Geographical Indications in the Digital Marketplace: Challenges in Preventing Misappropriation and False Origin Claims

Introduction

A Geographical Indication (GI) is more than just a name attached to a product. It connects a product with a particular place and tells consumers that the product has certain qualities, reputation or characteristics because it comes from that geographical region. In India, products such as Darjeeling Tea, Banarasi Sarees, Kanchipuram Silk and Alphonso Mangoes are examples of goods whose identity is closely connected with their place of origin.1

The importance of GI protection becomes even greater when such products are sold online. Today, a consumer does not necessarily visit a local market to purchase a traditional product. Products are advertised and sold through e-commerce websites, social media pages, online marketplaces and even individual sellers operating through messaging platforms. This has created new opportunities for genuine producers, but it has also made it easier for counterfeiters to reach consumers.2

A seller sitting in one part of the country can use the name of a famous GI product, upload attractive photographs, make claims about its geographical origin and sell the product to consumers hundreds of kilometres away. The consumer may have no practical way of checking whether the product actually comes from the region mentioned in the advertisement.

This raises an important question: Is India's existing GI framework sufficient to deal with misuse of geographical indications in the digital marketplace?

Understanding Geographical Indications

Under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, a geographical indication identifies goods as originating from a particular country, region or locality where a particular quality, reputation or other characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to their geographical origin.3

The basic idea is quite simple. If a product has acquired its reputation because it comes from a particular place, other sellers should not be allowed to falsely use that geographical name for products that do not actually come from that place. For example, Darjeeling Tea is not simply tea with the word "Darjeeling" printed on its packet. The Tea Board's certification system connects genuine Darjeeling Tea with defined tea gardens and geographical conditions and lays down requirements relating to production and processing.4

The GI system therefore protects both the product and the community associated with that product. Unlike a normal trademark, which generally identifies the goods or services of a particular business, a GI is essentially connected with a geographical community and the producers who satisfy the required conditions.5

How the Digital Marketplace Creates a Problem

The internet has changed the way consumers identify and purchase products. In a physical market, a consumer may ask the seller where the product was manufactured or produced. They may also physically examine the packaging, certification or quality of the product.
Online shopping is different.

A product may be presented through a photograph, a short description and a few consumer reviews. A seller may use words such as "original", "authentic", "traditional" or "from Darjeeling" without giving consumers enough information to independently verify the claim.
There are several ways in which GI misuse can take place online.

1. False use of a GI name:A seller may use a registered GI name for a product that does not originate from the protected geographical area.For example, a seller may advertise ordinary tea as "Darjeeling Tea" even though it has not been produced according to the requirements applicable to genuine Darjeeling Tea. Similarly, an ordinary saree may be advertised as a "Banarasi Saree" merely because it resembles the appearance of a traditional Banarasi product.

2. Misleading product descriptions: Misuse does not always involve putting the GI name directly on the product. A seller may use phrases such as "Darjeeling-style", "Banarasi type" or "traditional [place] product" in a way that creates a misleading impression about the origin of the goods. This becomes particularly difficult online because the consumer may see only a product title and photograph before purchasing the product.

3. Fake social-media sellers: Social media has made it possible for small sellers to market products directly to consumers without maintaining a traditional physical shop. While this creates useful opportunities for genuine artisans, it can also be used by sellers offering counterfeit or falsely represented products.
A social-media page can disappear quickly after complaints are made, making enforcement more difficult.

4. Counterfeit products using genuine-looking packaging: Another problem is the copying of packaging, logos, labels and other identifying features. A counterfeit seller may try to make the product appear genuine by reproducing the visual appearance associated with the GI. For example, in the case of Darjeeling Tea, the Tea Board has developed a specific Darjeeling logo to authenticate the regional origin of the tea. The word “DARJEELING” and the Darjeeling logo are protected as a geographical indication and as certification marks, and the Tea Board requires genuine Darjeeling Tea sold under the logo to satisfy specific geographical and production requirements. Therefore, a seller who copies such identifying features or uses them on non-Darjeeling tea can create a false impression of authenticity and geographical origin.6 The problem becomes even more serious where the consumer has little knowledge about the authentication system applicable to that GI.

Why Misappropriation of GI Products is Harmful ?

The damage caused by counterfeit GI products is not limited to one sale.

Harm to genuine producers: Genuine producers may spend years maintaining traditional methods and quality standards. If counterfeit or falsely labelled products are sold under the same geographical name, particularly at a lower price, they can reduce the price premium and market share available to genuine producers. The problem has been particularly visible in the case of Darjeeling Tea. A Government of India GI resource noted that while approximately 10,000 tonnes of genuine Darjeeling Tea were produced, around 40,000 tonnes were being sold worldwide as “Darjeeling Tea.” The material observed that the sale of tea produced outside Darjeeling under the Darjeeling name reduced the value of genuine Darjeeling Tea and caused economic repercussions for genuine producers.

For many GI products, the producers are farmers, weavers, craftsmen, artisans and small businesses. Therefore, the economic consequences of counterfeiting can directly affect communities associated with the product.

Harm to consumers: Consumers are also affected because they may pay a premium price believing that they are purchasing an authentic GI product. The problem can be seen in the case of Darjeeling Tea. Darjeeling Tea commands a premium because of its geographical origin, reputation and distinctive quality. For example, Darjeeling white and green teas were reported to be priced between ₹3,000 and ₹10,000 per kg when they received GI protection in 2019. However, cheaper Nepalese tea has reportedly been sold or passed off as Darjeeling Tea. In one reported instance, a Darjeeling tea retailer stated that Nepalese tea cost around half the price of genuine Darjeeling Tea, while consumers generally could not easily distinguish between the two. This creates a situation where a consumer may pay the higher price associated with the Darjeeling name without actually receiving genuine Darjeeling Tea.

If the product turns out to be fake or inferior, the consumer loses money and confidence in the GI.

Damage to reputation: The reputation of a GI is built over time. If consumers repeatedly receive poor-quality products sold under a particular geographical name, they may begin to associate that name with poor quality. This can indirectly affect genuine producers who had no connection with the counterfeit product.

Existing Legal Protection in India

India already has a specific legal framework for protecting geographical indications. The primary legislation is the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

Section 20 – Infringement of registered GI

Section 20 provides protection against infringement of registered geographical indications. It also recognises situations where the use of a GI amounts to unfair competition, including passing off, or where the use of another indication falsely represents that goods originate from a particular territory. This provision is important in the online context because a seller who falsely represents the geographical origin of a product may potentially fall within the protection provided by the Act.

Section 21 – Rights of registered proprietor and authorised users

Section 21 provides rights to the registered proprietor and authorised users of a registered GI. 10
The concept of an "authorised user" is particularly important because GI protection is not meant to benefit only one commercial company. It is connected with producers who actually satisfy the requirements associated with the GI.

Section 22 – Acts amounting to infringement

Section 22 deals with circumstances in which a registered GI is infringed. It covers situations involving unauthorised use and circumstances where the use of another indication may mislead or confuse consumers regarding the geographical origin of goods.11 This provision can become relevant when a product listing online creates a false impression about its origin.

Sections 37 and 38 – Falsifying and falsely applying a GI

The Act also specifically deals with falsification and false application of geographical indications.
Section 38 provides that a person may be treated as falsifying a GI when, without the assent of the authorised user, the person makes the GI or a deceptively similar GI or falsifies a genuine GI.12 This is significant for counterfeit products because online sellers may not merely make false claims; they may actively reproduce the protected geographical indication or use deceptively similar indications.

Section 42 – False representation of registration

The Act also restricts false representations concerning the registration of a GI. A person cannot falsely represent that a GI is registered or claim registration for goods for which it is not actually registered.13 This becomes relevant where online sellers use terms such as "registered GI product" to create additional confidence among consumers.

The Role of E-Commerce and Intermediary Regulations

The GI Act was enacted in 1999, long before today's large-scale e-commerce ecosystem developed. This creates an important practical issue. The GI Act provides substantive protection, but it does not contain a detailed system specifically designed for modern online marketplaces, such as product-ranking systems, sponsored listings, seller verification, algorithmic recommendations or automated removal of counterfeit listings.14

This creates a practical gap. A genuine GI producer may identify a counterfeit listing today, but removing that listing may still require a complaint, supporting documents and follow-up with the platform.

The Darjeeling Tea Example

Darjeeling Tea provides a useful example of why GI protection needs more than simply registering a geographical name. The word "Darjeeling" and the Darjeeling logo have been protected through GI and other forms of legal protection. The Tea Board has also developed a certification system under which genuine Darjeeling Tea must satisfy specific geographical and production requirements.15
However, the protection of the word "Darjeeling" cannot be understood as giving unlimited control over the geographical word in every possible situation.
This issue was considered in Tea Board, India v. ITC Ltd.

In this case, the Tea Board objected to ITC's use of the name "Darjeeling Lounge" for a lounge at the ITC Sonar hotel in Kolkata. The Tea Board argued that the use of "Darjeeling" could create an association with its protected GI and certification marks.

The Calcutta High Court examined the scope of GI protection and observed that the GI registration concerned goods, particularly tea. The Court did not accept that registration of the GI automatically gave the Tea Board an exclusive right over the geographical word in relation to an unrelated hospitality service. The Court therefore refused the interim injunction sought by the Tea Board.16 The case is useful for the digital marketplace because it shows that not every use of a geographical name will automatically amount to GI infringement. The context, nature of goods, relationship with the protected product and likelihood of deception are important.

In an online marketplace, therefore, enforcement must distinguish between legitimate descriptive use and misleading commercial use.

Why Enforcement is Difficult Online

The main difficulty is not the complete absence of law. India does have legal protection for GIs. The bigger problem is speed and practical enforcement. A genuine producer may have to:

1. identify the counterfeit listing;

2. collect screenshots and details of the seller;

3. establish its GI rights or authorised-user status;

4. complain to the platform;

5. pursue removal or other remedies;

6. take legal action if the infringement continues.

For a large company, this may be manageable. For a small artisan, farmer or producer association, it can be expensive and time-consuming. The problem is also multiplied by the number of online sellers. Removing one counterfeit listing does not necessarily stop another seller from uploading the same product under a different account. This is one reason why online GI enforcement requires cooperation between GI proprietors, authorised users, government authorities, consumer authorities and online platforms.17

What Can Be Improved?

India does not necessarily need to create an entirely separate GI law for the internet. The existing GI Act provides a strong legal foundation. However, its practical enforcement can be strengthened for digital commerce.

1. Faster notice-and-takedown mechanisms: Platforms could establish a specialised complaint mechanism for registered GI owners and authorised users so that clearly infringing listings can be reviewed quickly.

2. Consumer awareness: Consumers should be made aware of what a GI means and how to identify genuine GI products. Government authorities and GI associations can use social media, e-commerce websites and local awareness campaigns to explain the importance of GI protection. Platforms can also display basic information about the GI and, where possible, provide QR codes or other verification tools so that consumers can check the authenticity of a product before purchasing it.

3. Cooperation with GI bodies: Platforms can work with GI associations and authorised-user databases to identify false GI claims. For example, a seller claiming to sell “Darjeeling Tea” could be asked to provide details of the authorised producer or certification. The platform can verify these details with the relevant GI body and remove listings that fail verification. This would make enforcement faster and reduce the burden on individual producers.

4. Monitoring social media: Protection should not be limited to large e-commerce websites. Social-media marketplaces and independent websites can also be used to market counterfeit products.

Is the Existing Indian GI Framework Strong Enough?

The answer is mixed.

India's GI framework provides a clear legal foundation. The GI Act recognises geographical indications as valuable intellectual property and provides registration, rights to authorised users, infringement remedies and penalties for falsification and false application.

However, the digital marketplace creates problems that were not central to the legislation when it was enacted. Online anonymity, large numbers of sellers, cross-border transactions, sponsored listings, rapidly changing product pages and social-media commerce make enforcement more complicated. Therefore, the main challenge is not simply whether India has a law protecting GIs. The more important question is how quickly and effectively that protection can be applied when infringement happens online. 

The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules and intermediary framework provide additional tools, but they are not specifically designed around the unique characteristics of GI products.

Conclusion

Geographical Indications protect much more than a name. They protect the reputation of a product, the identity of a region and the interests of communities that have developed traditional products over generations.The growth of e-commerce has made these products more accessible to consumers, but it has also made misappropriation easier.

A counterfeit seller can reach thousands of consumers without ever physically entering the geographical region connected with the GI. India's existing GI framework provides important protection against false and unauthorised use.  However, effective protection in the digital marketplace requires more than registration and litigation. It requires faster online enforcement, better seller verification, consumer awareness and cooperation between GI bodies and digital platforms.

The future of GI protection in India therefore lies not necessarily in replacing the existing legal framework, but in adapting its enforcement mechanisms to the realities of digital commerce.   Protecting a GI online ultimately means protecting both the consumer's right to receive what they believe they are buying and the producer's right to receive recognition for the genuine product associated with their region.

[1] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, s. 2(1)(e), definition of "geographical indication"; Intellectual Property India, Geographical Indications Act, 1999

[2] WIPO, Geographical Indications: What do they specify?

[3] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, s. 2(1)(e).

[4] Tea Board India, Darjeeling Tea – Certification Scheme, explaining the geographical and production requirements applicable to genuine Darjeeling Tea.

[5]Intellectual Property India, a GI is a community right belonging to producers of the concerned goods.

[6] Tea Board, India, Darjeeling Tea – Geographical Indication and Certification Scheme, stating that the DARJEELING word and logo are protected as geographical indications and certification marks, and that only tea satisfying the prescribed geographical and production requirements may be sold under the DARJEELING certification marks.

[7] World Trade Organization, World Trade Report 2004: Exploring the Linkage, at 86 (2004).

[8] “Darjeeling green, white teas get GI backing,” The Economic Times, Nov. 18, 2019.

[9] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, s. 20.

[10] Ibid., s. 21.

[11] Ibid., s. 22.

[12] Ibid., s. 38.

[13] Ibid., s. 42.

[14] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, ss. 21–22, 37–40, 50 and 66–67.

[15] Tea Board India, Darjeeling, explaining protection of the Darjeeling word and logo and the certification scheme for genuine Darjeeling Tea.

[16] Tea Board, India v. ITC Limited, 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 1734; judgment dated 20 April 2011, Calcutta High Court

[17] WIPO, The Global Digital Enforcement of Intellectual Property, WIPO Magazine (20 September 2018)