Skip to content

CS Professional · Intellectual Property Rights - Law and Practice · Geographical Indications

Kaveri Silks, a Chennai trader and not an authorised user, sells ordinary power-loom sarees in boxes printed 'Genuine Kanchipuram Silk', a registered geographical indication, although the sarees were woven in another State. Buyers are misled about where the sarees come from. Under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, what is the legal position?

This is infringement. A person who is not an authorised user and uses a registered geographical indication in the presentation of goods so as to mislead people about their true origin infringes it under section 22(1)(a). Notification for additional protection and prior adjudication of penalty are not conditions for this.

  1. AIt is infringement, because a non-authorised user uses the indication in presentation of goods suggesting a false place of origin in a misleading wayCorrect
  2. BIt is not infringement, because only authorised users can ever be sued
  3. CIt is not infringement unless the Central Government has notified the goods for additional protection
  4. DIt is infringement only if the Registrar has first imposed a penalty through an adjudicating officer

Explanation

Section 22(1)(a) says a registered GI is infringed by a non-authorised user who uses it in the designation or presentation of goods suggesting origin in another area, in a way that misleads people. Kaveri Silks fits this. Notification for additional protection is needed only for the sub-section (3) protection, so the third option is wrong.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Geographical Indications shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Geographical IndicationsFree diagnostic mock

More Geographical Indications questions