is based in Scotland and represents producers of genuine Scotch Whisky, which enjoys protection as a Geographical Indication under TRIPS and the UK law.
• Golden Bottling Ltd., an Indian company, marketed Indian whisky using the names “Red Scot,” “Scot,” and “Scotch.”
• SWA sued the company for misleading consumers and infringing the GI “Scotch Whisky.”

---

Issues:

1. Whether the use of “Scot” or “Scotch” by an Indian company amounts to misuse of a foreign GI.
2. Whether foreign GIs are protected in India under international law (TRIPS & Paris Convention).

---

Judgment:

• The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of SWA.
• The court held that:
  • “Scotch Whisky” is a recognized Geographical Indication denoting whisky produced in Scotland.
  • Using similar names like “Scot” or “Scotch” for Indian whisky was deceptive and misleading.
  • TRIPS (Articles 22–24) obligates India to prevent unfair competition and misleading GI use, even for foreign GIs.
  • The Indian company was restrained from using those words.

---

Legal Principle (Ratio Decidendi):

Protection of GIs under TRIPS and Paris Convention extends to foreign products, and their reputation cannot be diluted by false representation in another country.

---

Significance:

• This case confirmed that India respects TRIPS obligations.
• It reinforced international cooperation in protecting GIs.
• It also protected consumer trust and authentic trade practices in the global market.

---

2. Tea Board of India v. ITC Limited (2011, Calcutta High Court, India)

(Connected to TRIPS & Indian GI Act, 1999)

Facts:

• The Tea Board of India owns the GI registration for “Darjeeling Tea” under the GI Act, 1999, which aligns with TRIPS Article 22.
• ITC Ltd. used the name “Darjeeling Lounge” for a section in its luxury hotel in Kolkata.
• The Tea Board claimed this use was infringement of the GI “Darjeeling Tea.”

---

Issues:

1. Does using “Darjeeling” for a lounge violate GI rights?
2. Does GI protection under TRIPS apply to services, or only to goods?

---

Judgment:

• The court ruled in favor of ITC.
• It held that:
  • GI protection is limited to goods, not services.
  • The word “Darjeeling” was used decoratively and not to sell tea.
  • Thus, there was no likelihood of confusion or deception.

---

Legal Principle:

Geographical Indications protect the authenticity of goods that originate from a place, not business names or services unrelated to that product.

---

Significance:

• Clarified the scope of GI protection under TRIPS and the Indian GI Act.
• Drew a line between trademarks and GIs.
• Reinforced that GIs protect collective producers, not branding for unrelated services.

---

3. France’s Champagne Case (Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v. Wine Traders, 1960s–onwards)

(Based on Lisbon Agreement & TRIPS)

Facts:

• “Champagne” refers to sparkling wine made in the Champagne region of France under strict production standards.
• Producers outside France began labeling their sparkling wine as “Champagne” to gain market advantage.
• The French Champagne Committee sued in several countries to protect the Appellation of Origin “Champagne.”

---

Issues:

1. Whether “Champagne” is a generic name or a protected appellation of origin?
2. Can non-French producers use the term “Champagne” for marketing?

---

Judgment:

• Courts in Europe and other TRIPS countries held:
  • “Champagne” is a protected appellation of origin under Lisbon Agreement (1958) and TRIPS Article 23.
  • Only sparkling wine produced in the Champagne region of France, following defined methods, can use that name.
  • Other producers must use alternatives like “Sparkling Wine.”

---

Legal Principle:

A geographical name with specific reputation and qualities linked to a region cannot be used by producers outside that area, even with disclaimers like “style” or “type.”

---

Significance:

• This case set the global benchmark for Appellation of Origin protection.
• Inspired countries like India to adopt similar protection in their GI Acts.
• Strengthened consumer confidence and regional authenticity worldwide.

---

4. Basmati Rice Case (India–USA Patent Dispute, 2000)

(Linked with TRIPS and Paris Convention principles)

Facts:

• RiceTec Inc., a US company, filed a patent for “Basmati-type rice lines and grains” under the name “Texmati.”
• India objected, stating that “Basmati” is a traditional GI representing rice grown in the Indo-Gangetic plains (India & Pakistan).
• India argued that RiceTec’s claim violated TRIPS Article 22 and Paris Convention Article 10bis (unfair competition).

---

Issues:

1. Can a US company patent a rice variety using the traditional name “Basmati”?
2. Does “Basmati” qualify as a Geographical Indication linked to India?

---

Decision:

• After diplomatic and legal protests, the US Patent Office cancelled several claims of RiceTec’s patent.
• It recognized that “Basmati” is associated with specific geographical regions and traditional cultivation methods.

---

Legal Principle:

Traditional names with regional identity and cultural reputation deserve protection under international GI laws to prevent bio-piracy and unfair trade practices.

---

Significance:

• This case raised global awareness about the importance of GI protection for developing countries.
• It led to India enacting the GI Act, 1999.
• It became a symbolic victory for protection of indigenous products.

---

5. Roquefort Cheese Case (France, EU Courts)

(Linked with Lisbon Agreement)

Facts:

• “Roquefort” is a cheese made from sheep’s milk aged in the Roquefort caves of France.
• Other producers started using the same name for similar cheeses.
• The French association sought protection under the Lisbon Agreement.

---

Judgment:

• Courts recognized “Roquefort” as an Appellation of Origin.
• Only cheese matured in the Roquefort caves could use that name.
• The ruling reinforced that natural and human factors (soil, climate, and traditional methods) are crucial in defining an appellation.

---

Legal Principle:

Appellations of origin must reflect exclusive connection between product quality and geographical environment.

---

Significance:

• Strengthened the Lisbon model of protection.
• Provided legal clarity on what constitutes “essential link” between place and product.

---

Summary Table

Case Name	Linked Agreement	Main Issue	Court / Year	Key Holding
Scotch Whisky Assn. v. Golden Bottling Ltd.	TRIPS, Paris	Use of “Scot/Scotch” by Indian company	Delhi HC, 2006	Foreign GIs protected; deceptive use banned
Tea Board v. ITC Ltd.	TRIPS, Indian GI Act	“Darjeeling Lounge” use	Cal HC, 2011	GI protects goods, not services
Champagne Case	Lisbon & TRIPS	Non-French use of “Champagne”	France & EU	Only wine from Champagne region can use the name
Basmati Rice (India–US)	TRIPS & Paris	US patent misuse of “Basmati”	USPTO, 2000	Cancelled patent; recognized Basmati as GI
Roquefort Cheese	Lisbon Agreement	Definition of appellation	France/EU	Only cheese from Roquefort caves can use name

---

6. Conclusion

From Champagne and Roquefort in Europe to Darjeeling Tea and Basmati Rice in India, courts worldwide have recognized that Geographical Indications are not mere names — they represent culture, quality, and collective heritage.

International conventions like Paris (1883), Lisbon (1958), and TRIPS (1995) gave GIs a legal identity, and global case law strengthened their practical enforcement.

Thus, judicial interpretation and global cooperation have made GIs a powerful tool for preserving economic justice and cultural authenticity in international trade.

---