Skip to content

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

Two authorised users, Hari Weavers and Lata Cooperative, hold registrations for GIs that nearly resemble each other, with no conditions or limitations on the register. Hari sues Lata, claiming exclusive rights merely because his registration is older. What is the position under the Act?

Neither wins on registration alone. Where authorised users hold identical or nearly resembling GIs, registration does not give one exclusive rights against another unless the register's conditions provide so, but each enjoys the same rights against other persons as a sole authorised user would.

  1. AHari wins, because the earlier registered user has priority
  2. BRegistration alone does not give either an exclusive right against the other; each has the same rights against others as a sole authorised user would haveCorrect
  3. CLata wins, because the later registration replaces the earlier one
  4. DBoth registrations are void because of the resemblance

Explanation

Where two or more authorised users hold identical or nearly resembling GIs, exclusive use is not deemed acquired by one against another merely by registration, unless conditions or limitations on the register say otherwise. Each still has the same rights against third parties as a sole authorised user. Hari's priority argument therefore fails.

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